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.

The author of this claim cites that in any field the leaders should be changed after a five-years of leadership period and in his reason proposes that this is the surest path to success for any enterprise. However, I fundamentally disagree since his reason is neither plausible nor acceptable. What it follows I will mention some of the foibles in his reason.

First, the author asserts that the surest path in any enterprise is revitalization through leadership. Maybe changing the leadership is one of the alternatives but we could not say it is the surest path to success. While there are many other determining factors in succeeding , we hardly can accept that changing the leadership could be the surest way especially where the author fails to provide enough reason to support his claim. Besides, while we can use many consolers’ maxims why we should change the leaders. Furthermore, by maintaining the former leaders, we can avoid repetition of erroneous tasks.

The other drawback in the author reason is that changing in leading system cannot work for any field especially in prodigy system which need more experiences than any other field. There is direct connection between the experienced leaders and success in education, which respectively relates to the duration of the leadership. For instance, the old experienced chairman has more practical solutions for problems. Thus, keeping the former leaders has such advantages that the enterprise will benefit in long term like appropriate relevant experiences which are crucial in minimizing the frailties. Many successful countries in banking system such as Sweden keeps their successful managers in one post until they retired.

The other foible in the author’s claim is determining the duration of five years for leaders. Many managers’ program pay off in more than five years especially in politics. For example, the Iran nuclear negotiations last more than 12 years. Moreover, some plans need long-term evaluation, and we cannot expect that all plans culminate in just five years to reach the goals like the implementation of some fundamental structures for example a treatment plant which is necessary for a city. By changing the mayor just after 5 years many plans may remain untouched except the new mayor corroborate the former directions.

In the final analysis, although changing the leaders can provide opportunities for many to manage the job, it cannot guarantee any fields success according what is mentioned above , besides it does not work for any enterprise as the author opined in his reason. So I disagree with his claim since his reason is untenable and unconvincing.