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 to wh

Should those in authority in any field step down after serving for five years? Does the success of an enterprise depend on the revitalization through new leadership? Though, a long time rule of any leader may be of advantage or disadvantage to the field, it is necessary for those in authority to be replaced after few years. It might be less than five years, or more than five years. But frequent change in leadership is necessary for the successful development of an enterprise or the society.

Change in leadership after a few years gives new and fresh mind to direct the organisation in a different manner. A person might be capable of his onus, but not giving a new person the chance to incorporate new ideas and concepts into the business is very risky. This new leadership might come with a better idea or way of doing things in the organization, thus making the organization more fecund. Au contraire, change in leadership over a few time might not give a good leader much time to carry out is leadership practice which will make the organization more successful. But in this case, the deposed leader can guide the new leadership on how to successfully rule the organization.

Additionally, frequent change in leadership helps curb extensive abuse of power as people sometimes get overwhelmed with the power vested in them, thereby abusing the power. The gazette is fraught with several stories of nepotism, defalcation, filching of government fund and several other malfeasance among a society’s ruling member. Replacing this people within a short time will help obviate long-term abuse of their position. This in turn, give a new, trusted person the opportunity to right the wrongs of the former leader. On the other hand, this might tend to be risky as good government are sometimes replaced by bad government. For instance, the former leadership before Idi Amin of Uganda gained power was a good one. But when the country’s leadeship got in the hand of Idi Amin, the country was shook with fear and terror.

Furthermore, despite this massive advantage of frequent change in leadership, some can argue that frequent change in leadership is not the best practice for a society. For example, when Gadaffi was deposed from office, his country suffered a great lose as they began to face to several afflictions they’ve never faced in history. But on the hand, this new leadership won’t be last forever. A new leadership will come to make things right. So, there is always hope for countries facing hardship due to their change in leadership.

In conclusion, the leadership of a field – be it politics, business, government or education – should changed on a frequent basis to ensure the successful growth of such field. A field that refuses to change leadership have a lot to lose as things will be done monotonously and the incorporation of new ideas will be hindered. Thus, for a field to continuously burgeon, change in leadership is required frequently. It might be five years, less than five years or more than five years, but this change is necessary for the smooth development of an organization.