????美國總統大選一天天臨近，未來幾個月，關于總統候選人的領導力孰強孰弱，時事評論人和各黨派必將唇槍舌劍，展開論戰；奧巴馬總統和米特?羅姆尼州長本人也將針鋒相對，盡全力壓倒對方。

????對選民來說，可以選擇相信他們的話，也可以選擇相信自己。如果讀者有興趣自己來判斷哪一位候選人更加優秀，不妨繼續往下讀。

????下面我們將為你介紹作為全世界最有權勢的CEO——美國總統應該具備的五項關鍵領導能力。今年秋天在收看集會和辯論以及關于選舉的媒體報道時，大家可以認真給各位候選人在以下幾個方面的表現打分：

????1. 自我認知。能干的領導一定要從真正了解和接受自己的優缺點開始。但在自我評判的時候，不論是優點還是缺點，我們本人往往是最糟糕的評判者。因此，候選人們不能“自己說了算”。相反，他們是否能夠把一些敢于直言的人團結在自己周圍，聽聽這些人實事求是地評價自己的表現，而不是光揀好聽的說？他們是否能根據反饋意見做出積極的改變？

????實際上，美國國父喬治?華盛頓并沒有歷史書中描述的那么堅定和理性。羅恩?切爾諾在他曾經獲獎的喬治?華盛頓傳記中寫道，火爆的脾氣讓華盛頓經常做出愚蠢的言行。但他有幾位值得信賴的盟友，不會讓他為所欲為。在他們的敦促下，華盛頓用了幾年時間來控制自己的脾氣。在成為美國首任總統時，他已經基本改正了缺點，而這一點對于新生的美國而言至關重要。

????2. 愿景：一個令人信服的未來愿景可以鼓舞民心，明確目標，讓每位國民、不同機構和全國上下向同一個方向努力。看一看候選人對成功的愿景。他們的愿景是什么？他們有切實可行的愿景嗎？還是說大部分只是很小的目標，或這只是競選策略而已？候選人都急于贏得選舉，往往會要求選民奉上自己的支持，但卻從來拿不出像樣的理由。

????相比之下，對于應該帶領美國走向何方，富蘭克林?D?羅斯福提出了一個決定性的愿景。在大蕭條時期最黑暗的日子里，羅斯福相信，通過平衡不受管制的工業資本主義和社會主義這兩個極端，可以為美國數十年的繁榮奠定基礎。通過羅斯福新政，他在發展與安全之間找到了一條可持續的中間路線。即使在二戰爆發之前，羅斯福依然希望美國放棄孤立主義，參與國際事務，而他在戰爭期間的領導能力重新確立了美國在全球事務中的地位。

????3. 組建團隊：頂級領導者很清楚，在如今日新月異的信息時代，沒有人全能全知。所以，他們需要組建團隊，彌補自己在知識、洞察力和經驗方面的不足。選民不妨自己思考一下，奧巴馬與羅姆尼會組建什么樣的團隊。他們最親密的同僚是否能給他們帶來新思想和豐富的背景，甚至是相左的觀點？或者，他們的思想全都高度一致？

????正如多麗絲?卡恩斯?古德溫在《政敵團隊》（Team of Rivals）中所寫的那樣，1861年，亞伯拉罕?林肯入主華盛頓的時候，既沒有位高權重的朋友，對華盛頓的政治規則也不甚了解。他完全可能像其他幾位美國總統那樣，自己摸索著孤膽前行。但他并沒有這么做，而是將一群完全不相干的政治巨頭召集在一起，組成了自己的團隊，其中甚至還包括他最大的對手。他的團隊經常很難達成共識，但毫無疑問，這個團隊集中了最老謀深算的人才。通過聽取不同意見，以及透過盡可能多的角度來看待問題，林肯極大地提高了自己的能力，在動蕩不安的內戰時期做出了周全的決策。

????4. 從錯誤中學習：判斷力是領導力的核心，而要培養判斷力，失誤不可避免。幾乎每一位美國總統都做出過糟糕的決定，所以，下一任總統也不可避免。問題在于：奧巴馬和羅姆尼能從錯誤中學到什么？他們要多久才能醒悟？更關鍵的是，他們是否愿意承認錯誤？

