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.