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

  • ithefreedom
    University: Shenzhen University
    Nationality: China
    January 12, 2021 at 6:09 am

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

    The author claims that maintaining high standards of morality and ethics is the premise of being an effective leader. Although the claim does not have no merit, 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 social public ethics might gravely influence the official’ s political career, let alone the effectiveness of execution of duty.

    To begin with, the definition of “effectiveness ” should be clarified. The primary objectives of an official duty are to guarantee the safety of the people, to render handy service to the public and to contribute to the local development. In this sense, effectiveness should be defined as how efficient an official achieve these purposes. A highly respected and admired leader can easily rally his/her people, attracting support and compliance. People are more willing to accept the political view of an admired official and cooperate, making it easier for the official to achieve his/her political objectives.

    Nonetheless, although laudable personal qualities will facilitate effective administration, the personal virtues themselves does not sufficiently or necessarily lead to political achievements as long as the leader does not violate the public’ benefits. In other words, if the official follows the rule that does not contradict with the public’s interest, it is understandable for a leader to possess minor moral defects or even sacrifices moral ethics. For example, an official having an affair cannot be deemed as  ineffective leadership if he/she makes great contribution to the local economics and mitigates unemployment problem dramatically. As decay of personal moral ethics does not jeopardize public’s interest, high demand on official’s personal morality will be unnecessary. On the contrary, sometimes absolute adherence to moral ethics may deemed as naiveness: morality might needed to sacrificed to achieve purposes. For example, imagine a city threatened by a terrorist, if the city mayor frankly discloses all information about the act of arresting the terrorist, the efforts to arrest the terrorist will definitely be thwarted.

    Nevertheless, if the official break the public ethics that are aligned with the public’s benefits, he/she cannot be considered as effective since basic duty of an official is to maximize people’s interest. If a mayor colludes with immoral corporation owners and allows manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs, even if the city benefits from the tax revenue, the official will eventually be dismissed as he/she breaks the law and risks the public’s interest. Take the Watergate Scandal of Nixon as an example. Nixon eventually jeopardized his presidentship by disregarding the public ethics.

    All in all, although I grant that highly respected and loved official makes his/her administration smoothly, and thereby promote effective leadership, personal moral defects do not deny his/her effectiveness. But public moral decay will seriously impact one’s effectiveness as leader.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    January 12, 2021 at 7:30 pm

    Score: 29.2

    Issues:

    1. About 55% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Simplify or split them.
    2. About 20% of the sentences are passive; convert them into their active counterparts. 
    3. Lengthy paragraphs. Restrict each paragraph to 110 words.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    ithefreedom
    University: Shenzhen University
    Nationality: China
    January 13, 2021 at 3:55 am

    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 might gravely influence the official’s political career, let alone the effectiveness of the execution of duty.

    Before proceeding further, the definition of “effectiveness” should be clarified. The primary objectives of an official duty are to guarantee the people’s safety, render convenient service to the public, and contribute to the local development. In this sense, effectiveness should be interpretated as the efficient achievement of these purposes. A highly esteemed and admired leader can readily rally his/her people, attracting support and compliance. People are more willing to accept an admired official’s political views, making it easier for the official to achieve his/her political objectives.

    However, although laudable personal qualities will facilitate effective administration, political achievements do not necessarily depend on personal moral virtues as long as the leader does not violate public benefits. In other words, it is understandable for an officer to have minor moral defects. For example, an official having an affair still deserves the reputation as effective leadership if he/she contributes to the local economics and mitigates the unemployment problem dramatically. In contrast, sometimes absolute adherence to moral ethics may be inadvisable in order to achieve effective leadership. For example, imagine a city threatened by a terrorist. If the city mayor discloses all information about the act of arresting the terrorist, the efforts will fail.

    Nevertheless, if the official breaks the public rules aligned with public benefits, he/she cannot be considered effective since the basic duty of an official is to maximize people’s interest. 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 public ethics.

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

     

    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.