Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others.Write a response in which you disc

Two points of view coexist in our society. One part of people believes that leaders ought to be highly competitive in order to succeed, at the same time the second part asserts that the key to success is leaders' willingness and ability to cooperate with others. Although at the first glance those two claims seem to be opposite, in reality the world of politics requires from leaders to compbine both characteristics.

To begin with, in our society leadership is associated with competition, in fact, leaders in all fields have to compete with each other, for instance, politicians compete for people's voices and manufacturers for people's money. The competition is consedered extremely useful for society because only the best ideas may become mainstreams through competition due to natural selection, for instance, we may take a look at production and development of cars, in the USSR where economy was planned and controlled by government there was no room for competition and Russian cars were poorly made and badly designed. At the same time, Japnese carmakers compete with European and American manufacturers and quality of their products are growing rapidly in all directions from reliablity to attractive appearance. In other words, the competition is useful tool which widely used by humanity. At the same time, competition has some limitationa, and perhps, the most serious of them is the fact that it is almost impossible to reach the desired goal without cooperation with others due to the fact that a warrior, even a great one, cannot win the war on his own.

Consequently, leaders' ability to cooperate with others is a highly desirable quality, in particular, in today's conditions. For instance, the American government was literally created in such a way that one person cannot usurp the power in his or her own and therefore all politicians on all levels have to cooperate with each other and look for compromise, for example, even the president of the United States of America has limited personal power, for instance, he cannot endorse laws but only acts which can be canceled by the successor. Moreover, the Congress has such a huge number of members that in order to make a new policy the elected officians have to find common language and sometimes even proponents who belong to competing parties cooperate with each other. At the same time, a leader who is willing to cooperate and uncapable to compete will not be able to promote his or her ideas and therefore cannot be successful.

As a result, it seems that only combination of both characteristics allows a leader to be successful and efficient in contemporary society. Moreover, a leader ought to be able to wisely combine these characteristics, for instance, we may look at the presidential elections in the United State of Amrica, each of the most promising candidates are supported by either democratic or republican party; on one hand a candidate has to be cooperative in order to be promoted by the party's members, at the same time, the one ought to compete in order to conquer other candidates within his or her own party and rivals from the other camp. This is only one example of many, in fact, the ability to combine cooperation and rivalry is required in almost all fields of humans endeavor from business to science.

In conclusion, there is an argument among people, one part avers that competitiveness is the cornerstone of leaders' success and the second part believes that ability and willingness to cooperate is the key to success in contemporary society. However, it seems that neigher of these characteristics alone cannot bring success to a person and only combining of both of them with shifting from side to side may give a leader an advantage over his or her rivals.