|
Leaders
come in all forms - from those running small groups of people
in an office to heads of state that must lead millions or
billions of people. Leaders also serve during different
time periods marked by different states of the overall environment.
National leaders may act in times marked by intense crises
such as war, while others may serve during relative times
of peace. Business leaders may operate during rapid economic
changes and progress or relatively slow times, such as during
a recession. An effective leader must be able to fit the
situation, whether that means remaining consistently committed
to particular principles and objectives or being able to
go with the flow of change of opinion to best complete his
or her mission. The mission or final goals desired would
most likely determine which type of leader would be most
effective in that particular situation.
One example would
be to examine the actions of two consecutive Presidents
of the United States. President Bill Clinton served during
a relatively peaceful time of prosperity and economic growth
in the United States. Personal proclivities aside, President
Clinton seemed to run the country by gauging popular opinion
through the heavy use of polling. With almost never varying
consistency, President Clinton took stands on the issues
that fell closely in line with the popular opinions of the
country. Mr. Clinton's opinions sometimes changed overnight,
apparently following the ebb and flow of the tide of popular
opinion. Most people in the world would agree that President
Clinton did a good job of running the country during his
administration and that he was an effective leader, whether
or not they agree with how he conducted his personal life.
In stark contrast,
George W. Bush had served little more than eight months
as President when his leadership was subjected to one of
the strongest tests possible. The worst terrorist attacks
on the United States in history struck just as the economic
conditions of the country seemed to be sliding towards recession.
War and economic distress came to the country at the same
time. Mr. Bush acted quickly and decisively on both fronts.
War was all but declared against the ruling Taliban government
of Afghanistan and the worldwide Al-Quaida terrorist organization.
During the same time period, Mr. Bush's administration made
several rapid adjustments to the government's prime lending
rates. Many leaders worldwide and some opponents at home
questioned some of his decisions. Popular opinion in the
rest of the world often portrayed President Bush as acting
as a "lone ranger" without regard to the opinions
of the rest of the world. Through it all, President Bush
stayed with his decisions, including the controversial statement
regarding Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of
evil". No one can seriously argue that President Bush
has not been an effective leader while remaining consistently
committed to particular principles and objectives. Both
Presidents took the opposite extremes proposed by the above
issue statement, but both have been proven to be effective
leaders. The situations were different and possibly called
for a different type of leadership in order for the final
goals to be reached.
Other levels of
leadership also would likely require different actions of
a leader in different situations. When times are good, it
may be easier to follow along with popular opinion as long
as it does not appear to be particularly disruptive. Usually
when the majority of the population of a country or the
stockholders of a corporation are happy, there is little
call for rapid changes. However, when times turn tough,
a leader that can make the difficult decisions to stay with
certain principles and objectives is required. Although
they may not be the popular opinions, they may be the best
ones for the overall good of the country or company. An
effective leader is one who can determine which approach
will most likely lead to the accomplishment of the overall
mission.
(654 words) |
领导人是分成很多种类的--有那些只是管理较少人的办公室头头儿，也有领导着成百万上亿人的国家元首。由于不同时期社会大环境的差异，领导人任职期间也会呈现出不同的特点。有的国家领袖经历的时期危机四伏，比如经历了战争，而有的却度过了一段相对和平的时期。有的商界领袖处于经济快速变化增长时期而有的却恰恰相反，比如遇到了经济不景气。一位强有力的领导人必须能够适应所处的环境，无论这意味着坚守特定的原则目标还是为了最好地完成使命而能够灵活改变策略。想要达成的使命或最终目标最能够决定在特定形势下什么样的领导人最能够实施有力的领导。
举个例子，让我们来看看美国两位连续执政的总统。比尔·克林顿总统执政时期的美国社会相对稳定繁荣，经济有所增长。抛开他的个人癖性不谈，克林顿似乎是通过大量民意测验考察舆论来治理国家的。几乎每一次他所采取的立场都是与国家民众的意见紧密保持一致。克林顿先生的观点有时会在一夜之间发生转变，这显然是随舆论潮流进行调整的结果。世界上多数人会认同这样一个观点，即克林顿在任职期间表现良好，是一位强有力的领导人，无论他们对他私生活方面的做法是否赞同。
然而，与克林顿的情形迥然不同的是，乔治·W·布什上任刚满八个月，其领导地位就遇到了最大的威胁。美国遭受了历史上毁灭性最强的恐怖主义袭击，而此时国家的经济状况也正趋于不景气。战争与经济衰退在同一时期到来。布什总统在这两个条战线都展开了迅速而果断的行动。美国向阿富汗的独裁塔利班政府及全世界的恐怖组织宣战。同时，布什对美国政府的基本贷款利率做出了几次快速调整。他的一些决策受到了世界上许多领导人及国内反对派的质疑。世界其他国家的舆论常常把布什描述为一位"孤独的突击队员"，他采取行动时从不顾及其他国家的看法。无论如何，布什坚持着他的决策，包括他把伊朗、伊拉克和朝鲜定为"邪恶轴心"的有争议的论断。没人能否认坚守特定原则和目标的布什总统不是一位强有力的总统。在上述的不同情形中，克林顿和布什两位总统采取了绝然不同的两种做法，然而他们两位都被证明是强有力的领导人。不同的形势需要有不同的领导风格来达成最终目标。
其它层次上的领导职务也要求领导人在不同的情况下采取不同的行动。形势一片大好时，只要公众舆论不带来混乱，遵循舆论来进行决策是很容易的。通常来说，只要一个国家的大多数人或一个公司的股东觉得满意，很少会有人要求进行剧烈的变革。然而，当时局变得困难起来时，就需要有一位能坚守特定的原则目标而做出艰难决策的领导人了。尽管这些决策可能并不符合大众的观点，但是它们却是最有利于国家或公司的整体利益的决策。一位强有力的领导人应该是一个最知道用什么样的方法最有利于他完成全部使命的人。
|
