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领导：他能完成他需要别的人完成的任务。
1. 大家不会尊重一个不可以完成他需要其他人完成的任务自己却不可以完成的领导。这是人之常情，大家一般都只能赏析和尊敬比自己出色的人，而不喜欢被一个不可以完成任务却命令自己去做的人心存敬意。比如克林顿总统当commander-in-chief 的时候，因为大家都知道他过去逃避兵役，非常自然的下级军官和士兵都不是非常尊重他。
2. 大家不信赖一个自己完不成任务却需要其他人去完成的人。仍然举克林顿总统的例子。因为他逃兵役被视为没能力，下级都对他的决策心存怀疑，这也就潜在的致使了实行上的不尽心不尽力。
3. 诚然是不是能完成自己交给其他人的任务并非衡量一个leader要紧指标。可能领导能力、,组织能力、运筹能力更为要紧，但大家不可以忽略大家心理上的怎么看，尽管它可能并不合理但它确实是存在的。
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. 诚然，假如在其领导的范围内几乎一窍不通，一个领导非常难得到下属的信赖和支持，会被看作layperson. 譬如，大家没办法想象一个不拥有任何电脑常识的人，该怎么样领导一个庞大的IT企业，譬如MICROSOFT在激烈的市场中角逐。
2. 但，这是不是意味着作为领导，需要要有能力完成每一项他需要下属做的事呢？这个问题，与领导和职员的真的用途有非常大关系！第一，领导的职责是拟定长期的进步方针，并且保证这个方针的贯彻实行，adhere to their strategic plans不被偏离。组织职员一同合作完成任务。on the other hand, 职员有哪些用途是各司其职，愈加具体的specific task.
3. 从以上两种职责不难看出，领导与职员起到significantly different functions，让领导完成每个subordinate要做的工作，unfair的。譬如，不可以blame a CEO for lacking the skills of typing。要对下属做的事有非常不错的认知，但未必都要做。不然，领导就失去了意义，成为了一个全能的工人。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.