Issue160 『越洋农场第十次作业』By Alfred

alfred0516UID: 2214165

TOPIC: ISSUE160 - "The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."


P.S.:今天有意识地让自己快一点写，但最后还是忍不住要去查点资料和好的说法。。。写完就离崩溃不远了～～ 还不如多想一想再写，至少在词句表达和举例分析上会好点。。。不知道下次会是哪只牛牛改我的作业，总之千万别手软，狠狠修理就是了～

Outline:
※首先，作为领导者应该坚持一定的原则和目标。
※领导代表的是他所在的集体；领导实际上不是一个人，而是一个角色。一个成功的领导者从来不会只固执地坚持或者只一味地迎合大众的观点；他会在两者之间寻找一个平衡点。即使一个领导者固执地坚持自己的原则和目标，最后被证明了当初的坚持是正确的，那他也顶多算是一个成功人士或者说牛人，但绝不能说他是一个好的领导者。
※当然，如果没有一点原则和目标，一位的为了迎合大众的要求，领导者就会碌碌无为；这是对领导最大的亵渎。

WORDS: 478          TIME: 上午 0:58:24          DATE: 2006-8-1

There has been a hot debate on whether an effective leader should stick to particular principles and objectives. Some show positive answers by claiming that any leader who is easy to compromise to popular opinion will not be a competent leader. While, In my opinion, we got to have a case-by-case study.

A leader should hold his/her particular principles and aims.  The obligations of a leader are to beat off all the rivals by uniting every members of his/her community. If the leader of one community or one country changes the aims or give up his/her principles easily, the community will collapse in no time. On the contrary, if the leader can persist in particular principles and the aims for development, he/she will try every effort to realize the aims, and his/her men will probably support their leader. Among the illustrations of the truth that might be cited, the example of Nelson Mandela will be a cogent example. Striving for the rights of blacks for almost forty years, Mandela, the great civil right leader, though jailed and persecuted, eventually broke the discrimination in South Africa, and rebuilt the reputation of his country in the international community. Simply put, if Mandela had given up his belief by compromising to his rivals, what would be the situation of South Africa today? And what would be the situation of black brothers and sisters in his country? However, the fact is Mandela’s perseverance attained more advocates. They finally succeeded.

What's more, the leader is not an individual, but just a role. The leader stands not for himself/herself, but for the community he/she is leading. Therefore, a successful leader never adamantly persist in his own ideas and principles without considering what his/her men think; and what he/she would usually do is trying to find a balance between the two parts.  The example of French revolution gives us a lot of lessons like this. Evidence of the period prior to the French revolution points to the French government's absence of balance between government decision and public opinion, and as a result, the government was knocked off by insurgents. What you are leading are your men. When your men leave, you are nothing. What's more, even if the beliefs or ideas of a leader are later proved to be right, he/she is no more than a "heroes", but can never be called as "a good leader".

In addition, a leader is not supposed to compromise all the time. If a leader always tries to give way to his/her people, he will finally accomplish nothing but compromise. The ship driven by the leader will yaw for good. And, I believe, that is the biggest profanity to the title of "leader".

In conclusion, an effective leader should find a balance point between the basic principles and objectives. Both adamantly persistence and too much compromise will be eventually detrimental.

[ 本帖最后由 alfred0516 于 2006-8-1 11:44 编辑 ]