Reply To: To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards Reply To: To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards

Administrator
University: University of Wisconsin
January 13, 2021 at 9:38 pm

The author claims that maintaining high moral and ethical standards is the premise of being an effective leader. Although the claim does have some merits, the author oversimplifies the complexity of the relationship between morality and effectiveness. In my view, personal moral defects do not preclude an official from effective leadership, but defying (public social ethics)[redundant  ] might gravely influence the official’s political career, let alone the (effectiveness of the execution of duty)[  wordy].

Before proceeding further, the definition of “effectiveness” should be clarified. The primary objectives of an official[ word form error ] duty are to guarantee the [article error  ]people’s safety, render convenient service to the public, and contribute to the [article error  ]local development. In this sense, effectiveness should be interpretated[ spelling error ] as (the efficient achievement of these purposes)[unclear  ]. A highly esteemed and admired leader can readily rally his/her people, attracting support and compliance. [ lack of logical connection ]People are more[more … than  ] willing to accept an admired[ logical confusion – can be admired officials or admired views ] official’s political views, making it easier for the official to achieve his/her political objectives.

(However, although)[confusion  ] laudable personal qualities will[ tense problem ] facilitate effective administration, political achievements do not necessarily depend on personal[one’s  ] moral virtues as long as the leader does not violate public benefits[ verbose/unclear ]. In other words, it is understandable for an officer to have minor moral defects. For example, an official (having)[ grammatical error ] an affair still deserves (the reputation)[ unclear ] as effective leadership if he/she contributes to the local economics[ word form error ] and mitigates the unemployment problem dramaticall[misplaced adverb that causes confusion  ]y. In contrast, sometimes absolute adherence to moral ethics (may be inadvisable in order to achieve effective leadership)[ clumsy ]. For example, [redundant  ]imagine a city threatened[ grammatical error ] by a terrorist. If the city mayor discloses all information (about the act of arresting the terrorist[wordy/unclear  ], the efforts [unclear; whose efforts?  ]will fail.

Nevertheless, if the[  article error] official breaks [grammatical error/subjunctive  ]the public rules aligned with public benefits, he/she cannot[grammatical error/subjunctive  ] be considered effective (since the basic duty of an official is to maximize people’s interest)[ clumsy ]. Consider a mayor colludes with immoral corporate owners and allows illegal production and distribution of drugs. Even if the city benefits from the tax revenue from the corporate, the official will eventually be dismissed as he/she breaks the law and risks the public interest. Take the Watergate Scandal of Nixon as an example. Nixon jeopardized his presidentship at last by disregarding [ due to his disregard for ]public ethics.

All in all, although I grant that a respected and loved official makes (his/her administration efficiently)[ unclear ], personal moral defects do not deny his/her effectiveness. But public moral decay will impact one’s effectiveness as an officer.