????很多人或許并不相信，喬治?華盛頓在戰略或戰術方面的能力并不出眾。正如大衛?麥卡洛在《1776》一書中的描述，在美國獨立戰爭早期，華盛頓有些優柔寡斷，經常犯一些令人瞠目結舌的判斷錯誤。但華盛頓的優點是異乎尋常地堅韌。而且，他還養成了一個習慣，即快速分析戰場指揮失誤，從失誤中學習，而且絕對不再犯同樣的錯誤。后來，他把這個習慣用于處理國際外交事務和對付國會，發揮了重要的作用。這也表明，作為一名領導人，必須始終不斷地自我提高。

????With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching, we will hear a lot from pundits and partisans over the next few months, not to mention President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney themselves, about how one candidate's leadership skills are superior to his opponent's.

????You can take their word for it -- or you can decide for yourself. And if you're interested in making up your own mind about which candidate is the better leader, please read on.

????Here are five crucial leadership skills for the most powerful CEO of all -- the U.S. President. As you watch the conventions and debates this fall and follow press coverage of the election, give some serious thought to how the candidates score in each of these areas:

????1. Self-awareness: Effective leadership starts with real knowledge and acceptance of our own strengths and weaknesses. And, typically, we are our own worst judges in both areas. So candidates shouldn't try to figure this out themselves. Instead, do they attract people who tell them what they need to hear about their performance, instead of what they want to hear? And do they make positive changes based on that feedback?

????George Washington was not always the soul of steadiness and reason that history books make him out to be. In fact, as Ron Chernow writes in his award-winning biography of the first president, Washington had a hair-trigger temper that could lead him to say and do foolish things. But some trusted associates wouldn't let him get away with it, and, at their urging, he worked for years to master this problem. By the time he became our first president, he had mostly corrected it, which was crucial for our country in its early years.

????2. Vision: A compelling view of the future inspires, clarifies, and focuses the work of individuals, organizations, and entire nations. Take a look at both candidates' visions of success. What are they? Do they even have one, or are their goals mostly small and tactical? In the rush to win an election, candidates can ask people to get behind an effort without ever really giving them a good reason why.

????Franklin D. Roosevelt, by contrast, had a sweeping vision of where he wanted to lead America. In the darkest days of the Great Depression, he believed that the U.S. could set the stage for decades of prosperity by balancing the extremes of unregulated industrial capitalism and socialism. He delivered the New Deal to plow a lasting middle ground between growth and security. Even before World War II, FDR also wanted the U.S. to move from isolationism to international involvement -- and his leadership through that war ultimately redefined the United States' position on the global stage.

????3. Building a team: World-class leaders know they can't be good at everything or know everything in our age of nonstop action and information. So they build teams that make up for their shortcomings in knowledge, perspective, and experience. Ask yourself what kind of teams Obama and Romney have built. Do their closest colleagues bring new ideas, varied backgrounds, and contradictory views to the table? Or do they all think alike?

????As Doris Kearns Goodwin explains in Team of Rivals, Abraham Lincoln came to Washington, D.C. in 1861 without many influential friends or even much knowledge of how politics in the city worked. He could have just blundered ahead on his own as some of our presidents have done. Instead, he pulled together a disparate set of political titans that included some of his greatest enemies. His team always struggled to stay on the same page, but there was no question it included the most experienced and astute talent available. By inviting disagreement and viewing a situation from as many angles as possible, Lincoln greatly enhanced his ability to make well-informed decisions during a gut-wrenching era of civil war.

????4. Learning from mistakes: Judgment is at the core of leadership, and developing it requires missteps. All of our presidents have made some bad decisions, as our next president will inevitably do as well. The question is: how well do Obama and Romney learn from their mistakes -- and how quickly? And, even more crucially, are they willing to admit them in the first place?

????George Washington, believe it or not, was not a man of great strategic or tactical brilliance. As David McCullough writes in 1776, he was prone to indecision and stupefying errors of judgment in the early years of the Revolutionary War. But Washington was incredibly persistent. More than that, he also made a habit of quickly examining what went wrong on the battlefield, learning from it and not letting it happen again. It was a habit that he later applied to great effect with international diplomacy and his dealings with Congress, and it meant he was always improving as a leader.