This does not mean that the United States is completely superior to other places in selecting leaders. In fact, world public opinion, including the country itself, has never lacked criticism or even ridicule, whether it is high campaign fundraising or dissatisfaction with candidates.
However, the well-known criticism itself shows the openness of American society and its importance in the world. Even compared with Western European countries and Japan, which are also called developed countries, the long-term political stability of the United States and the practice of selecting leaders through nationwide elections instead of internal appointments are rare even within political parties. If we consider the vast land area and diverse population composition of the United States, it is difficult to make people laugh at it completely.
The practice of selecting political leaders in the United States is not only valuable for improving government organizations around the world, but also includes various autonomous organizations, whether commercial companies or non-profit organizations.
Democrat barack obama has been elected as the next president of the United States, and the day of his inauguration on June 20th, 2009 is approaching. Although the world is undoubtedly concerned about this American election, so far, there is still little investigation and reflection on the basic problem of how public opinion chooses leaders.
In the English-speaking world, The Economist may be one of the few exceptions. This London media, with a history of 165 years, almost never talks about things, but consistently permeates its long-standing position to readers. This time, it is still reminding people not to ignore the importance of open and transparent elections to maintain the vitality of political organizations: "In the United States, ordinary members of political parties (and some independents) choose their leaders, not authority figures-this year, they overturned all political calculations and rejected the left.
Open and transparent elections ensure that the generation of new leaders is not in the hands of existing leaders, and elections themselves belong to the process of shaping new leaders. It is also one of the measures to reduce corruption that candidates regularly announce the source of fund-raising funds and the destination of expenditure according to the electoral law. As American political scholars like to say, "sunshine is the best disinfectant to eliminate political germs."
Since 1995, Transparency International, headquartered in Berlin, publishes the global corruption index every year. In 2008, the United States ranked 18 in the least corrupt list, up two places from 2007. Except Japan, which is tied for 18, it is the only country with a population of over 100 million.
However, this is not enough to elect good leaders. In the history of the world, there are also some leaders who have been pleasing but harmful for a long time, such as the German dictator Adolf Hitler. If all the candidates are similar to these people, it is not necessarily better to stand for election than not to stand for election. Such an outcome will inevitably endanger the openness and transparency of the election until the election itself is banned.
Therefore, to solve the basic problem of selecting leaders, we can't begin to pay attention to it until the election comes. By that time, the quality of candidates will not be fundamentally improved in a short time because of complaints and appeals from public opinion. By that time, the election had been held in the lower reaches of the river. To ensure good water quality, we should not only ensure the openness and transparency of the election itself endlessly, but also protect the source, upstream and coastal environment.
Previously, this series of "Let's Keep Learning" has pointed out the key role of free education in shaping various professional groups. In short, free education is not to help people learn some professional knowledge, but to let people distinguish right from wrong in various situations of life, which of course includes leaders in professional groups. Furthermore, the main reason why some people can become real leaders is that they can distinguish right from wrong better than those around them, not because of other abilities.
For leaders, the ability to distinguish right from wrong may be best reflected in their own evaluation. In history, self-righteous leaders, no matter how much they did, were mostly negative examples in the end. Of course, this is not only related to the quality of the leaders themselves, but also to the quality of all people. Self-righteousness is often praised by others This involves an extremely important question: what is the role of a leader in the crowd?
A true leader
For a long time, in people's eyes, leaders are often above others, as if leaders should or can only do so, so that people often think so about fate and even the master of heaven and earth.
However, for a long time, there has been a tradition that whoever wants to be a leader is everyone's servant and leader, not serving the audience, but serving everyone. This tradition is not considered to be due to the nobility of some people, but to listen to the call of the creator, and it is stipulated in the commandments given by the creator that this is the only image of a leader and the fundamental responsibility as a leader. Because in this tradition, the creator himself is like this. Although he is the creator, in order to save mankind, he is willing to humble himself and become a slave, not only to serve others, but also to bear the sins of mankind and even to give his life.
In places where humanism prevails, although the spirit of public servant leadership is also advocated, it is always because such advocacy is only a moral appeal rather than an order from the Supreme Master, and it is often empty talk and difficult to become a social atmosphere. In the above different traditions, although empty talk is not uncommon, the spirit of public servant leadership is not only a person's self-demand, in the final analysis, there is a more powerful force that constantly requires people to do so. As this series has already introduced, for everyone, work is not to make a living, nor to meet their own survival needs or become famous and married. It is a higher pursuit, a response to the call of the creator they believe in to live a holy life, and a "call".
The so-called sacred life is to imitate the only completely sacred creator, because people are created in the image of the creator, and being a leader is no exception. It is those who are more willing to listen to the call of the creator that can be called real leaders. In this tradition, this is the most important judgment.
