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.
Response :
Leadership is one of the most important pillar for the success of any enterprise, be it in any field—business, politics, education or government. The author claims that revitalization is the surest path to success for any enterprise. This statement fails to define success in different enterprises. Author's claim is very narrow in depicting a precise method for success in different enterprises. There are other areas on which success depends such as the qualification and experience of the working sub-ordinates, terms and policies of the enterprise etc.
Author states that five years term is enough for any leader, five years term may not be appropriate for a leader to step down in an enterprise abruptly. It depends on various other factors like the current scenario, stability of the enterprise etc.
If we study the history of most successful leaders, we will notice that most of them served the office for more than five years. A perfect example is the ex CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs. He founded the company in the early ages of computer revolution and brought the company within the circle of topmost companies at that time. Later, he was ousted from the company, and called back as CEO after few years. The company's business went down in the period when he was not holding the office. When he came back, he brought the company in huge profit as he knew the business of the company. He reinvented the business of the company by introducing products like mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad consecutively. This was the case when the company's business was reinvented by the same chieftain. Although revitalization of leadership is important, but experience of understanding the work scenario and business also plays a greater role
in the success of an enterprise.
In certain cases, it might be possible that the younger leadership is not mature enough to lead the enterprise, in such cases, it's the duty of the present leader to lead. Young leaders should have some position in the decision making team, so that the governing leadership is fully aware of the fresh modern ideas.
Usually, five years term is not enough for the leader to fully implement his policies and decision for the success of the enterprise. Such a situation mostly occurs in the political sectors where leaders are re-elected often.
In few countries, it might be case that the ruling party has been in power for many years, which lead to stagnation in economic and social development of the country. In such nations, there is urgent need to replace the ruling party, this scenario was prevalent in countries like Egypt and Algeria, where autocratic ruler was replaced by insurrection.
Summarizing the topic, it can be stated that the quality of leadership imparted is more important than the tenure served by any chieftain. If a leader can continue delivering success for the enterprise, he should certainly continue leading the enterprise.
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.
Response :
Leadership is one of the most important pillar for the success of any enterprise, be it in any field—business, politics, education or government. The author claims that revitalization is the surest path to success for any enterprise. This statement fails to define success in different enterprises. Author's claim is very narrow in depicting a precise method for success in different enterprises. There are other areas on which success depends such as the qualification and experience of the working sub-ordinates, terms and policies of the enterprise etc.
Author states that five years term is enough for any leader, five years term may not be appropriate for a leader to step down in an enterprise abruptly. It depends on various other factors like the current scenario, stability of the enterprise etc.
If we study the history of most successful leaders, we will notice that most of them served the office for more than five years. A perfect example is the ex CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs. He founded the company in the early ages of computer revolution and brought the company within the circle of topmost companies at that time. Later, he was ousted from the company, and called back as CEO after few years. The company's business went down in the period when he was not holding the office. When he came back, he brought the company in huge profit as he knew the business of the company. He reinvented the business of the company by introducing products like mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad consecutively. This was the case when the company's business was reinvented by the same chieftain. Although revitalization of leadership is important, but experience of understanding the work scenario and business also plays a greater role
in the success of an enterprise.
In certain cases, it might be possible that the younger leadership is not mature enough to lead the enterprise, in such cases, it's the duty of the present leader to lead. Young leaders should have some position in the decision making team, so that the governing leadership is fully aware of the fresh modern ideas.
Usually, five years term is not enough for the leader to fully implement his policies and decision for the success of the enterprise. Such a situation mostly occurs in the political sectors where leaders are re-elected often.
In few countries, it might be case that the ruling party has been in power for many years, which lead to stagnation in economic and social development of the country. In such nations, there is urgent need to replace the ruling party, this scenario was prevalent in countries like Egypt and Algeria, where autocratic ruler was replaced by insurrection.
Summarizing the topic, it can be stated that the quality of leadership imparted is more important than the tenure served by any chieftain. If a leader can continue delivering success for the enterprise, he should certainly continue leading the enterprise.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment