• <ins id="pjuwb"></ins>
    <blockquote id="pjuwb"><pre id="pjuwb"></pre></blockquote>
    <noscript id="pjuwb"></noscript>
          <sup id="pjuwb"><pre id="pjuwb"></pre></sup>
            <dd id="pjuwb"></dd>
            <abbr id="pjuwb"></abbr>

            The Sun Also Rises

            Algorithm, Mathematica, 計算機科學, C++, photography, GNU/Linux的討論空間

              C++博客 :: 首頁 :: 新隨筆 :: 聯系 :: 聚合  :: 管理 ::
              73 隨筆 :: 6 文章 :: 169 評論 :: 0 Trackbacks
            TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
            DATE: 2008-8-2 17:18:18

            提綱:
            有保留同意
            Body Paragraph:
            1. 更新領導者來保持活力
            i. 長期處于權力高峰容易獨斷/腐化。
            ii. 新鮮觀點與方法注入

            2. 5年是個不錯的period : 太短不穩定,太長沒效果。
            3. Neverthelss
            i. 不一定非要5年
            ii. 特殊行業需要保持穩定:Greenspan 20

            In general, I agree with the author that the man in power should be changed regularly. It's crucial to keep the enterprise or government fresh. People may believe that a great leader should be at the position as long as possible to benefit the organization, yet this is not always the case, as discussed followed.

            One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to keep the organization running normally, the leader cannot be always the same. People who are always at the peak of power will easily be arbitrary, or even corrupted. Although this view might seem pessimistic, this is the truth. Since they are always full of power; and few things can restrict them. They will get used to ordering without discussing with others. After a long time, they may forget how to ask others' opinion or how to compromise. Moreover, a man, no matter how great he is, has his own shortage in view. Thus we need some more thoughts and methods to be entered. This can be easily accomplished by changing the leader regularly. Consider the example of Chairman Mao. No one will doubt he is one of the greatest leaders we have ever seen. However, he made a serious mistake in his later time. In contrast, George Washington retired after being the president of U.S. for eight years. History proves his decision was correct.

            Another reason why I agree with the claim is that five years is an excellent period. As discussed earlier, we change the leadership mainly in order to revitalize. Thus, if the period is too long, the enterprise may already have been lack of vitality; and the effect will not be so good. On the other side, if the leadership is changed too frequently, for example, one year, it is obviously that the relationship altered too rapidly to become a good workplace. All people are busily becoming familiar with the new environment. Therefore five years is a good balance for the two sides.

            We have recognized that the movement of leadership every five years is beneficial; nevertheless it should not be obeyed without exception. First of all, besides five years, other time period may also be reasonable. Consider the example of the U.S. presidential election. As it is known to all, it is held every four years, and each president can hold his or her position for at most eight years. And I think this is also a significantly good system, for it ensures the vitality in American politics while encourages the excellent governor to prevail their idea. Furthermore, in certain situation the leader can be stable, as it did in the case of Alan Greenspan, the 13th Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has been in the office for about 20 years. When there are only few people competent for the job, or the policy made should keep steady, it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for the leaders remain unchanged.

            In sum, to guarantee success, any organization should revitalize through new leadership. Admittedly an alternation for every five years is a good idea; other reasonable methods can also lead to success. Yet this is not the golden rule and can be invalid in some special occasion.


            posted on 2008-08-03 22:48 FreePeter 閱讀(890) 評論(5)  編輯 收藏 引用 所屬分類: GRE -- God Reading Enlgish

            評論

            # re: Issue70 2008-08-08 22:58 不是我
            還沒人拍啊,果然peter強大得讓人望而卻步
            那我來拍了
            兩次舉例都是總統|主席,而且第一次已經是正反論證了  回復  更多評論
              

            # re: Issue70 2008-08-08 23:01 FreePeter
            @不是我
            您是?。。。
            好像有點道理,我試著找個別的例子。。。  回復  更多評論
              

            # re: Issue70[未登錄] 2008-08-20 22:10 Lynn
            我又來看了……
            進來就是AW……嚇著我了……
            這道我考的時候抽到了……不過我選的另一道……  回復  更多評論
              

            # re: Issue70[未登錄] 2009-02-04 21:18 YY
            我覺得你已經寫得很好了,真的~~~  回復  更多評論
              

            # re: Issue70 2009-02-08 10:58 FreePeter
            @YY
            您是?。。。@_@  回復  更多評論
              

            Creative Commons License
            This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 China Mainland License. 本站采用創作共用版權協議, 要求署名、相同方式共享. 轉載本站內容必須也遵循“署名-相同方式共享”的創作共用協議. This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
            婷婷综合久久狠狠色99h| 久久久久久午夜成人影院| 久久99国产精品99久久| 亚洲成色999久久网站| 久久久久国产| 亚洲国产精品成人久久| 久久中文字幕一区二区| 漂亮人妻被中出中文字幕久久| 久久久久久毛片免费播放| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大| 天堂久久天堂AV色综合| 国产亚洲色婷婷久久99精品91| 亚洲AV日韩AV永久无码久久| 热久久国产精品| 狼狼综合久久久久综合网| 国産精品久久久久久久| 国产产无码乱码精品久久鸭| 亚洲精品无码久久毛片| 激情综合色综合久久综合| 久久婷婷五月综合97色一本一本| 久久精品亚洲精品国产欧美| 久久久av波多野一区二区| 亚洲欧洲精品成人久久奇米网| 99久久精品国产一区二区三区| 久久天天躁狠狠躁夜夜96流白浆| 亚洲性久久久影院| 久久久久一本毛久久久| 国产三级精品久久| 91精品婷婷国产综合久久| 久久AV高清无码| 99久久精品国产高清一区二区| 精品久久久中文字幕人妻| 四虎国产精品成人免费久久| 久久国产精品偷99| 久久婷婷色综合一区二区| 久久本道久久综合伊人| 精品乱码久久久久久夜夜嗨| 国内精品伊人久久久久网站| 久久精品国产精品亚洲人人 | 久久婷婷五月综合色奶水99啪| 一本大道久久东京热无码AV|