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

Statement above is claiming, to flourish a country, organization and enterprise their leaders should step down in 5years and new leader should be appointed. In addition to that, mentioned that it the surest path of success. I am completely agreed with the claim but not with the reasoning behind it.

An organization or a country requires new thoughts, innovation, ideas and different experience to grow further. This could only possible through new leadership new mind and different experience. As everyone has its own perspective and way of doing work, so according to me when someone newly joined in organization can contribute to organization with different perspective and take organization to new heights. In addition to that it is also true, he/she can implement those ideas and utilize their experience to the fullest in 5years. After that ideas become saturated and that is the time when they should stepdown and give position to new person. This standard is also currently followed, for example I am working in company called Applied Materials and they have this policy of contract for country president. Anyone can only be president only for three years. As noted by everyone company is doing progress day by day.

In continuation to that, I am completely disagreeing with the reason that this is the surest path. According to me in this world of uncertainty there is no surest path. Suppose new leader elected is less capable of old one or he/she is not at all capable of taking organization further. In that case reasoning behind above claim proves wrong.

So to summarize changing leader in 5years is one of the best method of maintain an organization in competition and continuous growth but it is not the surest path.