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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
In every aspect of life, being it business, politics or education, changes are vital. Each field needs new methods and mechanisms to grow up, gain more success and in its order make change in peoples life. However it is debatable that to gain such result the change of leaders in every five years is needed. I strongly believe that after several years the feasibility of leaders change should be considered, however if the old chief is still strong-minded and brings success to enterprise, he/she should have opportunity to remain in his/her position.
It is essential for any kind of organization think over the change of the leader after some years. The five year mentioned in the issue is quite reasonable duration. During this time every head can reveal himself/herself as a good or bad leader. For example in my country and in many others government is being elected each five year. For any leader the apprehension of possibility to be replaced will definitely make him/her stay vigilant and work honestly. For example most of the countries, which are being governed by dictators, are known for high level of corruption. This is caused because dictators do not feel they will be replaced or punished. For the educational field it is also very important to have a policy of replacing leaders. I felt it very well when I was at the university, where only few professors were young and it was evident that the university needs more young personal and fresh approaches. Besides, the creativity of individual is not limitless and if such a person, who is no more wit and creative enough, leads an organization, than the time when this institution will become stubborn is not far.
Many people believe that the solution for this issue can be requiring a head of any field to step down every five years. Admittedly, this solution can have positive effects, however I think that in many cases this also can bring to diverse consequences. For example it is well known story that after Steve Jobs was withdrawn from the position of CEO of Apple, the company was near to loose its position in the market. After realizing what the mistake was firing Jobs, he was asked back. This is a good example that person should have opportunity to work and lead an organization as long as he/she is capable to fulfill his/her duties and brings success to the enterprise. So it very important to give to any lead a chance to stay in his/her position longer. Moreover, sometimes being stabilized is more important, and changing leaders frequently can risk the stability of the organization.
To sum up, the replacement of any leader should be considered individually. Surely there are leaders who exhaust their ideas in five years or even in less duration and they definitely should be replaced. However there also individuals who can come up with fresh and creative ideas even after working ten years and it will be unwise to demand this person to leave his/her position. Furthermore, if particular organization values stability more than cardinal changes, it should be very cautious while changing leader very often.
