111 / 149. In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that c

In the given passage, the author claims that regardless of their relevant careers, leaders should abdicate from their positions after five years from their inauguration to ensure revitalization of new leadership. However, this clam is sustainable in only limited context.

The author’s idea is seemingly plausible because it occludes the private appropriation of the power of the society and the organization where the leader belongs to. Especially when it comes to national sovereignty and leadership, this rationale can be fully applicable. Because not letting the national leaders extend their leadership is pivotal principle of democracy to prevent the possibility of dictatorship and lots of unwarranted activities like from indulging in corruption, oppressing people, looting the public money.

However, this principle does not apply to other organizations such as private corporations. Legally speaking, the ownership of a company can be fully private. In other words, the private company may have the leaders with more than 5 years of tenure. Theoretically, the leaders of private companies may have tenure as long as they do not disabuse company’s resources to harm public interest. And then, because the ultimate object of any private company is confined to pursing interests, the social responsibilities of private corporations are not too broad to include the 5 years of tenure policy.

To make private companies apply the 5 years of tenure policy, proving the policy can be helpful for the companies to fulfill their ultimate objects; pursing profits. However, this approach is not viable since there are numerous counterexamples of the extraordinary achievements done by the CEOs whose tenures are far longer than 5 years. Internationally renowned companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Tata Industries and all had a single leader over the many years with exceptionally business results. These long-tenured leaders are very rare, even irreplaceable resources which should be preserved for the corporations’ sake. Without any inescapable reasons, their long term tenures should be guaranteed.

Moreover, five years might not enough time to implement long term plans for leaders. Five years can be rather short period of time when a leader has to fully hold the organization, to build and execute plans appropriately, and to holistically examine the results of the plans. If the leader is capable of completing this series of tasks with limited of time, he must be lauded as an excellent leader. Also, there is no reason to force him to step down from the position if the leader has proven himself as a valuable asset to his organization. Besides, if we consider the possible damage from inefficiency caused by the transition of leaders, qualified and experienced leaders are more preferable.

Thus, the principle of 5 years of tenure can be applied only to the matters of national sovereignty. This principle is not preferable to other organizations including private companies. Therefore, the author’s claim that any leaders should step down after 5 years is not sustainable.