The issue at hand is whether those holding the dominant position in any profession like business, education, etc. be allowed to remain in power for more than five years or they should step down on completion of their 5 year tenure. On this the author of below mentioned analysis is of an unambiguous opinion that those holding position of power should be removed or they step down after five years. Though the opposing stance may prevail which advocates that longevity of tenure is more beneficial for any profession than changing personas at higher echleons but such thoughts are marred with flaws and irrationality. Nevertheless, to reinforce the author’s position, two pertinent reasons is discussed below that is such practice will bring fresh leadership and eagerness to perform and such practice will encourage others at lower hierarchy to be efficient so that they must be ready when they get the ooportunity to hold the dominant positions.

Any profession requires a leadership and direction which is conversant with the market conditions and situations, but such freshness and dynamism in the leadership gets a back seat when the surety of the tenure is ensured for their time in office. The will be reluctant to take that extra pain to inculcate such fresh dynamism in leadership after initial lift off in their tenure. For example, with information technology getting changed with every passing day, a principal of an school cant have laid back approach in implementing IT based learning tools but such tools and advanced teaching tools may be implemented by a new principal who is next in line eager to bring a change and contribute significantly for the profession.

Additionally, if such avenues at top echleons is available to persons lined up in the hierarchy, they will be motivated in their own tasks in aspiration of getting eligible and worthy of such position. For example in government, if the elected leader is allowed to remain elected at the dominant position, the party workers and other lower ministers would feel demotivated, frustrated and may indulge in anti party activities. They will feel that they wont be getting any chance of holding such powerfull position and their ideas will remain a fools paradise.

In contrast, many may argue that longevity of tenure ensures proper implementation of objectives set by a leader in power. But this argument is flawed by the fact that at organisational level the goals are long term but the dynamism required to achieve such goals may not be ensured with the longevity of the tenure. For example, the Director of an hospital needs to get changed at every 5 years so that the particular inclination of that director towards any specific faculty may not lead to ignorance and deterioration of other faculties as the goal is to ensure growth and expansion of each and every faculties. Therefore such counters are incorrect to be assumed.

In a nutshell, in view of above analysis, the power positions should be held by a persons of great enthusiasm and dynamism but to ensure such level of the chair, the persons sitting on them must be changed at every 5 years.