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 update of the internal staff of an organization is quiet important which could help improve the innovation and effectiveness of an organization. However, there is a claim that in any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. This statement may be too absolute. As a famous saying goes, “one can never step into the river for two times”. Different fields and different times have their own attributes, it’s ridiculous to apply one fixed rule to all situations.
First of all, it’s reasonable to update the leadership appropriately. The solidification of a management personnel usually lead to inefficiency and corruption. The renovation of leadership, or at least setting up potential competitors, would increase the vitality and broke the past trite and redundant relationships. For example, the four-year presidential election of America which is the effective way to verify the president’s job. If the president done a great job in previous four years, he or she could have the opportunity to reelect, otherwise somebody else will be appointed. It’s a fair and artful mechanism.
However, it is too rigid to set a fixed five-year tenure of each leadership. We cannot exclude the situation that the previous leader did a great job during his or her tenure, so in this case it is irrational to change our leadership. The renovation of leadership not necessarily brings innovation, and even not necessarily maintain the same level of management as the previous one. A big organization, such as transnational corporation and country, which have complex and cumbersome system, is not enough for a new leader to adapt to the environment in one or two years, and not enough to implement a plan in two to five years. Frequent leadership changes can easily lead to stagnation or even chaos in the organization.
What’s more,this is often the case that new leadership may try to eradicate the efforts of its predecessors which actually harms the interests of the collective. For example, Obama’s health care reform was partially abolished by Trump administration, along with withdraw from various organizations and pursue isolationism. In the long run, all these strategies actually hurts the interest of America.
To sum up, the apposite renewal of leadership may bring benefits. However, making it a invariable stipulation and set the tenure of offices as fixed 5 years may bring chaos.