[i习作temp] Issue43——道德之于领导者欢迎拍砖互改~ [复制链接]

figuechen
UID: 2850619

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 37
寄托币: 788
注册时间: 2010-7-11
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-7-18 10:29:50 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 figuechen 于 2010-7-18 11:32 编辑

欢迎互改，有拍必回~谢谢各位大虾~

TOPIC: ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."

思路：
观点：杰出的领导者未必需要有最高的道德和伦理标准。
1. 让步，道德和伦理标准是很重要的。
2. 但是，用最高的伦理和道德标准来要求领导者是不必要的。
3. 同样，用最高的伦理和道德标准来要求领导者是不可行的。

WORDS: 612
   What is an effective leader? The answer is an impressive and striking leader. Does the quality of impressive and striking have something to do with morality? Admitted that high moral standard may help the leader in his way towards success, it is not the imperative quality that a leader must own.
I do not deny the importance of moral and ethical standard to be an effective public official. A leader establishes his prestige and fame among his people through his high moral codes. The higher ethical standard a leader owns, the more respect he will acquire from his people.  For instance, Zhou Enlai, who was the first Chinese Prime Minister and had made huge contribution in the economic and political fields in China, kept high moral standards all his life. His deeds earned respect from not only Chinese people but also diplomas all over the world. Kissinger, once the United States Secretary of States, honored Zhou as "one of the two or three most impressive men" he had ever seen. Due to his exemplary morality, Zhou had won reverence, which eventually led him to be an impressive official leader.
On the other hand, however, successful leaders do not have to own the highest ethical and moral standard, since factors other than morality also play important roles in the leadership. Irwin Federman, CEO of one of the most profitable high-tech companies, once said and I paraphrased that "The business of making others feel good, is the very essence of a leadership". That means that leadership is the ability to deal with people, which high morality can help but it is never essential. It is too critical for the public to require their leader to have high moral codes while performing effectively in his leadership. For instance, President Clinton, who had sexual scandals and was certainly not considered as person who owns high morality, has succeeded in being a President in carrying out "information highway" strategy, which ensured the America to have a lead in the information competition nowadays. The public pardoned him for his sexual scandal because of his ability in being an effective leader. From this example, we can conclude that highest ethical standard is dispensable in being an effective leader.
Asking for a political leader to own high morality is not only dispensable, but also infeasible. It remains no longer a secret that there are full of dirty deals and cheats in politics. The environmental factor cannot be overlooked in a field. We can see this through from the example of Watergate, in which Nixon, who has cheated the public several times, was successfully elected president a second time. As you cannot expect your pet to remain white and clean if it has stepped down into a muddy river, we cannot expect our leader to have high morality on the dirty land of politics and how can we ensure that our president is not such a cheater as Nixon? Even if it is a truth that a successful leader must not own low moral standard as Nixon, no one can gainsay the fact that no political leader remains as innocent as a child in the game of politics. To possess the ability to lead people and a little sense of morality is sufficient for them to be called as "effective official leader".
For a public official who leads his people towards happiness and prosper, ethical and moral standard is one of the factors that decide whether he is striking or not. However, there are more important factors that determine whether the leadership works or not, and therefore the highest moral and ethical standard is not essential in determining a successful leader.

回应
0

使用道具举报

追梦小木耳
UID: 2781857

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 27
寄托币: 755
注册时间: 2010-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2010-7-18 12:22:56 |只看该作者

