GRE

Arrow

In this argument, the author concludes that the enterprise should achieve success by changing leadership and the leadership should step down after five years. Revitalization through new leadership, as a whole, can infuse new blood into the enterprise. But I can’t wholly accept the author’s opinion. Changing the leadership every five years is not the surest path and it is not practicable. This argument defies logic, and suffers from several critical fallacies. There are a lot of ways to infuse new blood into the enterprise, and obviously, changing the leadership is not the surest way among them. What’s more, it will cause a lot of problems.
First of all, it will lead to institutions confusion. The institutions have to make major transformation and adjustment when the leaderships are changed. Many documents must be changed and many departments will be changed. If those in power step down after five years, the whole enterprise will have to be adjusted every five years. Too frequent replacement of the enterprise will cause chaos, and this is undisputed.
Second, it will cause great appropriation expenditure. Every time we change the leadership of the enterprise, we have to spend a lot of time and money. If those in power step down so frequently, the cost will become larger and will take a great part of the total govt. expenditure, which is not necessary. And it is largely a wasted effort.
Third, it will influence economy of development. Different leaderships have different opinions on the development, and they will take different policies. Five years is too short for us to check and develop a policy.
Imagine that, the last leadership finds a correct way, but time is over. Then the new leadership will take another policy. When can the area be well developed?
Forth, it can lead to corruption. Those in power all know that they have to step down five years later. Many people will make full use of these five years to prepare for the rest of their lives and get as much money as they can.
Last but not least, what about the last leadership when their positions are taken by the new one? Obviously, the author didn’t take this into consideration. But this is a very realistic question for a country, especially for China.
In sum, as it stands the argument is indefensible and wholly unpersuasive. So I don’t think we should take this approach in enterprises.