GRE 作文题目
来源于朗播用户:YZH
In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
题目分析
翻译
在任何领域——商业,政治,教育,政府——那些领导者在5年以后都应该下台。通过新的领导者来引发新的活力是让事业获得成功的最有效的方法。
指导
本题的论述默认了一个前提,即在5年内,领导者会让所在的单位缺乏活力。因此,你可以从几个方面来进行思考:一是造成事业缺乏生机和活力的原因有哪些,二是通过更换领导是否一定会给事业注入新的活力,三是有哪些方法会给事业带来新的变革和活力,四是更换领导者在哪些行业会带来新的活力。这个题目重点是论述领导者和一项事业是否具有活力之间的关系,不要纠结于类似“5年”这样的数据中,当然,你也可以就“5年”是否会让一个单位失去活力,而更换领导是否可以解决来发表看法。
1. 描述一个曾经很辉煌,而后来失去了活力的机构(企业,政府等),并分析它失去活力的原因。这些原因是否与领导者有关系?
回答:
王安电脑(Wang Laboratories)。失去活力的原因:领导人用人不当,任人唯亲。未能及时推出新的管理人员。没有跟上市场变化的节奏,仍然生产大型的单一功能的文字处理机,而没有捕捉到市场当时已经青睐廉价的多功能的小型个人电脑。
2. 导致事业失去活力的原因有哪些?哪些原因跟领导者有关系?有什么关系?请举例说明。
回答:
人心涣散,绩效持续低迷,发展跟不上市场变化,管理机制陈腐
3. 更换新的领导会给事业发展带来什么好处和什么弊端?在一定时间内更换领导对哪些行业更有好处?请举例说明。
回答:
好处:带来新的思想,新的血液。弊端:新领导对事业和组织可能了解不充分,无法充分开展工作。有好处的行业:高新技术如IT行业,移动通讯等
4. 对一个领导者的领导水平的评判应该考虑哪些因素?是否能因为企业失去了活力就让他/她下台?请举例说明。
回答:
考虑是否让企业盈利和保持良好社会口碑。不能因为失去活力就让其下台。
5. 要让事业充满活力,可以有哪些手段和方法?请举例说明。
回答:
其他用户的回答
作文
A leader is to an enterprise is what the brain to a man, which determine the ability and horizon of the man. The statement points that the surest way to revitalize an enterprise is to change its leader every 5 years. In my perspective, changing the the leader or the management group every certain period of time is sometimes advantageous to the enterprise.
The devitalization of an enterprise or organization is due to a myriad of reasons, including but not limited to the leadership of the enterprise. There are many other factors leading to such consequence maybe there is something wrong lying in the system of management; maybe the innovation is lost within the organization; maybe the whole condition of the industry is in a low level during that time. Any of those will cause the lost of vigors to the enterprise. For instance, coincident with the develop of a city, the downtown or the center business district might change sometimes since the city planners are going to enlarge the urban areas. That change would render existed business in the downtown lose their customers and then become slack. Also, the publishing industry is suffering a decrease today because of the boom development of on-line reading and e-books. The leaders of business in such mentioned area are not responsible for the devitalization and the lost of market share. For that reason, changing the leading members of an organization is not necessary for all time.
However, in some certain fields, such as the politics and business, remaining the same leader for a relatively long time would cause serious problem in some of the countries and to the improvement of a enterprise. The unchangable power of a leader is the stable root of a dictator, which will engender the autocracy of a country and do harm to the local people seriously. History abounds with such examples. A typical case is with Adolf Hitler, who rule the Germany for more than 10 years and found the party of Nazi, causing a devastating calamity of to the world and its people. Also, an ever-prospective computer company Wang Laboratories crashed down for the same reason of unchanged manager. The founder, An Wang, maintained his supreme power and absolute control to the company in his late 70s, without transferring it to the promised and innovative successor. Instead, he pass the power to his sun-- a average manager with limited ability to run such a coorperation. The unsuccessful transformation and the reasonable management for an accumulation of years reasult in the later bankcrupcy of Wang's business.
Admittedly, changing the leader might in some case be with merits as well as disadvantages. The frequent alternation of the leadership might exert negative affect on the policy continuation, which, in turn, might disrupt some of the promising policy of the former leader and have influence on most of the stuff, who need some time to make adjustment to the new leadership.