????

????還記得你以前那位無能的老板嗎？他是個大好人，但卻缺乏決斷，遇事也分不清輕重緩急?；蛟S最糟糕的是他試圖讓所有人都高興，結果是差不多所有人都不滿意，都感到困惑。還記得管理層忍了多久，最終還是請他走人了事——而這種事又有多傷人？

????當然，這時，你或許開始有些理解為什么上頭當初要重用此人，為什么這么長時間以來對他抱有希望。他曾經是銷售冠軍，是公司多年來最好的銷售人員。但最終，人們發現當初成就他輝煌個人業績的東西最終卻卻讓他成了一個平庸無能的管理者。

????職場上每時每刻都在上演類似的情節。比如，一位出色的工程師晉升至研發管理崗位、一位才華橫溢的記者晉升至編輯、一位杰出的科學家晉升為實驗室主管，等等等等。一開始是鮮花和掌聲。接著，一段時間之后，業務方向開始迷失，價值觀混淆，左右碰壁，最終一切亂成一鍋粥。

????看，在公司里，有些人確實在現有崗位上表現卓越。但他們就是沒法擔任領導職責。

????明智的公司都深知這一點。事實上，大多數公司已經從失敗中吸取了教訓：真正出色的管理者需要獨特的技巧，有時甚至是最被看好的候選人也可能根本不具備。

????但是，美國老百姓認清這個現實了嗎？

????難說，因為目前關于美國總統競選風格有很多不同的聲音?，F任總統奧巴馬以其口若懸河的演講著稱，而競爭對手米特?羅姆尼顯然并不熱衷于拋頭露面，每周都難免遭遇尷尬（甚至更糟，說錯話）的時候。

????專家們稱，奧巴馬的確深諳競選之道。羅姆尼，則不那么擅于此道。

????仿佛這就是全部。

????但這肯定并不是全部。政界和商界一樣，擅長其一（比如，借助提詞器發表精心撰寫的演講）并不一定就擅長其二（比如，領導自由世界）。

????當前，選民們需要做的是別再關心“有沒有政治演講技巧”，而是要看看競選結束后，候選人能不能成為一位更出色的總統。別再問“誰在電視上更有魅力？”，而應該問問，“誰有辦法能讓美國經濟重新運轉起來？”

????是的，在某種程度上，每個人的回答都是根據他們對從醫療保健到稅收、再到能源政策等種種議題的看法。而且這一輪選舉中意識形態的對立非常鮮明：奧巴馬支持政府集權，近乎歐洲式的社會主義，而羅姆尼則贊成去集權化，尊重各州和個人的權利，并推崇自由市場資本主義。

????

????

????Remember that incompetent boss you used to have? He was a good guy and all, but he just couldn't make decisions or prioritize. Perhaps worst of all, he tried to make everyone happy, resulting in almost everyone being angry or confused or both. And remember how long it took management to move him out -- and how aggravating that was?

????Of course, at the time, you sort of understood why the Bigs had promoted the guy in the first place, and why they held out hope for so long. He'd been a superstar salesman. Best the company had seen in ages. But in the end, it turned out that all the things that made him great as an individual performer made him lousy as a people manager.

????It happens all the time at work. A brilliant engineer promoted to run R&D. A gifted reporter elevated to editor. A cutting-edge scientist made head of the lab. First cheers. Then, after a bit, confusion about organizational direction, mixed signals about values, hurt feelings left and right and, eventually, chaos.

????Look, in business, some people can really knock it out of the park in their current jobs. They just can't lead.

????Smart companies get that reality. In fact, most have learned the hard way that actually being a great leader involves unique skills that even the most promising candidate for a leadership job simply may not possess.

????But do the American people get that reality, too?

????You have to wonder. Because there's an awful lot of noise out there right now about campaign styles. President Obama has a reputation built on his soaring oratory, while Mitt Romney, clearly no fan of crowd scenes, can't seem to get through a week without an awkward (or worse, foot-in-mouth) moment.

????The president really knows how to run for office, the pundits note. Romney -- not so much.

????As if it matters.

????It doesn't, of course. Just as in business, in politics, being very good at one job (like delivering well-written speeches from a teleprompter) doesn't necessarily make you very good at the next (like leading the free world).

????What voters need to do right now is stop focusing on stump skills, or lack thereof, and start fixating on which candidate will be the better president once the campaign is long over. They need to stop asking, "Who's more appealing on TV?" and start asking, "Who's got the right stuff to get America working again?"

????Yes, in some part, every person's answer to that question will be driven by the issues -- from healthcare to taxes to energy policy. And in this election, the ideological divide is stark indeed, with Obama supporting government centralization that borders on European-type socialism and Romney in favor of decentralization, state and individual rights and free-market capitalism.