John Quincy Adam writes, ”If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are an effective leader”. Do such leaders need to step down just for the unknown result of new leadership? I would not agree with the claim that those people in power should step down after five years whatever the field-- business, politic, education or government. This is just because, revitalization through new leadership might bring success at times, for that reason, it cannot be declared the “surest path to success”.

Changing leaders once in five years might be fruitful in some cases. That happens mainly when the present leaders are not so effective, when they are unable to manage the crisis, unable to bring development and on the whole they are lacking qualities for an effective leadership. Consider the President of America, John Buchanan; he was an inspired President until the outbreak of civil war. His inability to impose peace on the sharply divided partisans, led him to step down. So, in such cases there is a need for new leader to handle the case and take the nation back to the path of development. And that’s why Abraham Lincoln was elected right after him. He proved himself solving the disputes. Abraham Lincoln did not step down after five years. He was so efficient that he was just re-elected as the President in the next election. He continued as the President of America till his death. This clearly proves two main factors. First is, new leaders are required when the present ones are unable to handle any difficult situation. New leadership is inevitable in such cases; otherwise, the situation would stagnate and lead to the downfall of the nation or organization. Secondly efficient leaders should retain their position for further enhancements. That’s why people have re-elected him. They want effective people to stay longer time.

New