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 wh

It has become a popular notion in recent times that those in power - whether in government, politics or business - should step down after a predetermined time in office. Some have suggested that leaders should hold their office for no more than five years. They argue that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. While it is true that new leadership can revitalize a stagnant organization, merely changing leadership will not guarantee renewed success, particularly when that change is forced on the organization after a period of only five years. It is the introduction of new ideas, and not merely a change in personnel, that truly invigorate an enterprise.

New ideas are vital to the evolution of an organization, and it is not necessary to change leaders every five years in order to implement these ideas. While new ideas can trickle down from the top, it can also rise up from the rank and file. Take SpaceX, for example. Elon Musk is not an engineer, yet under his leadership the company has achieved technical wonders that have never been done before. This is because he gives his subordinates the freedom to experiment and implement new ideas. He did not design the Falcon-9; rather his open-minded leadership created an atmosphere where new ideas can flourish.

While a change in leadership can revitalize an organization, it does not guarantee it. The new leader may not have fresh ideas to bring to the table, meaning the organization will contiue along the status quo. There will be no noticeable organizational change despite the installation of a new leader. On the more negative side, the new leader may have no vision. A leader without vision cannot revitalize an organization. It is therefore better to keep an effective leader in office longer than five years than trade him out for an ineffective one merely for the sake of leadership change.

Sometimes, however, a mandated change is the best way to revitalize an organization. This is true particulalry in bueaurocracies, were rules and processes can become stagnant and resistant to new ideas. Such organizations would do well to change leaders on a five-year basis, particularly if they bring in someone from outside the organization. That person will be able to see the rules and processes with fresh eyes and be able to implement the changes necessary to improve the organization.

In conclusion, it is generally not a good idea to change leaders every five years. The mere act of changing leadership is not what revitalizes and organization – it is the implementation of new ideas. As Elon Musk has demonstrated at SpaceX, change at the top is not necessary if a leader fosters the right atmosphere.