若是短期地、轻易地被民众的意见所左右，任何领导必定一事无成。
.可供参考老题库45 "Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."政府官员应该有自己的判断力，而不应该盲目地依从人民的意愿\
Disagree
1. Admittedly, it is hard to get a good rapport of all the people.
2. However, in a democratic society, government is elected by the people, and therefore should take the responsibility to serve for the people and realize their will.
3. Without the support of the people, government is bound to perish.
少数和多数，政府
观点：agree政府官员应该有自己的判断，但也不能忽视人民的意愿
1． 政治官员通常是杰出的个人the outstanding individuals in the society，他们通常有着较高的学识high wisdom，敏锐的判断力acute judgment，长远的目光long view，所以他们更能作出正确的决定。如：A）邓小平改革开放reform and opening policy，中国经济实现了巨大的进步 B）罗斯福（F. D. Roosevelt）新政（New deal），美国recovery from the Depression and World War II
2． at the same time但是，一个人的能力是有限的，不能保证政治家做出的决策总是对的。人民相对而言处在社会的底层，更清楚的了解人民的真正的需求。作为领导着，应该市场保持与群众的联系，及时了解他们的建议，加以思考，作为自己判断的依据，但不是被其左右。相反如果，总是忽略人民意愿与需要，可能会使决策脱离现实意义，进而导致人民的反对。
3． nevertheless然而sometimes，it is hard to get consensus over a controversial issue, especially in the reformation, in which the benefits of some people must be touched and the counterviews come forth.这时，领导就要有自己的主见与勇气，将改革进行进行到底，只有经过了一定的时间，人们才能理解领导者的决策的正确。//林肯Lincoln在美国早期废除农奴制的同时，受到了农场主的强烈反对，甚至迫害，但是林肯没有后退，他相信自己的判断与追求，坚信人生来是平等的。最终历史记住了伟大的林肯，这位自由战士。
范文：
Whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistently follow his or her principles and objectives is a complex issue--one that is tied up in the problem of defining effective leadership in the first place. In addressing the issue it is helpful to consider, in turn, three distinct forms of leadership: business, political, and social-spiritual.
In the business realm, effective leadership is generally defined, at least in our corporate culture, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners. Many disagree, however, that profit is the appropriate measure of a business leader's effectiveness. Some detractors claim, for example, that a truly effective business leader must also fulfill additional duties--for example, to do no intentional harm to their customers or to the society in which they operate. Other detractors go further--to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by protecting consumers, preserving the natural environment, promoting education, and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society's problems.
Whether our most effective business leaders are the ones who remain consistently committed to maximizing profits or the ones who appease the general populace by contributing to popular social causes depends, of course, on one's own definition of business success. In my observation, as business leaders become subject to closer scrutiny by the media and by social activists, business leaders will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable steps to minimize the social and environmental harm their businesses cause. Thus the two definitions merge, and the statement at issue is ultimately correct.
In the political realm the issue is no less complex. Definitions of effective political leadership are tied up in the means a leader uses to wield his or her power and to obtain that power in the first place. Consider history's most infamous tyrants and despots--such as Genghis Khaan, Stalin, Mao, and Hider. No historian would disagree that these individuals were remarkably effective leaders, and that each one remained consistently committed to his tyrannical objectives and Machiavellian principles. Ironically, it was stubborn commitment to objectives that ultimately defeated all except Khan. Thus in the short term stubborn adherence to one's objectives might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his or her power; yet in the long term such behavior invariably results in that leader's downfall if the principles are not in accord with those of the leader's would-be followers.
Finally, consider social-spiritual leadership. Few would disagree that through their ability to inspire others and lift the human spirit Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience. It seems to me that this brand of leadership, in order to be effective, inherently requires that the leader remain steadfastly committed to principle. Why? It is commitment to principle that is the basis for this brand of leadership in the first place. For example, had Gandhi advocated civil disobedience yet been persuaded by dose advisors that an occasional violent protest might be effective in gaining India's independence from Britain, no doubt the result would have been immediate forfeiture of that leadership. In short, social-spiritual leaders must not be hypocrites; otherwise, they will lose all credibility and effectiveness.
In sum, strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequisite for effective social-spiritual leadership--both in the short and long term. In contrast, political leadership wanes in the long term unless the leader ultimately yields to the will of the followers.
Finally, when it comes to business, leaders must strike a balance between the objective of profit maximization--the traditional measure of effectiveness--and yielding to certain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.
Orignal From: Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little
没有评论:
发表评论