In any field-business, politics, education, government-those in power should be required to step down after five years.
It’s has been a relatively realistic problem for many countries nowadays that those students who just graduated from college,aged from 18 to 24, has found that it is too difficult to get themselves a decent salaries after financial crisis. Even though theyluckily got themselves a job, one more severe obstacle hinders their development, that the promotion was unexpectedly hopeless due to those in power unwilling to step down for many years. It sounds reasonable to advocate those in power be required to step down after five years to get out of the ways for younger, just as the writer asserts in statement. However, it’s not a good advice for a few specific fields.+
Take the domain of science research as a example. It takes scientists decades to accumulate enough knowledge and academic reputation to start substantial scientific research, so chief scientist or other superior positions may have a constraint of ages for its candidates. Newcomers may have incredible talents, but they have to spending time to accumulate enough academic reputation. If they was put into position, they may have neither enough experience to lead a program of scientific research and nor sufficient academic reputation to manage the academy or research institute. Thus, if the leader of an famous academic institution was forced to abdicate without proper heir found, it may be a disaster for the organization. In a word, itneeds to be iterated that the statement isn’t a good advice apply for every industries and fields.
Also, some powerful positions refuses high frequency of personnel rotation in order to obtain the consistency of the policy and the independence of decision. For example, if the Lord Chancellors of the Federal Supreme Judicial Court have to change every four years, they absolutely cannot maintain politically independence as they have today. For these sort of positions, five years are far from enough time to achieve the stability and consistency of the policy of the organization.
The third fallacy of the statement is that the author come up with a timing concept of “five years”. What is that come from and was it reasonable or just picked up randomly? In every industries, this kind of requirement should be enacted with careful survey and logical speculation. It’s obvious that “Five year” may be too short for those in power in some specific fields while too short for their counterparts in other fields.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that every different industries and fields have their specific requirement on how long managers could stay in power. In some fields novices needs protection and those in power should make place for newcomers, but in other fields it may not be the case at all.
网友评论