What is an effective leader? The answer is an impressive and striking leader. Does the quality of impressive and striking have something to do with morality? Admitted that high moral standard may help the leader in his way towards success, it is not the imperative quality that a leader must own.
I do not deny the importance of moral and ethical standard to be an effective public official. A leader establishes his prestige and fame among his people through his high moral codes. The higher ethical standard a leader owns, the more respect he will acquire from his people. 这句话和下面的例子并没有说明赢得尊重怎么使他的领导更有效了呢？使中国的地位提高了？使人民更幸福了？还是赢得尊重本身就是effectiveness? For instance, Zhou Enlai, who was the first Chinese Prime Minister and had made huge contribution in the economic and political fields in China, kept high moral standards all his life. His deeds earned respect from not only Chinese people but also diplomas all over the world. Kissinger, once the United States Secretary of States, honored Zhou as "one of the two or three most impressive men" he had ever seen. Due to his exemplary morality, Zhou had won reverence, which eventually led him to be an impressive official leader.
On the other hand, however, successful leaders do not have to own the highest ethical and moral standard, since factors other than morality also play important roles in the leadership.这句话逻辑有点问题，不需要最高的道德，因为道德以外的因素也有决定性的作用？？最高的道德和道德以外的因素不相矛盾吧。一个领导也可以同时拥有啊 Irwin Federman, CEO of one of the most profitable high-tech companies, once said and I paraphrased that "The business of making others feel good, is the very essence of a leadership". That means that leadership is the ability to deal with people, which high morality can help but it is never essential. It is too critical for the public to require their leader to have high moral codes while performing effectively in his leadership. For instance, President Clinton, who had sexual scandals and was certainly not considered as person who owns high morality, has succeeded in being a President in carrying out "information highway" strategy, which ensured the America to have a lead in the information competition nowadays. The public pardoned him for his sexual scandal because of his ability in being an effective leader. From this example, we can conclude that highest ethical standard is dispensable in being an effective leader.
Asking for a political leader to own high morality is not only dispensable, but also infeasible. It remains no longer a secret that there are full of dirty deals and cheats in politics. The environmental factor cannot be overlooked in a field. We can see this through from the example of Watergate, in which Nixon, who has cheated the public several times, was successfully elected president a second time. As you cannot expect your pet to remain white and clean if it has stepped down into a muddy river, we cannot expect our leader to have high morality on the dirty land of politics and how can we ensure that our president is not such a cheater as Nixon? Even if it is a truth that a successful leader must not own low moral standard as Nixon, no one can gainsay the fact that no political leader remains as innocent as a child in the game of politics. To possess the ability to lead people and a little sense of morality is sufficient for them to be called as "effective official leader".
这一段可以和上一段的位置换一下，说有效的领导并不需要最高道德准则，因为不可行，领导也会犯道德错误。然后说有效的领导更需要的是领导的能力
For a public official who leads his people towards happiness and prosper, ethical and moral standard is one of the factors that decide whether he is striking or not.这句话定义了有效的领导，是不是应该早点出现呢？？ However, there are more important factors that determine whether the leadership works or not, and therefore the highest moral and ethical standard is not essential in determining a successful leader.

前两天研究了一下6分的范文，发现他们的论点，论据都不是很严密，可以轻易找出他们没有考虑到的情况。但是不得不承认，他们的论述很深入很有力，让你很信服。
所以我觉得你的文章虽然概括性的说了原因，但是过于客观。为什么不可行，为什么不需要？总是感觉你点到了想法，但是还没解释，就开始举例子了。我觉得仅靠例子来支持一个大的观点是不够充分的，因为一个例子只代表了一种情况，而你的观点下面可能有多种情况。
不知道我说的你有没有完全理解，我昨天也写了这篇，先发给你提纲看看~

1 领导需要有道德，而且比普通人的高。这是他们成为领导的前提条件。由于他们担当了更大的社会责任，他们更需要诚实。这样才能建立起威望，赢得人们的信任。而丑闻会失去人们的信任，被认为不可靠
2 但是有效的领导并不需要最高的道德准则。首先，普通人难以具备特别高的道德水准，普通人不是圣人，难免犯错。其次，只要领导勇于承认错误，还是会受到信任
3 决定领导是否有效的是能力，而不是道德。古代，有道德的人来判断是非。但是现在社会有法律，各行各业有准则，道德不是衡量一个人工作的标准。因此道德不能衡量更不能决定领导的工作好坏与否，能力是。

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报