感谢各位大神的批评，Issue 8已重写再次求狠拍，谢过~！

celiathanks

8 Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.

Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

结论：如商业、政治、教育、政府，在任何领域中的掌权者应该在五年后就让位。

原因：对于任何机构，最可靠的成功途径是通过新领导阶层带来革新。




1 首先并不同意原因。对于任何机构，最可靠的途径不一定是领导层的革新，也可以在领导层的稳定情况下，对于机构的人事制度进行较大调整。比如Jack Welch 统治通用电气20年，创造了一个业绩增长的神话。对于一些要求稳定性的机构，比如美联储，频繁主席更换会导致货币政策的不稳定和股票市场的反常，这些都是有危害的。




2 从另一方面，领导层革新确实是公司走向成功的途径之一。当一个机构的发展陷入死局，改变整个的公司内部机构，更新领导层，可能才会有真正的效果。比如古奇公司，在上个世纪90年代大幅走下坡路，由于Tom Ford的加入，带领公司走向另一个巅峰。由此可见，革新是重要的。对于领导阶层保持革新，可以激励新人，提高公司运作效率，为公司注入新鲜血液。但是这其中必然伴有不正当竞争的出现，无论是政界还是商界，巧言令色或者作假谄媚，都是我们在革新时应该警惕的。



3 （1） 革新领导层，如何革新是一个新问题，是靠人才引进还是自我培养？如果公司内部培养，单个培养或集团培养，精英培养的成本无疑很高，首先是选拔就要耗去很多精力，其次培养备选人才，等其有实力掌权，如果以五年为限，为了change而change，势必会导致经济与人才的双重损失。

其次，一个五年期限，对于实施一个长远目标并没有好处。有的投资或方案回收成本期会很长，如果频繁革新领导人，势必导致一些目标长远的政策实施不彻底。如果每一任都考虑自己任期的短期利益与纸面业绩，会不利于公司的长期发展。



总结 领导一个机构走向成功，最重要的是要审时度势，而不是一成不变的领导方式。无论是长期掌权，还是更新领导阶层，其政策的实施必须保持与时俱进，唯有depend on situation，才可长久发展。


The speaker's claim actually contains double meanings which I could not agree with .The first proposal is that in any field we should keep reforming leadership by a certain term, and in addition, the term should be limited to five years to refresh the components of power.

Firstly, it is certain that revitalization is a path to success, while no one could assure that it is the most successful way. Jack Welch, who held the Chairman and CEO positon of Generic Electric for two decades, elevated GE to one of the most valuable company in the world. Undoubtedly, he is an authoritarian leader who had hard edge against many issues, nonetheless, he is also a creative leader who integrated his unique business strategies with the Six Sigma management theory generated by Motorola. During his tenure, the GE's value rocketed by 40times as a miracle. Welch's long leading contributed to the GE's new booming era, and I am afraid that no one had attempted to coerce their great CEO to step down during GE's heyday. Moreover, some commercial institutes such as Federal Reserve of US which requires stability as a crucial characteristic in itself, would prefer to prolong a superb chairman's time in power to ensure the financial market's normal running.

However, I conceded that reforming is also significant in developing just like how Tom Ford performed in reviving the declining Gucci in the 1980s. He set about re-lauching the label with his partner during the most downcast period of Gucci and eventually achieved the company's spectacular reversal of fortune. A new leader's bravery and originality are definitely considered to be an amazing cure for an institute which is on the brink of bankruptcy. Admittedly, regular changing of leadership really works in stimulating the fledgling's enthusiasm and promoting the whole enterprise's efficiency. Yet, some unfair competitions would spring up and several obsequious tactics might be adopted by the young to procedure higher position. Politicians might weave a specious lie and outline a grandiose blueprint to win support. All of the above consequences should be alerted and eliminated as far as possible.

Besides, the problem that how to conduct a valid reform occurs in my mind and arouses my interest. We can set a sifting system to pick out several candidates who is fit for the top positon, but it must be a demanding task for human resource manager in a corporation. If we set a five-year limitation for a leader and force him to depart after the term, a series of unexpected circumstances would ensue. First of all, the company will suffer a heavy loss on economy in that choosing and cultivating a superb talent is costly. What's more, sometimes it is too short for a chief executive to deploy his scenario perfectly in five years which proves to be unsensible for a company's development. A number of leaders would even give up some excellent ideas with long-term returns in order to cater for a criteria of short-term achievements.

In a nutshell, an enterprise's prosperity which is propped on many factors cannot be simply attributed to the leadership. Integrity and positive spirit of an organization are of equal importance. Certainly, it can be an outcome of splendid ruling as well. No matter which leading style an institute preferred, whether it maintains a revitalizing regime or not, the method of pursuing success should be flexible according to current situation. A true leader is the one who makes use of each of these styles, depending upon the demands of the situation.

竹林中人

写的很不错的，再需要注意的是你的三个中间段落蛮长的，在考试的时候，不一定能写完，尽量让语言更精炼些。

theopenwindow

赞！加油！！