本文主要講解GRE作文相關內容，希望能幫助童鞋們提高寫作能力。出國留學網(wǎng)liuxue86.com編輯部敬上。
Whether our most successful business leaders are the ones who embrace these additional
obligations depends, of course, on one's own definition of business success. In my
observation, as business leaders become subject to closer scrutiny by the media and by social
activists, business leaders will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable
steps to minimize the social and environmental harm their businesses cause. This observation
also accords with my personal view of a business leader's ethical and moral obligation.
In the political realm the issue is no less complex. Definitions of successful political
leadership and of ethical or moral leadership are tied up in the means a leader uses to wield
his or her power and to obtain that power in the first place. One useful approach is to draw a
distinction between personal morality and public morality. In my observation personal morality
is unrelated to effective political leadership. Modern politics is replete with examples of what
most people would consider personal ethical failings: the marital indiscretions of President
Kennedy, for instance. Yet few would disagree that these personal moral choices adversely
affected his ability to lead.
In contrast, pubhc morality and successful leadership are more closely connected. Consider
the many leaders, such as Stalin and Hitler, whom most people would agree were egregious
violators of public morality. Ultimately such leaders forfeit their leadership as a result of the
immoral means by which they obtained or wielded their power. Or consider less egregious
examples such as President Nixon, whose contempt for the very legal system that afforded
him his leadership led to his forfeiture of it. It seems that in the short term unethical public
30
behavior might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his or her power; yet in the long
term such behavior invariably results in that leader's down- fall that is, in failure.
One must also consider a third type of leadership: social-spiritual. Consider notable figures
such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, whom few would disagree were eminently successful
in leading others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they advocated.
However, I would be hard-pressed to name one successful social or spiritual leader whose
leadership was predicated on the advocacy of patently unethical or immoral behavior. The
reason for this is simple: high standards for one's own public morality are prerequisites for
successful social-spiritual leadership.
In sum, history informs us that effective political and social-spiritual leadership requires
adherence to high standards of public morality. However, when it comes to business
leadership the relationship is less clear; successful business leaders must strike a balance
between achieving profit maximization and fulfilling their broader obligation to the society,
which comes with the burden of such leadership. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（17） 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
Whether our most successful business leaders are the ones who embrace these additional
obligations depends, of course, on one's own definition of business success. In my
observation, as business leaders become subject to closer scrutiny by the media and by social
activists, business leaders will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable
steps to minimize the social and environmental harm their businesses cause. This observation
also accords with my personal view of a business leader's ethical and moral obligation.
In the political realm the issue is no less complex. Definitions of successful political
leadership and of ethical or moral leadership are tied up in the means a leader uses to wield
his or her power and to obtain that power in the first place. One useful approach is to draw a
distinction between personal morality and public morality. In my observation personal morality
is unrelated to effective political leadership. Modern politics is replete with examples of what
most people would consider personal ethical failings: the marital indiscretions of President
Kennedy, for instance. Yet few would disagree that these personal moral choices adversely
affected his ability to lead.
In contrast, pubhc morality and successful leadership are more closely connected. Consider
the many leaders, such as Stalin and Hitler, whom most people would agree were egregious
violators of public morality. Ultimately such leaders forfeit their leadership as a result of the
immoral means by which they obtained or wielded their power. Or consider less egregious
examples such as President Nixon, whose contempt for the very legal system that afforded
him his leadership led to his forfeiture of it. It seems that in the short term unethical public
30
behavior might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his or her power; yet in the long
term such behavior invariably results in that leader's down- fall that is, in failure.
One must also consider a third type of leadership: social-spiritual. Consider notable figures
such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, whom few would disagree were eminently successful
in leading others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they advocated.
However, I would be hard-pressed to name one successful social or spiritual leader whose
leadership was predicated on the advocacy of patently unethical or immoral behavior. The
reason for this is simple: high standards for one's own public morality are prerequisites for
successful social-spiritual leadership.
In sum, history informs us that effective political and social-spiritual leadership requires
adherence to high standards of public morality. However, when it comes to business
leadership the relationship is less clear; successful business leaders must strike a balance
between achieving profit maximization and fulfilling their broader obligation to the society,
which comes with the burden of such leadership. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（17） 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。