According to the statement, any profession should reestablish its leadership to seek success. However, from my perspective, the lecturer's statement may lead the profession into a failure.
New leadership for a company may bring creation and inspiration to the company. The new leadership of the company may make them manage to accomplish their own ideas. Also, these executives would also bring the lea new perspectives to handle problems. I would cite the example of the president of the United States. As we know, every US president could not take the position for more than 8 years except during war time. Every president would bring the country their dreams. When Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1930, he convinced the Congress to allow the New Deal to lead the people out of the Depression. Despite some economists' argument on the project, the New Deal inspired people's hope for the new life and new country. When JFK became US president in 1960, he launched the Apollo project which makes human beings firstly step on the moon. In conclusion, the new leadership would bring new ideas and inspiration of the professions.
Although the change in leadership would bring new views to the profession, the change in leadership would also bring something uncertainty. When new leaders are in power, the company's old policy may change as well. People always expect the new leaders could bring something new. This expectation may make the leaders remove the superior part of the old plans as well as they eliminate the inferior part. To promote the stability of the country and the enterprise, the leadership may sometimes remain unchanged. The stability is essential to ensure the consistence of the policy of the country or the enterprise. We could imagine what would happen if the new ideas of Roosevelt and Kennedy suspend due to the change in the leadership of the country. To ensure the stability of the country, the Supreme Court and the Constitution plays a significant role. As the Justice of the Supreme Court remains all life long, the opinion of the court is hardly change over years. Almost every opinion of the Court helps to improve the stability of the country. The enterprises also need stability to carry on their plans. Even if the profits dropped, the changed in CEOs in big enterprise is hardly happen in contemporary society. For instance, Bill Gates has been the CEO of Microsoft until his retirement, Gerstner has been the CEO of IBM from 1993 to 2002 his retirement and Gordon Moore has been the CEO and chairman of the board of Intel since 1975.
Almost all the corporations need the stability to ensure to execute the leader's idea.
Finally, the lecturer's statement has a logical flaw. His conclusion that the new leadership should replace the previous every 5 years does not distinguish the different situations of the corporation or the country. If a leader make the contradiction of the society are intensified and the civil war could start any time because the society is lack of justice under his rule. The leader should change immediately even if his has 5 years to be replaced. The constitution gives rights to people power to turn over the evil government. Proper limitation of the president time of a country is mainly not only for the change of the new leadership to bring new ideas, but also for preventing the totalitarian of the country.
In conclusion, the lecturer's proposal is partly right as the change of the society, however, the lecturer's proposal should depend on the different situation of the profession.
没有评论:
发表评论