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.

The speaker argues that leaders should step down after a five-year tenure so that new leaders may revitalize the organizations they lead. One aspect of her argument that supports her claim relates to the power dynamic of an organization, suggesting that new leadership will bring fresh ideas and perspective that will revitalize the organization. However, it is difficult to agree that this is the only avenue to rejuvenation, particularly as it falls in line with the traditional methods of business succession

The idea that new leadership will revitalize an organization is an idea as old as the institutions themselves. Although the idea has existed since the dawn of civilization, it is an idea that has been particularly true during the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution required new leadership, and leaders were willing to step down if it meant the advancement of their industries. For example, when William Murdoch took over management of Glasgow in 1794, he instituted the first systems of water filtration in the city. This enabled Glasgow to grow rapidly economically, and by 1815, it was the largest city in Scotland. Murdoch did not stay in that position for long, however, as he stepped down after only two years due to health problems. This left his replacement, James Watt, to rejuvenate Glasgow’s economy by instituting important reforms, such as improving sanitation and establishing the first system of worker representation in an industrial workplace. However, the revitalization did not last for long, as Glasgow’s population began to decline after 1815, eventually leading to its eventual merger with the city of Edinburgh

Most business organizations in the United States follow a similar model. The sale of a company to a larger corporation often requires one of the incumbent executives to relinquish his or her position to the incoming executive. Although this may bring new ideas into the company, it may also lead to stagnation. For example, in 2006, the private equity firm KKR purchased RJR Nabisco. Soon afterward, CEO John McDonald stepped down, opening the door for former CEO of Burger King, Don Thompson, to become the new leader of the company. Thompson’s tenure, however, was short lived. He was unable to bring fresh ideas to the company, and after only a year, he was forced out in favor of current CEO Irene Rosenfeld. This failure can be attributed to the fact that Thompson spent much of his career at Burger King, while Rosenfeld had relatively little experience running a large organization. New leadership may lead to revitalization, but the organization must be willing to allow the new leader the time necessary to achieve his or her goals. Since many organizations are hesitant to let go of their entrenched leaders, it is unlikely that they will give their new leaders the time needed to revitalize the organization

A similar dynamic exists with government. Although the leaders of major countries may be in power for decades, they will often step down after only five years of service. The reason for their short tenures is often related to term limits. In the United States, for example, although citizens vote for their president, the president cannot serve more than two terms. Likewise, members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms. This limits the power of incumbent representatives, who are often forced to step down after only a few years, allowing new leaders to reinvigorate the country’s policies. One notable exception is former president Grover Cleveland, who served in the White House for an unprecedented eight non-consecutive terms

Another reason why effective leadership is necessary is due to the fact that the methods of governing change over time. For example, when the United States implemented campaign finance reform, many states banned corporations from donating to campaign funds, and this led to the creation of Super PACs, which spend millions of dollars on elections. These organizations are often able to sway the results of elections, due to the large amounts of influence they have over voters. However, if a leader is able to reform campaign finance laws, they will be in a better position to impact elections, and they will be able to revitalize the political system. Therefore, new leaders are necessary in order to maintain the vitality of any government organization

The speaker’s claim that new leaders are necessary to revitalize an organization is valid, but it is difficult to agree that it is the only way to rejuvenate an organization. Nevertheless, new leaders are necessary because the nature of organizations changes over time. As organizations and governments evolve, so too must the leadership of these organizations.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share