Issue160 [mettle小组]第八次作业by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

I160

It is true that the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objects is essential of an effective leader, but it remains a question that whether it is the most important quality of all. Morever, there is only little differences between consistent and stubborn, so to which extent consistent should a leader be remains a question too.

Obviously, a leader must not be vacillant. To be a leader, one must get used to give out orders and command others. It is on of the core charismas of leaders to be stable and imperious in deciding things. One who hesitates and speculates too much will not be defered and thus is unlikely to become a leader and to be supported by others. Even if a inconsistent man was elected leader, he will not be a good one, many ancient rulers left us vivid examples. Those who are uncertain and fearful on the battle fields were always killed by cunning ones. Those who can not determine matters by themselves were always overthrown by the ambitious ones. Even at present times, leaders must stick to their principles and objects, otherwise his party or people would go against him.

However, as I have mentioned before, a leader must not be too consistent as well, for it will change into stubborn and headstrong unconsicously. We may look back not very far into the history to see rulers like Hilter and Stalin. Both of them remained absolutely consistent to their particular principles and objects, not regarding if it is moral or justice. Hilter devoted in his goal of Great Germane Domination. In the proceeding, the whole Europe was ruined and enslaved, Jew and many other East Europe nations were labeled as inferior ones and suffered holocaust. In the end, the Germany was also bombed into debris. Stalin also made millions of people die in the name of the Great Purge, what he believed was the rightful way to keep the party and country safe and fresh. Hilter, Stalin and many other rulers(or to say dictators)submerged unheedingly and deeply into their own principles, they listened to no one and no international or moral rules, so they brought about disasters to people.

In contrast, the great leaders mixed both consistent and receptive. They do not change their beliefs easily, but once the popular opinion is really truthful, he will turn to people's will willingly.

In sum, my opinion is that a leader must be consistent so that he can testify himself and be revered. He must not hesitate too much in deciding because if doing so he is doomed to achieve little. However, devoted to some particular principles does not equal to headlong behaviours, a leader is not a bigot or partisan, he who quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little as well.

先写了第八次．．．第七次稍后补上吧

[ 本帖最后由 werecat 于 2007-7-14 23:30 编辑 ]

AndierUID: 2302600

It is true that the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objects is essential of an effective leader, but it remains a question that whether it is the most important quality of all. Morever, there is only little differences between consistent and stubborn, so to which extent consistent should a leader be remains a question too.

Obviously, a leader must not be vacillant(这个词精确，我没想到哦。。). To be a leader, one must get used to give out orders and command others. It is one(小词小词~~) of the core charismas of leaders to be stable and imperious in deciding things. One who hesitates and speculates too much will not be defered and thus is unlikely to become a leader and to be supported by others. Even if a inconsistent man was elected leader, he will not be a good one, many ancient rulers left us vivid examples. Those who are uncertain and fearful on the battle fields were always killed by cunning(这个词不太准了吧就~~) ones. Those who can not determine matters by themselves were always overthrown by the ambitious ones. Even at present times, leaders must stick to their principles and objects, otherwise his party or people would go against him.

However, as I have mentioned before, a leader must not be too consistent as well, for it will change into stubborn and headstrong unconsicously. We may look back not very far into the history to see rulers like Hilter and Stalin. Both of them remained absolutely consistent to their particular principles and objects, not regarding if it is moral or justice(moral有精神上的意思，但是没有“精神上很好”的意思,后面的也应该改成形容词 just。看来lz很愤 USSR啊~ 嘿嘿). Hilter devoted in his goal of Great Germane Domination. In the proceeding, the whole Europe was ruined and enslaved, Jew and many other East Europe nations were labeled as inferior ones and suffered holocaust. In the end, the Germany was also bombed into debris. Stalin also made millions of people die in the name of the Great Purge, what he believed was the rightful way to keep the party and country safe and fresh. Hilter, Stalin and many other rulers(or to say dictators)submerged unheedingly and deeply into their own principles, they listened to no one and no international or moral rules, so they brought about disasters to people.

In contrast, the great leaders mixed both consistent and receptive. They do not change their beliefs easily, but once the popular opinion is really truthful, he will turn to people's will willingly.(两个will 可以考虑变化以下~嗯~~ 而且这段时间充裕的话可以充分说一下。听大家意见的例子还是挺多的。)

In sum, my opinion is that a leader must be consistent so that he can testify himself and be revered. He must not hesitate too much in deciding because if doing so he is doomed to achieve little. However, devoted to some particular principles does not equal to headlong behaviours, a leader is not a bigot or partisan, he who quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little as well.

总体感觉：那个士兵的例子不是非常恰当，因为毕竟是再说领导人。不过逻辑顺序很清晰。倒数第二段可以扩展下。

加油~