GRE Issue Topic 142

Sample 1:

A five–year limit on tenure in any field appears arbitrary. Some in positions of power or leadership should leave office sooner, and some should be allowed to remain for as long as they want. Examples exist on the local, state, national, and international level that support either the original or the opposing point of view. It is impossible and impractical to establish hard–and–fast rules about the length of time anyone should serve in a position of power or leadership.

America's founding fathers, in order to eliminate the potential tyranny associated with sovereigns like kings, established a democracy in which the people would elect their leaders. They also established a four–year term as president. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the number of terms a president could serve was limited to two. US senators and representatives serve two–and six–year terms respectively, and they may remain in office as long as the voters choose to keep them. The frequency with which they must seek reelection allows the voters to keep those who represent them well and eliminate those whose actions do not benefit them.

Many American presidents have served more than one term. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for four consecutive terms during the most challenging period in our history. He led us out of the Great Depression by creating the New Deal replete with public works projects that provided honorable and necessary work for Americans who had lost everything. He was Commander in Chief during most of the WWII years. It would be difficult to imagine how America would have fared during those trying times if our nation's leader had been compelled to serve only 5 years. In contrast to the beneficial results of FDR's tenure, the Russians were suffering under the dictator, Stalin who did not have to run for reelection. Despite the Communist 5–year plans for productivity, millions of Russians died from starvation and persecution. Whereas Americans were well–served by FDR's lengthy leadership, Russians would have been better off if Stalin had been forced out of office.

One negative consequence of limiting the tenure of those in positions of leadership is the inability to plan long–term. In virtually any field, the leader cannot effect change without first creating a cohort of like–minded individuals. Convincing those with the same point of view to work toward the leader's goals is difficult enough without also having to persuade those on the fence or diametrically opposed to his or her ideas. This can consume a great deal of time and energy. Once the cohort is established, the members are apt to want some concessions or compromises from each other before the final objective is clearly delineated. Additional steps in the process may include conducting polls, surveys, or research. Several years can elapse during this process at the end of which, the leader may have little time remaining to fulfill his goals. If the leader is compelled to leave in the middle of the journey, the goal may never be achieved, and the new leader may have very different ideas about the needs of the institution he is directing and restart the entire complex process. In contrast, a leader who knows his time in office is limited may work more diligently to accomplish his objectives. When people have deadlines for completing tasks or assignments, they organize their time more efficiently. Imagine a student having a research project with no due date. He or she might procrastinate or never do the work at all.

Experience is the best teacher. A good leader in any field becomes more adept. He or she is apt to face similar situations over the course of his tenure and use what he has learned from past actions and consequences to inform his decision making. He will have learned what works, what doesn't, and how to negotiate for the best outcome. Longevity can also lead to stagnation, and some are inclined to do things the way they've always been done. They are resistant to change or even compromise. Because voters, company directors, and boards of education have the discretion and power to remove institutional leaders when they are no longer effective, an arbitrary term limit is not necessary. Term limits can truncate the careers of effective leaders or extend those of leaders who should have been removed soon after assuming their positions.

Sample 2:

Does a leader lose his charisma and competence after five years? The answer to this question is debatable. People in power may be competent enough to handle their responsibilities, but it would be a grave mistake not to give a chance to the others. It is likely that there may be someone else who is able to handle the same responsibilities in a better manner. Moreover, since the modern world now elects its leaders in almost all professions, it would be a wise decision to change the leadership regularly. It may not necessarily be after every five years. The duration may be further reduced or increased, but a change is inevitable for success in any enterprise.

There have been monarchs who have successfully ruled their countries for decades. On the other hand, there are examples of rulers who were overthrown in a coup because the public found that they were not worthy of the position of power held by them. If monarchy was indeed so successful, then why is it that democracy has replaced monarchy in most countries across the world? This is because there is the requirement of a change in leadership at regular intervals. This change of leadership serves two purposes. Firstly, the person in power is aware of the repercussions of carelessly handling his responsibilities. He knows that he can be removed from his post even before his tenure is over, so he puts in his best for doing what is expected of him. Secondly, this process ensures that new talent is given a chance to come and prove their competence in carrying out the tasks assigned to them. There is always the possibility of someone remaining in power for the next term also if the organization fails to identify a suitable replacement for him. Therefore, a change in leadership is bound to bring in long-term benefits for the enterprise in addition to success in all its ventures.

It is an exhilarating feeling to have the power to make people dance to your whims and fancies. It is this feeling that is the reason behind the prevalent corruption amongst the people in power. We have heard of so many instances wherein the people in power have misused their official position for personal gains. Stories of embezzlement of accounts, fraud, bribery and nepotism have generally been found in the front pages of our national dailies. These are all related to the misuse of power by the people who have been placed in this position for the betterment of the organization that they work for. A change in leadership ensures that such people will eventually be removed after their tenure is over and the new person thus appointed may be much more honest and cooperative, thereby improving the working conditions in the organization.

There are numerous students who earn professional degrees every year. As technology keeps changing at short intervals, it would be a wise decision to try out new talent as they would be trained to keep instep with the latest developments. If the head of the computer department of a high school is a teacher who had graduated 10 years ago, wouldn’t it be a better option to replace him with a teacher who has recently graduated and who is aware of the latest technological developments in the world of computer science. The school and the students will benefit from the knowledge of the new teacher who can give an entirely new dimension to the computer education being imparted in the school.

In sum, it becomes necessary to change the leadership at regular intervals in order to ensure that the best available talent in the market is tapped for leading an organization on the path to success.