* 총 작성시간 : 4분 44초 | * 단어수 : 1141 자 |
| |
Historically, dictatorships in modern era have not been very welcomed in many societies mostly because they are often associated with corrupt reelection process or even military coercion against public demand. Once one starts to enjoy being in power, he naturally tries to hold onto his power. Alberto Fujimori, a previous president of Peru, is a good example trying to hold onto power by manipulating election results and generations of the Kim family in North Korea are in complete control of the entire nation for decades by instilling fear in their people through military intervention. This is why a lot of countries normally set designated time period for presidency or governmental officials and try to enforce reelection process with integrity. Considering many historical cases of political leaders falling into corruption to maintain their authority, adopting such policy seems reasonable and even humanitarian. However, the same expectations and measures should not be imposed on all fields because nature of each field is varied from each other. In politics or government, one of the utmost purposes of their existence is to secure stability and prosperity of their country and people. If such vision is hindered by corrupt leaders who only focus on maintaining their power, it may lead to stale, grim society or destructive civic riots. The very existence of the nation would be at stake. On the other hand, in business where its primary goal is to glean maximum profits, changing leadership regularly may not always prove profitable. As long as the leader of the business succeeds in fulfilling its goal or vision and proves himself a good leader, the business will go on and there would not be much hatred or objections against him as much as in politics and government. Business is all about selling products to its customers and making profit out of it. Without customers or fan base, it is not plausible that the business will stay on. Unlike government or politics, business cannot physically force the public to purchase their products: rather, it is dependent solely on customers’ preferences. Corruption or physical oppression as a means to preserve power is not a viable option in this case: rather, it will harm the image of the company and now, the very existence of this company will be at stake. A great example is Steve Jobs, the co-founder and former C.E.O. of Apple Inc. who had run Apple Inc. for over a decade from 1997 until 2011. Jobs was successful in placing his firm at top in the tech world. During his leadership, he saved the firm from near bankruptcy in 1998 and later on Apple Inc. broke its record in highest profit ever in its company history, turning Apple absolutely the largest and the most influential tech company in the world. If he stepped down from his position after 5 years, his successor must have been as equally able as Jobs but such scenario is not always guaranteed. It was the same story with Bill Gates, the former C.E.O. of Microsoft, and Joo Young Jung, the former C.E.O. of Hyundai. In company’s perspective, sometimes it is wiser to keep the current leadership as long as the company is improving and forwarding thanks to him or her. How about education? Education has its own nature different from business, politics, and government. In Korea, teachers at public schools cannot stay at the same school for more than 5 years. Teachers rotate in between schools and they even move to other cities. The reason behind this is that they believe it is more beneficial for both teachers and students to have more various surroundings to teach and learn, respectively. It is a reasonable policy not only because of this but also because of the fact that it can prevent the so-called “academic incest.” If a student learns from only a few same teachers over years, his or her knowledge or worldview may be limited and confined to a great extent. A few universities in the U.S. allegedly refuse to accept the students from their undergraduate program into their graduate programs in a fear of nurturing academic incest. They believe that students should be exposed to a variety of teachers with different views so that they have wider perspectives as well as knowledge. In the same token, professors and teachers should also rotate in between schools every set number of years. The tenure program seems to have been playing a big role in bringing about such deep inequalities of education quality among universities. In the academia, it is not difficult to find a noted professor or a scholar spending decades in one same institution. For example, Noam Chomsky, one of the most revered linguists in history, taught at M.I.T for 60 years now and Dr. Maya Angelou who had taught at Wake Forest University for 30 years. This in turn makes the institution ever stronger and more prestigious, and such tradition goes on for centuries in many cases. This tenured professor may deepen and develop his or her own research no matter where he or she is. However, for students’ sakes, the opportunities are divided, available to only a few select students. Changing leadership every five years or any set number of years is not always a surest path to success. It certainly depends on the nature of a field where the leadership mandates. In politics and government, as witnessed in history, forced change of leadership is sometimes advised but choosing leaders needs to be accompanied by legitimate election process. In education, to ensure equal opportunities and potentials for all students and to thwarts academic incest, rotation of authorities - or teachers in this case – is recommended. In business, however, such attempt may suppress creativity, advancement and prosperity in some cases. Rather than carrying out a homogenous policy sweeping across all fields, it is indispensible to deeply understand the nature and potential of each field. |