A capable leader can become so central that nobody else gets the chance to learn the job. Term limits interrupt that pattern by making departure part of the role from the beginning, rather than an accusation that the current holder has failed.
The limit might concern consecutive terms, total terms, or time served. These choices are not interchangeable. A rule allowing a former chair to return after a break behaves differently from a lifetime restriction.
An opening is not a successor
Consider a community association whose chair has organized everything for twelve years. A two-term limit could create space for others, but only if records, relationships, and practical knowledge move with the office. Otherwise the association may replace the name on its website while the former chair continues making decisions behind the scenes.
A limit also needs to say how partial service counts. Someone filling a vacancy might otherwise serve much longer than the limit appears to allow. The US presidential limit explicitly addresses partial service; a club's rules would need to settle the same practical question for its own offices.
Term limits can also remove experienced people and create incentives to focus on a short remaining horizon. Their usefulness depends on the office around them: whether successors can prepare, whether former leaders retain unofficial control, and whether there are other ways to remove someone before a term ends. Rotation of names and renewal of authority are different achievements.