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

Every field, be it business, politics, education, government etc, is an important facet in the face of a country and world on the whole. These sectors interact to produce an outcome which we experience. The creation of a good picture seamlessly is dependent on the picture created in each of these fields.

Change is necessary for growth and development. The dynamic nature it brings in the system bolsters the growth with the injection of new ideas, notions and over revitalization of the system. Adhering to the same principle, in almost all the countries, the progenitors have kept a period of five or four the re-election of the legislature, that is, the change in government. Being incumbent in a position for long, makes a party or a leader complacent in attitude and ties him to a particular set of methods. This may lead to stagnant growth and at some times might lead to corruption and anarchy. Middle-east countries have had monarchy for very long period of time and some still have it. The complacency of rulers and under-development of these countries is vivid in their policies for women, voting rights of women etc. Long-run government has led to anarchy and the abounded anger of people resulted in Arab-Spring leading to death and destruction. If the leadership is changed periodically, the candidates for the same will have a competitive nature and will always come up with new ideas for development. This will keep the system from going astray. Same goes for education, the director or principal of school or institute should step down after four or five years, paving way for someone else to revolutionize the system.

While, there are lots of arguments for change in leadership in Education, Politics and Government but when we come to business and industry the picture is a little different. The genesis period of a particular idea, when being implemented, might be more than five, six or seven years. A change in leadership when the company (business or any industry) is undergoing a significant transformation on a particular line might lead to complete pandemonium instead of revitalization. These are crucial stages and changing leadership during these times might lead to a heavy loss to the company, as the new leader might not be aware of so many strategies and, it being a crucial time, he might not have enough time to understand the processes properly. The same happens a lot of time in governance also. For example, a bill is being drafted by the government in power but it could not be passed because the time of re-election neared and the government lost the elections and the new government did not pay heed to the bill. But still, in governance the administrative bodies are present to take care of these exigencies and a proper protocol is present. The same might not be true in the case of an enterprise undergoing a change or slow-down.

Taking all the factors discussed into account, it can be inferred that change is indispensable as it reinvigorates the system but at the same time, should be curtailed in certain exigencies as discussed. The stepping down of leader is invited in the case of politics, governance and education but there are certain fields like business, a start-up, an industry where the change in leadership should be subject to certain factors.