In terms of management, the quality of the leadership is most crucial for an organization. Be it business, politics, education or government. Revitalization is a good choice to maintain an eligible leadership. After all, different administrator means different style and hence may bring new motivation. However, there is no convincing evidence to allege that it is a surest path to success for any enterprise is renewal of the leadership in every five years. After all, enterprise is not a program (?), and no single method is suitable for all.

I concede that in many cases, through revitalization could some enterprise remedy its imperfect administration. It is human nature that long-term stability makes one idle and stale, which directly affects the efficiency of management and operation. Most democratic countries rebuild their government after every four years, in order to examine the old one and give others chances to compete or even supersede. Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, was elected to replace George Bush, who had been in that position for 8 years. By this institution can the United States maintain the vitality of its government, for that vitality is exactly what people trust for the society to move forward. Otherwise, the old thought will not adapt to the new environment and thus could obstruct the development of a nation. As we all know, Barack Obama is the exponent of reform, with his famous slogan: "Yes we can".

However, we cannot forget that stability is much more important than vitality in some other cases, where power should not be altered frequently. The federal supreme court of the United State, independent of the White House, needs a permanent, qualified head in order to guarantee the consistent criteria of a tremendous legal system. While the policies can be published or canceled at any time, laws, on the contrary, are absolutely stable. It is necessary to ensure civilians that the authority of the laws is sacred and cannot be infringed by any organization, even the government. This profession, obviously, do not necessitates a periodical revitalization in any situation.(In my opinion, the federal supreme court is not a good example here. A judge can only work by using laws instead of making laws. Laws need to be modified as necessary, similar to policies. The difference between them is that laws are made by the Congress and policies are worked out from governments. )

Another excellent man for instance is Jack Welch, the ex-CEO of GE. He was lauded as "the manager of the century" by the Fortune Magazine in 1999, for his extraordinary contribution to his company. Jack Welch had been in his position for 20 years, 4 times of the period as mentioned in the statement. Nobody would claim that Welch's management turned out to be harmful in the last years of his time. On the contrary, Welch's long-term management established a stable and reliable mode for such an immense enterprise, which can hardly be in order if the policy of company is changing all the time. In fact, for many of this kind of global enterprises, a standard, or even a stable leadership can be sometimes necessary. Without adequate time, a lot of long-term schemes cannot be executed at all, not to mention to establish a mature system. Meanwhile, there are numerous successful family firms all over the world, especially in Japan and South China, providing with us facts to disprove the statement that frequent renewal is necessary in any organization.

Furthermore, I think the real reason for the success of an enterprise is the reliability of the institution instead of individuals. A great organization can effectively operate even without its leader for a short term. It is inadvisable to excessively emphasize the importance of individual administrators. A correct recombination of leadership may means lasting development, while an incorrect one may means fatal fault that possibly ruin a whole enterprise. How can anyone be so assured that the new leadership will be better than the old one?