Historically, Europe and North America have been most influenced by this tradition. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the so-called European civilization was gradually formed under the influence of this tradition. The source is not the Europeans themselves, but some Jews with humble social status in West Asia and Palestine. In the first half of the first century, they accepted the great mission entrusted to them by the creator they believed in. It was under this call that this group of people and their successors spread this idea to all parts of Europe.
So far, Transparency International's survey shows that the countries that are considered to be the least corrupt are still mostly from Europe and North America. This is obviously not because the people there are born with higher quality than those in other places, but because the world outlook they accepted thousands of years ago is still playing a subtle role after being passed down from generation to generation, although many people there have long dismissed this tradition.
I hope this tradition has not stopped expanding in the world. Four hundred years ago, when this tradition began to decline in Europe, those who were dissatisfied with the status quo crossed the ocean to rebuild a society in line with this world view in distant North America. Now, North America is experiencing a crisis of faith similar to that in Europe. Just like the revival of faith represented by Patrick Henry College reported in this series, some Americans are still passing this tradition on to the younger generation.
It is against this background that another aspect of western society reflects that the image of a real leader in the public mind is still serving the people rather than being above them. In the United States, nurses, doctors, soldiers, teachers and church people are usually the most trusted and respected professional groups, while businessmen and politicians are often the least trusted and respected. Since 1976, Gallup, a well-known polling agency, has conducted this survey almost every year, but in the data released at the end of this year, this situation is likely to remain unchanged.
In a society famous for its wealth and democracy, it may surprise outsiders that businessmen and politicians are not respected. However, it does reflect the long-term psychological state of American society: because of the social tradition centered on God's mission rather than individual talents, fame and fortune are still playing a role-whether it is the slogan of "resisting tyranny is obeying God" circulating in the early days of the founding of the United States or the fact that most Americans still believe in the existence of God today-the public has never reached the level of universal worship for rich and powerful people.
The media's attention to celebrities, even their pursuit, is only a corner of the American social background. Even a so-called big event like the 2008 US presidential election, if someone has personally touched this process, they will find that it is still easily submerged in the torrent of the world. Judging from the number of voters, this election was once considered to be large, but the result was less than1.300 million, accounting for only 62% of the total number of voters and less than 42% of the total population, the highest in 40 years.
However, in this disrespected political group, George Washington, who is famous for his humility and shrinking from power, and abraham lincoln, who gave his life for the abolition of slavery, are almost the most respected American presidents in all opinion polls.
As for businessmen, diligence, simplicity, humility and willingness to donate their money to society have always been indispensable qualities for some businessmen to gain respect in history, which is also the reason why Max Weber's Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism won continuous attention when discussing commercial civilization.
Obviously, few people can keep these qualities in the face of the temptation of fame and fortune, which is the same reason that political leaders are hard to be respected, especially after the rise of large enterprises since the second half of the ninth century. Lincoln was deeply worried about this before his death. He warned that the coming civil war did not destroy the United States. Money politics bred by the rise of large enterprises is the most likely-and the prevalence of investor capitalism, which pays more attention to short-term gains, made Weber's so-called Protestant ethics more and more indifferent among businessmen in the1980s.
Another consequence of this is that the business community has paid unprecedented attention to business leaders who can bring the most immediate benefits. Similar to those star candidates in politics, these star CEOs are very popular in the talent market of business leaders, but the problem is that excessive likability often does not last long. Even if we don't talk about Protestant ethics, in terms of openness and transparency, it seems that the appointment of leaders in American business organizations is far less than that of political organizations.
The internet bubble at the beginning of this century, the financial scandals of Enron and Andersen, and the recent collapse of the more serious investment banking system all show that there are many crises in American business ethics.
In 2002, Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School, published the book Searching for Corporate Savior: The Irrational Pursuit of Charming CEO, which may have been divorced from business so far. The most insightful English writing to guide people to understand this crisis from the aspects of talent market and leaders' quality, and it is this research that makes him devote himself to restoring the spiritual tradition of American business ethics to the public, that is, from high goals to mercenaries: the social change of American business schools and the unfinished oath of management as a profession, which is recommended in this series of articles.
If someone had read the works of this Indian-American scholar six years ago, he would not have been surprised by what happened on Wall Street this year. At the end of the book, the author's warning is equally applicable today: "We need to start to see through this veil and make our society more mature, self-aware and responsible."
This book has gradually attracted the attention of the business community. For example, in 2005, Justin Menkes, a consultant of Spencer Stuart, a leadership consulting firm looking for a CEO for commercial organizations, published "Executive Intelligence: What All Great Leaders Have", which quoted khurana's point of view and warned the board of directors of companies looking for a CEO not to be confused by the superficial charm of people, but to look at their judgment.
However, in any case, the social tradition centered on such academic books and higher mission rather than one's own talent and fame and fortune cannot become the mainstream of the world. If business leaders continue to ignore this point, a bigger crisis will follow.