33. People are likely to accept as a leader only someone who has demonstrated an ability to perform the same tasks that he or she expects others to perform.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
大家只想同意如此的領導：他能完成他需要別的人完成的任務。
1. 大家不會尊重一個不可以完成他需要其他人完成的任務自己卻不可以完成的領導。這是人之常情，大家一般都只能賞析和尊敬比自己出色的人，而不喜歡被一個不可以完成任務卻命令自己去做的人心存敬意。比如克林頓總統當commander-in-chief 的時候，因為大家都知道他過去逃避兵役，非常自然的下級軍官和士兵都不是非常尊重他。
2. 大家不信賴一個自己完不成任務卻需要其他人去完成的人。仍然舉克林頓總統的例子。因為他逃兵役被視為沒能力，下級都對他的決策心存懷疑，這也就潛在的致使了實行上的不盡心不盡力。
3. 誠然是不是能完成自己交給其他人的任務并非衡量一個leader要緊指標。可能領導能力、,組織能力、運籌能力更為要緊，但大家不可以忽略大家心理上的怎么看，盡管它可能并不合理但它確實是存在的。
normal human feelings admire adore respect superior to evade1 escape military service subordinate soldier be doubtful of be suspicious of execution implement2 admittedly true potentially evaluate index leadership psychological psychology3 psychologic psychologist exist subsist4 ...in ... serves as a fitting and public example
1. 誠然，假如在其領導的范圍內幾乎一竅不通，一個領導非常難得到下屬的信賴和支持，會被看作layperson. 譬如，大家沒辦法想象一個不擁有任何電腦常識的人，該怎么樣領導一個龐大的IT企業，譬如MICROSOFT在激烈的市場中角逐。
2. 但，這是不是意味著作為領導，需要要有能力完成每一項他需要下屬做的事呢？這個問題，與領導和職員的真的用途有非常大關系！第一，領導的職責是擬定長期的進步方針，并且保證這個方針的貫徹實行，adhere to their strategic plans不被偏離。組織職員一同合作完成任務。on the other hand, 職員有哪些用途是各司其職，愈加具體的specific task.
3. 從以上兩種職責不難看出，領導與職員起到significantly different functions，讓領導完成每個subordinate要做的工作，unfair的。譬如，不可以blame a CEO for lacking the skills of typing。要對下屬做的事有非常不錯的認知，但未必都要做。不然，領導就失去了意義，成為了一個全能的工人。omnipotent5 worker with all kinds of skills.
View1: It is human nature to admire then follow someone who is more competent than themselves.
View2: But a feature of a good leader is to organize people with different specialities together and let them perform as a whole. It is too ideal to expect the leaders to have all the specialities of his subordinates.
People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust.
It is difficult for people to fully6 respect a leader who cannot, or will not, do what he or she asks of others. President Clintons difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was well known that he had evaded7 military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers8, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a computer engineer earned the respect of his employees.
It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates9 this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the test, he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive10 and largely bungled11 attempt to solve the problem of gays in the military. In stark12 contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II.
In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially13, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
大家只想同意如此的領導：他能完成他需要別的人完成的任務。
1. 大家不會尊重一個不可以完成他需要其他人完成的任務自己卻不可以完成的領導。這是人之常情，大家一般都只能賞析和尊敬比自己出色的人，而不喜歡被一個不可以完成任務卻命令自己去做的人心存敬意。比如克林頓總統當commander-in-chief 的時候，因為大家都知道他過去逃避兵役，非常自然的下級軍官和士兵都不是非常尊重他。
2. 大家不信賴一個自己完不成任務卻需要其他人去完成的人。仍然舉克林頓總統的例子。因為他逃兵役被視為沒能力，下級都對他的決策心存懷疑，這也就潛在的致使了實行上的不盡心不盡力。
3. 誠然是不是能完成自己交給其他人的任務并非衡量一個leader要緊指標。可能領導能力、,組織能力、運籌能力更為要緊，但大家不可以忽略大家心理上的怎么看，盡管它可能并不合理但它確實是存在的。
normal human feelings admire adore respect superior to evade1 escape military service subordinate soldier be doubtful of be suspicious of execution implement2 admittedly true potentially evaluate index leadership psychological psychology3 psychologic psychologist exist subsist4 ...in ... serves as a fitting and public example
1. 誠然，假如在其領導的范圍內幾乎一竅不通，一個領導非常難得到下屬的信賴和支持，會被看作layperson. 譬如，大家沒辦法想象一個不擁有任何電腦常識的人，該怎么樣領導一個龐大的IT企業，譬如MICROSOFT在激烈的市場中角逐。
2. 但，這是不是意味著作為領導，需要要有能力完成每一項他需要下屬做的事呢？這個問題，與領導和職員的真的用途有非常大關系！第一，領導的職責是擬定長期的進步方針，并且保證這個方針的貫徹實行，adhere to their strategic plans不被偏離。組織職員一同合作完成任務。on the other hand, 職員有哪些用途是各司其職，愈加具體的specific task.
3. 從以上兩種職責不難看出，領導與職員起到significantly different functions，讓領導完成每個subordinate要做的工作，unfair的。譬如，不可以blame a CEO for lacking the skills of typing。要對下屬做的事有非常不錯的認知，但未必都要做。不然，領導就失去了意義，成為了一個全能的工人。omnipotent5 worker with all kinds of skills.
View1: It is human nature to admire then follow someone who is more competent than themselves.
View2: But a feature of a good leader is to organize people with different specialities together and let them perform as a whole. It is too ideal to expect the leaders to have all the specialities of his subordinates.
People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust.
It is difficult for people to fully6 respect a leader who cannot, or will not, do what he or she asks of others. President Clintons difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was well known that he had evaded7 military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers8, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a computer engineer earned the respect of his employees.
It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates9 this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the test, he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive10 and largely bungled11 attempt to solve the problem of gays in the military. In stark12 contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II.
In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially13, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.