With the presidents elections going on in various countries, whether developed or developing,  around the world, people tend to feel that it is a good way to make alternation when it comes to a leader of a organization every few years in order to bring new blood to it. It might be true when applied to politics field just as what is adopted now, however, in other fields, it doesn't not necessarily mean an innovation. A brilliant leader is a great asset to a certain company and the dream that every five years, another perfect guy will show up and take over the company is too much a fairy tale. As most of the people believe, Apple peaked during the time when Steve Jobs was in charge, and Apple kept surprising people in a good way every year during the really long time he had been acting as a leader before the unexpectedly tragedy. We can not deny his talent and the way he worked with his fellow colleagues really brought every possible productivity out of them. Changing a leader, even passively, can be such a big loss. It is pretty obvious that when a business is on fire, the very thing they should consider is keep going the way they have adopted and follow the lead instead of switch itself to a total new world. It is quite possible that with a new leader come on stage, the classic methods which was promoted by the former leader would be replaced by new policy, and at least the new leader pretty sure he knows what he is doing, which may be a rare case, he might create a chaos. Even for the company that may not be in a good situation, it is not a subject way to simply change the executive construction. Sometimes, a policy that may not do obvious benefit to the company in a short period of time while if we don't take the look at the big picture and see how it is going to take affect in a long time. For Unilever Group, during the time of their development, they have made tons of unnecessary acquisitions. Thus one of their CEOs, who was later replaced by a executive that used to work for P&G, started to sell out those businesses that bring no good to the company. It was a right strategy, however by adapting that, Unilever suffered a short time of decrease in profit and asset. Even though it was an undoubtedly right decision to make, it cost him the CEO position. It is not hard to see that he knew what Unilever needs and he would work on getting Unilever back to market as long as all the inefficient ones are removed. Besides, alternate leadership may lead to a relatively long time for colleagues to get used to their working style. Also, if they know they are going to be replaced in 5 years, during the last year of their power, they might have intention to do something that is good of their presentation or themselves instead of the whole business. This also works for politicians. For example, to get ready for election and in order to get more votes, one, who is presently a president, will choose to decrease unemployment rate in change of a higher inflation rate (according to Philips Curve) and make up a fake warm economy phenomenon. So although it is true that a switch of power in politics field is quite necessary to prevent absolutism, there are some certain downsides, not to mention in most of the cases related to businesses, it is not wise to change leadership in a regular base or simply take businesses' current situation into consideration. To wrap up, I don't think it is a good idea to set up a rule for various type of organizations about how they should replace their leader once a few years; instead, what can actually do the business good should be considered.