issue43 公务员道德与绩效 完全是俺的专业嘛……另质疑北美范文，强烈求拍！

starshaneUID: 2616355

TOPIC: ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
WORDS: 284
TIME: 00:32:15
DATE: 2010/4/11 0:52:53

破题上，感觉重点应放在effective，public official上，
我理解effective，是有效的，有政绩的
Public official 是公务员，不要怀疑了，不是什么企业啊啥领导人的，学过点专业英语的该知道这就是指公务员，政府官员。如果非要定义为公职人员、NGO干活的、甚至私人企业人员，真的是自己给自己添乱……
在ethical moral standards上没有过多的纠缠，要分对社会道德、个人道德什么的感觉太难写了……

看北美范文一上来第一段居然是：
Whether successful leadership requires that a leader follow high ethical and moral standards is a complex issue--one that is fraught with the problems of defining ethics, morality, and successful 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.

首先他将effective等于successful leadership，
然后考虑三种leadership：business, political, social-spiritual
我真的很想知道他这样算不算偏题…… 求解！


I agree with the speaker insofar as that a public official should maintain high ethical and moral standards, for such standards are the premise of their devotion to the public benefits. However, I doubt there exists much correlation between high ethical and moral standards with administrative effectiveness.

1，道德标准是重要的，为什么
2，但跟效率没啥关系，有效的领导人个人道德不一定行
3,什么跟效率有关，如能力啊之类的
4，有时太关注道德会导致低效（前面太多了，没写了）

From an idealist prospective, it is natural to assume that public officials should maintain higher ethical standards than average people. Public officials are holding the majority of political resource, if they are noble enough to take advantage of these resources to promote social welfare, then the society can progress and people's rights are protected, otherwise social justice and the total benefits could not be attained. High moral standards are especially important to prevent officials from abuse their powers. For example, Cheng Liangyu was the former highest-rank official in Shanghai, but he appropriated the public funds for social security out of his own greed and moral decadence. As a student in Public Administration, I am deeply convinced that "power leads to corruption, absolute power leads to absolute corruption." Without a high standard of public ethics, we cannot assure that the officials will act in accordance with public good.





Despite all the significance of high ethical standards, if we define “effective” as the capability to provide satisfactory public service with celerity, then effectiveness of public officials has little immediate correlation to high ethical standards, especially when the standards are more or less personal. Bill Clinton, for example, was sure to be condemned as depraved in his personal life after the exposure of his sexual scandals. Nevertheless, he was never criticized as ineffective. Actually he demonstrated so great capability in dealing with economical and diplomatic affairs that he contributed to the high growth rate of America in his presidency. Another example came from ancient Tang dynasty in China. The first emperor Li Shi min of the dynasty came into power after murdering his fathers and brothers, yet Li created the prosperity of the whole Tang dynasty and was exalted as the most sagacious emperor in Chinese history. Many great leaders may lack personal moral restrictions and indulged in alcohol, women or other unhealthy habits, but that did not demean their effectiveness in public affairs.



Be aware of the facts above, I suggest that when discussing the specific issue of effectiveness, other important qualities of the public officials should be taken into consideration aside from public ethics, such as professional expertise, decisiveness, political acumen, insightfulness, etc. Those qualities are more commonly shared by effective and successful public officials than high moral standards. In fact, in many countries, China included, when the government asses the performance of its public officials, talents, expertise and interpersonal skills always take a larger percentage than moral standards. As long as the public officials meet their basic professional ethics—the intention to bring benefits to the people and society rather than satisfy their own—and make actual contribution, then it is not necessary to require them of the highest moral standards.

In sum, I cannot deny that it is very important for public officials to maintain high ethical standards, while moral ethics do not have direct causal relation with effectiveness or performance. It may well behoove public officials to acquire other skills and qualities, like expertise, political acumen and so on, in order to provide effective public services.

windowsmwlUID: 2386284

应该不是偏题，你可以注意一下几篇Issue官方范文的第一段，特点就是善于缩小范围，在一个小的范围内去讨论一个问题，比如科技那篇，一开始就定义科技为工具的使用：THe technology, broadly defined as the use of tools, has a long history. (基本是这句，记不太清了，呵呵)，如果如你所理解的缩小范围是跑题，那这篇6分的范文岂不是跑题了？个人觉得Issue的题目本来就很大，第一段的一个很重要的目的就是缩小你的讨论范围，在这个小的范围内陈述自己的观点，这样不容易被反驳，要不然东扯扯西拉拉其实文章会更显得没有主题，个人浅见，欢迎讨论。

starshaneUID: 2616355

2# windowsmwl

特点就是善于缩小范围，在一个小的范围内去讨论一个问题

这个是当然，比如说可以定义ethics ,moral standards为个人品德上的标准或是社会公德、职业道德,
定义的作用多半是缩小范围

但是注意，这篇的北美范文实际上是扩大了范围啊，
把public officials扩大成了business leadership之类的，
这就是我要质疑的

windowsmwlUID: 2386284

3# starshane

这个就是怎么界定public officials的问题了，其实这样分领域的写容易写啊，不是有篇官方范文是分别在文学和哲学两个领域来论证么？我查了下，以前有人讨论过这个界定问题，好像没什么结论，怎么写随自己，不过在第一段给出定义就好，所以北美范文那样写不是跑题，只是body部分的分领域讨论而已，因为它第一段已经很明确的给出了public officials的范围，不会让人产生疑问的。当然你那样写肯定也没错，还是那句话，在第一段中界定好关键词就没问题。要不然在两个范围中来回跳才是跑题。

starshaneUID: 2616355

4# windowsmwl

…………我们讲的不是一个问题……


确实我看得比较多的就是北美范文，虽然有时不赞同他的观点，可能行文上、一些惯用连接词是受他影响
但这样会影响分数么？内容观点完全不一样啊

官方倒没怎么看……


我马上就要考了，互相勉励！

hailidUID: 2744864

我的思路跟你的基本是一样的...但是你写的漂亮多了..学习中.....
我这道题对着北美范文看了很多遍,也是觉得北美有离题了样...

sosodiuUID: 2731702

我觉得是对effective的理解吧 你的更偏向于efficiency 但两个单词间肯定是有区别的 所以范文将它理解偏向为successful 我觉得也不算偏题吧