In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be

It can be questioned if leaders in any profession should be obliged to step down after five years in power. Although revitalization through a change in leadership is of major importance to success, in some fields or in special situations it might be more interesting to have the same leader for a longer period.

In a democracy, a government is chosen by the people to represent them. Despite the importance of having frequent elections so the population can reevaluate their choices, a ruler should be able to stay in power for a longer period, if it is the wish of the population. A change in government might represent a revitalization that is often interesting for a country or state. However, if the leaders are doing a good job and keeping their campaign promises, it should not be a problem if the people chose to re-elect them.

The pressure to thrive is more intense in business, and constant revitalization is an important piece to achieve success. However it might not be so easy to have frequent changes in leadership. A change in leadership might imply a change in the culture of the organization which does not always comes so easily for the employees, who might find it difficult to adapt to the new structure. In this case, a change of the person in power could have a negative impact in the short term that would possibly compromise the positive effects it could have on the long run.

In addition, it is possible to have new views and ideas without a change in leadership every five years, as can be seen by the example of Steve Jobs, who stayed in the position of CEO of Apple for more than ten years. Not only did he change the path of the company and make it one of the most successful enterprises in the world, but also the idea of a computer and a cell-phone is completely different today thanks to him. If he had stepped down after his first five years as CEO, the world probably would not have had such advances in technology in the recent years. If the leader is sufficiently visionary to revitalize the company by himself, to have him leave his position might not only be unnecessary but also possibly worse for the future of the company.

Thus, as important as it is to have revitalization and innovation in any profession, a mandatory change in leadership every five years may not always be the best solution. People in power who are making good use of their position should not be asked to step down due solely to the time they have spent in the same job.