Revitalization Through New Leadership For Success In Any Field

The topic presented here makes a very valid argument that revitalization through new leadership is crucial for success in any field, be it politics, education or government. I am in concord with the claim that those in power should graciously make way at regular intervals for fresh talent and new leadership to inspire the causes they espouse. The only area I am slightly in disagreement with is regarding the set tenure of five years, for I believe the time period needs to vary based on the nature of the enterprise. It might suit the world of politics, but in fields like education or business, a stable leadership for a longer period of time sometimes proves beneficial. Take the example of Mr. Narayanamurthy, of Infosys or Mr. Ratan Tata of the Tata Group. His employees might have taken some years to adjust to his style of working and once they get adjusted, they tend to perform better. However, that is of lesser significance and the bottomline here is the need for change in leadership.

If one were to look at the political scenario, particularly in developing countries like India, where the general awareness about socio-political issues are lower owing to lower levels of education, politicians often come through as highly conceited and suffering from a misleading sense of entitlement to their positions of power. Some have even made shameless innuendos on television that they can possibly never be toppled. One of the biggest causes for this conceit and vain pride is that there is neither a constitutional or legal pressure of being 'answerable' to their electorate, nor is there a value for time-bound delivery of services and fulfillment of promises. If these politicians were subject to the pressure of having to deliver results within their five-year tenure, the fear of calumny and failure would probably make them more responsible and hard working. I presume this logic would apply to politics in most other countries too.

However, one could also argue that there are genuine politicians who are truly vision-driven and unable to undo the damage done by their predecessors within a tenure of five years. This is a valid point to be debated, for it raises the question if tightening tenures too much might results in a series of leaderships, none of whom were allowed to fully deliver what they had envisioned. This very same rule of revitalization of leadership might end up being a stumbling block in that case. So, it is also worth considering exceptions to this rule, or like I have mentioned early on, consider extending the tenure to possibly, 10 years? I feel two tenures of five years might offer enough time for any leader to excute their talent and skill in a satisfactory manner.

Lastly, before concluding, something worth remembering is that the world is changing at a never before pace, and technologies and ideas of yesterday are fast receding into obsolescence. With the burgeoning growth of fields like Artificial Intelligence, we might soon see a day when there might be no 'human' leaders to perform any of these tasks. However, the point I seek to make here is that with such rapid pace of changes, it is only best if leaders in every field graciously admit to themselves that their successors would most likely be better equipped to handle the new challenges that are thrown up as a result of technological advancements and make way for them to lead. In the end, it is the vision for larger wellbeing and not the attachment to power that should guide all leaders- irrespective of which field they are involved in.

Considering all these points, I am of the view that leaders world over should welcome their successors and perhaps, assume the role of mentors to them, supporting them from 'behind the scenes' with their experience and knowhow.