gre writing issue sample writing 111
- In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Saying that those in power in any enterprise should step down after five years, many would believe that the surest way for an enterprise to make meaningful progress is to introduce new leadership in a regular basis. In some ways, it is hard to deny that success of an organization depends hugely on its revitalization through younger, innovative spirits. From my perspective, however, frequent changes in leadership are also associated with several side-effects against the given organization.
Conceptually, few would disagree that importing new bloods can contribute to success of an organization. Considering the rapid changes in social, cultural, economical environments, it seems almost inevitable for an enterprise to rely on different perspectives from the old ones. Knowing that a new generation of potential customers has totally new kinds of tastes and platforms, Bill Gates wisely and bravely stepped down from his position as CEO of Microsoft not because he lacked the energy or wisdom but because he knew the younger one could more relevantly adapt to the new tastes and demands.
Then, is a stable and consistent leadership always detrimental to the progress of an organization? My answer is absolutely no. When it comes to formation of unified and organic brand image in businesses or building of long-standing identity or tradition, frequent changes in leadership may work against (backfire). At the brink of its bankruptcy, Apple could survive and, in fact, take a giant step toward the tremendous success by relying on an old leadership of Steve Jobs who once again threw away all the cursory attempts to become innovative in favor of his own version of innovation. ((With three new general managers in two short years, my beloved team of Philadelphia Eagles has lowered to a miserable team which also has lost its long tradition and unique identity from by a long-time coach, XXX through his tenure of eighteen years.))
Stating that those in power in any profession should step down after five years, the speaker asserts that a field of enterprise can make best progress when it boldly accepts periodic leadership change. In some sense, it is true that reshuffling of management is one of the important ways to increase the vitality of a field. However, this view is failing to consider several inevitable side-effects from excessively frequent shift in leadership; I still believe an organization can expect true success when it has a level of stable leadership.
Of course, it is hard to deny that the surest path for a profession to make success is to revitalize it through new leadership. In modern business world in which tastes and demands of consumers are continuously changing, most successful companies come to realize the wisdom of inviting fresh minds into their boards. Even, Bill Gates, an excellent CEO of himself, wisely stepped down from his position as top decision-maker in development of new software because, despite his well-known proficiency in programming, senses of younger generation is more appropriate than his own to meet the constantly changing demands of the new markets. --------------------------
By saying that those in power should step down after five years, the speaker asserts that, for the success of an enterprise, fresh perspective from newcomers should take precedence over experience. In some sense, it is true that regular shifts or reshuffles in leadership are helpful for an organization to step further into another level and to maintain its vigor. However, a number of side effects from frequent shifts in management make me support the wisdom of stable leadership.
Of course, it is hard to deny that one of the surest paths to success for a given organization is to revitalize its management style and philosophy by inviting new bloods. Especially when it comes to the intense competitions and rapid changes common in the world of modern business, it seems critical and even mandatory for a company to continuously renovate its leadership. Microsoft, one of the leading companies in the IT industry where a moment of tardiness in innovation would mean the loss of a top position, for instance, could extend its glory of the past even to this decade partly because its old heroes including Bill Gates bravely conceded their powers to younger and more innovative minds.