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

While it may seem right to give path to new generations of leaders to come to power in aforementioned fields, the pros and cons seem to outweigh each other and so I do not totally agree with the claim presented.

Firstly, there is veracity in saying that tyro may bring a lot of advantages with new, innovative type of thinking. This though can be vindicated by the statistical proof that most of the ineffective state-owned enterprises were more successfully privatized and managed by absolutely new and often foreign investors than by workers or by national investors. I understand this as in order to ameliorate the work of firm often new and radical actions are needed, for example, to restructure company or discharge incompetent workers, which all can be done by a novice manager, who is not adjusted to previous order and established rules, who is not prejudiced, so for him or her it is easier to form new footing and principals of work.

One should, nevertheless, consider the problem from another angle, proverb “there is nothing new under the sun” little bit confirm the idea that the success of any firm does not always depend on how old or young the manager is. The revitalization may be engendered by thoughtful share-holders and owners of the enterprise, or by the auspicious market situation. Moreover, it may be found that experienced manager is better that new leader who may be oblivious to some details or peculiarities of the organization.

It is important to add that it is more essential to know what qualities the manager holds, than the period he or she was in power. One should accept that eloquent declarations can be said by anyone, but real crackerjack backs words by deeds and suits conspicuous facts to speech.

The most satisfactory conclusion that I can come to is that if a person has spent many years as chairman and everyone is satisfied with the his or her work and development of the company, and if the person does not feel it's time to leave, then why should anyone ban or coerce to do that.