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.

In such an era with larger scale of knowledge and more rapid transformation of society than ever, almost no institutions can stay remain stable for a long time. As is widely acknowledged, revitalization is an effective way to keep an enterprise operating efficiently, while it might require extra effort in maintaining its stability. Therefore, the specific strategy depends on the diverse circumstances and characteristics of each field.

There is no denying that longtime authority is not salutary for the capability of renewal in face of challenges, especially in some rapidly changing domains. Without outside restrictions, power can easily be abused by leaders and then generate corruptions and embezzlement, which appeared to be the direct cause of many empire’s collapse. One obvious example is the overturn of Qin dynasty. Although the first emperor of Qin unified China after years of wars, his leader group holds power for too long to ameliorate its management, which led to the aversion and subversion of it after fourteen years by peasant class. Since inertness is innate for individuals as well as leadership, altering its components is the only way to keep it functioning well.

Admittedly, longtime control of power seems inappropriate; yet changing the leader too frequently is also deleterious of an institution. The prime purpose of leadership is to stabilize its subordinate bodies and achieve their best cooperation. To realize it, leaders are required to be familiar with construction of and correlation between each part. If they spend too much time gaining power and being acquainted with rules, their efficiency will be severely impaired. C. F. Thwing had been the president of Western Reverse University for over thirty years and thereby implemented his revolution smoothly. Hence comparative stable leadership is indispensable for the normal function of an institution.

Accordingly, neither holding power for too long or frequent altering is absolute beneficial for the development of an institution. In fields with strong fluxion, leadership should be renewed more often to handle various challenges. For instance, the substitution of prime minister through election is necessary for governments to function well. On the other hand, fields with less change and more complex rules of administration such as university or company request for stable leadership to guarantee the authenticity of its management.

Conclusively, in face of diverse circumstances, institutions should take different solutions. A wise measure is to comprehensively scrutinize the condition and tendency of outside as well as the constitution and development inside. Based on that, the choice of leadership alternative would exert largest merit to the institution.