appointive

简明释义

英[əˈpɔɪntɪv]美[əˈpɔɪntɪv]

adj. 任命的；委派的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Concentrative accounting system is one of the basic forms of accounting appointive system.

会计集中核算是会计委派制的基本形式之一，各地已逐步推开。

2.Concentrative accounting system is one of the basic forms of accounting appointive system. It has been carried out gradually everywhere.

会计集中核算是会计委派制的基本形式之一，各地已逐步推开。

3.Concentrative accounting system is one of the basic forms of accounting appointive system. It has been carried out gradually everywhere.

会计集中核算是会计委派制的基本形式之一，各地已逐步推开。

4.The committee is responsible for filling all appointive 任命的 positions within the organization.

委员会负责填补组织内所有任命的职位。

5.He was chosen for an appointive 任命的 role in the local government due to his extensive experience.

由于他的丰富经验，他被选为地方政府的一个任命的角色。

6.She held an appointive 任命的 position as the chief financial officer for five years.

她担任首席财务官的任命的职位已有五年。

7.The board of directors has the authority to make appointive 任命的 decisions regarding senior management.

董事会有权对高级管理层作出任命的决定。

8.The appointive 任命的 nature of the position requires a thorough vetting process.

该职位的任命的性质需要经过严格的审查过程。

作文

In the realm of governance and organizational structure, the term appointive refers to positions or roles that are filled by appointment rather than through election or other forms of selection. This distinction is crucial in understanding how different systems operate and the implications of such appointments on leadership and accountability. For instance, in many governmental systems, certain positions, such as judges or cabinet members, are appointive. These individuals are selected by a higher authority, often the president or prime minister, and their roles are essential in maintaining the functionality of the government. The appointive nature of these positions can lead to debates about the merits and drawbacks of such a system. On one hand, appointive roles can ensure that qualified individuals are placed in positions of power based on their expertise and experience, rather than their ability to campaign or garner public support. This can lead to more informed decision-making and effective governance. For example, a highly skilled economist may be appointed as the finance minister due to their extensive knowledge, which is vital for economic policy-making.However, the appointive process also raises concerns about transparency and accountability. When individuals are appointed rather than elected, there can be a disconnect between the leaders and the electorate. Citizens may feel that they have less influence over who holds these powerful positions, leading to questions about the legitimacy of their authority. Furthermore, the potential for nepotism and favoritism can undermine the integrity of the appointive process. If leaders appoint friends or allies instead of the most qualified candidates, it can result in poor governance and a lack of trust in public institutions.To illustrate the complexities surrounding appointive positions, let us consider a hypothetical scenario in a local government. Imagine a city council where the mayor has the power to appoint various department heads. If the mayor prioritizes loyalty over competence, we might see unqualified individuals in key positions, such as the head of public safety or the director of housing. This could lead to ineffective policies and a decline in public services, ultimately harming the community. Conversely, if the mayor takes a thoughtful approach to the appointive process, seeking out experienced professionals, the city could benefit from improved services and enhanced public trust.In conclusion, the concept of appointive positions plays a significant role in shaping governance structures. While there are advantages to having qualified individuals in key roles, the potential pitfalls must be addressed to ensure accountability and transparency. As citizens, it is essential to remain vigilant and engaged in discussions about how our leaders are chosen, whether through appointive means or otherwise. Understanding the implications of these processes can empower us to advocate for better governance and more representative leadership in our communities. Ultimately, the effectiveness of appointive roles hinges on the commitment of those in power to act in the best interests of the public they serve.

在治理和组织结构的领域中，术语appointive指的是通过任命而不是通过选举或其他形式的选择来填补的职位或角色。这一区别对于理解不同系统如何运作以及这种任命对领导力和问责制的影响至关重要。例如，在许多政府系统中，某些职位，如法官或内阁成员，是appointive的。这些个人由更高的权威（通常是总统或总理）选定，他们的角色在维持政府功能方面至关重要。这些职位的appointive性质可能引发关于这种制度优缺点的辩论。一方面，appointive角色可以确保合格的个人根据他们的专业知识和经验被任命到权力位置，而不是他们的竞选能力或获得公众支持的能力。这可以导致更明智的决策和有效的治理。例如，一位高度熟练的经济学家可能因其广泛的知识而被任命为财政部长，这对经济政策的制定至关重要。然而，appointive过程也引发了关于透明度和问责制的担忧。当个人被任命而不是选举时，领导者与选民之间可能会出现脱节。公民可能会感到他们对这些强大职位的持有者的影响力较小，从而对其权威的合法性产生质疑。此外，任人唯亲和偏袒的潜在可能性可能会破坏appointive过程的完整性。如果领导者任命朋友或盟友而不是最合格的候选人，可能会导致治理不善和对公共机构的信任缺失。为了说明围绕appointive职位的复杂性，让我们考虑一个假设场景：在地方政府中，市长有权任命各个部门的负责人。如果市长优先考虑忠诚而非能力，我们可能会看到在关键职位上，如公共安全局长或住房局长，出现不合格的个人。这可能导致政策无效和公共服务下降，最终损害社区。相反，如果市长对appointive过程采取深思熟虑的方法，寻求经验丰富的专业人士，该市可能会从改善服务和增强公众信任中受益。总之，appointive职位的概念在塑造治理结构中发挥着重要作用。虽然在关键角色中拥有合格的个人有其优势，但必须解决潜在的陷阱，以确保问责制和透明度。作为公民，保持警惕并参与关于我们的领导者如何被选出的讨论是至关重要的，无论是通过appointive方式还是其他方式。理解这些过程的影响可以使我们有能力倡导更好的治理和更具代表性的领导力。最终，appointive角色的有效性取决于那些掌权者是否致力于以他们所服务的公众的最佳利益行事。