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

What is success? Or how to measure success? And what is the way to success? The research has shown that there are myriad of questions when it comes to define, identify and measure success in any field. The prompt claimed that persons at the helm must stepped down after five years to achieve success since institutions requires rejuvenation to be inserted by new leadership. In my view, I strongly disagree with the prompt and argue that leaders must continue for at least 10 years or even more for some cases. The reasons that are justifying my view, mentioned below.

First of all, when it comes to stability in the economy or its macro financial indicators, investors both from home and abroad seek to have continuation of the existing government since the research has shown that they are circumspect about the moves to be taken by new government. For instance, the government of India since 2014 has pursued the path of fiscal consolidation by limiting its borrowing to 3.4 per cent of its GDP. It is the resolve of the current government to maintain it for long in order to attract continuous spree of investments. Had new government taken over in beginning of 2019, it would have hurt the sentiments of investors. Further, the one of main investment friendly objectives of government is making the environment friendly for business for which it had brought in several reforms in the field of labor regulations and tax regulations. Businesses across the world which has shown interest in establishing a unit in India since 2015 were batting on the continuation of existing government. Had this was not the case, it would have buck the business sentiments across the country. Both the cases show that continuation in the government beyond 5 years is necessary. It matters since the whole economy is contingent on the continuation of the current government.

Secondly, when it comes to realisation of profits or getting the desired sales for a product or service, the research has shown that time is the key and businesses must maintain close watch and patience for time longer than 5 years. For instance, the Reliance Group after launching its mobile services across India in 2016, it was predicted that the company would not be able to match its revenue with the operating costs for first three years of its revenue and it may have some gains after 2022 when sufficient market will be captured by it. Had the leadership changed in 5 years, the company would have closed or curtail its services. Further, the product life cycle especially for an automobile, the research has shown that it has a life cycle of 10 years. For instance, when Maruti launched its Ciaz version in 2012, its research team marked the year 2018 as when company can estimate its results. The new model did not bring sufficient revenues for first 4 years but when it roped in Bollywood stars to market it, it started to bring in revenues and started to make profits in the seventh year. Had the leadership changed, the company would have stopped producing this model, which made it the largest selling car in India during last 2 decade. Both the instances prove that every product or service has a life cycle greater than 5 years, therefore, leaders must continue beyond 5 years. It is significant because continuation of leaders after 5 years made the companies profitable.

Thirdly, when it comes to politics the research conducted by Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) has shown that parties in opposition must spend at least 7 or 8 years in the field before contesting elections at national level since understanding of the failures of the current government and miseries of people takes time. For instance, when the leader of opposition in India, Mr. Gandhi vied for a parliamentary elections in 2019, he lost by significant margin because the views shared by the electorate showed that his propaganda did not reach the masses and he did not even travel and meet all the constituencies in India. Had he spent enough time, perhaps more than 5 years in meeting electorates and covering every part of the country, he would have some chance of success. Further, the political parties must understand the nuances of the desires of the electorate since it takes time to change. For instance, in West Bengal, the government was ruled by Communist parties for more than 30 years. The then opposition understood that people are gradually moving towards Right and it exploited this opportunity and made its government after 30 years of struggle. Both the examples validate that in politics, leaders must continue beyond 5 years in savvy the politics of a country. It is appreciable for a party to conduct the exegesis of the current government for last 10 years and find the gap between unmet needs of the people and steps taken by the government.

Of course some would argue that stepping aside after 5 years brings a necessary change in the organization in order to achieve success. However, it is not necessary that the changes would be brought about by new leadership since the above cases show that to implement any change and to realise its desired effect takes a time of more than 5 years. In conclusion, 5 years is considered a short or insufficient time for achieving the success.