During a term in office there are highs and lows, but what counts is that the goal is set as well as the means to achieve it, and the force we put into getting results.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.
I don't think there's any one definition, but to do effective political work you have to have vision and practicality, and learn how to persuade people that what you feel needs to be done does need to be done.
I think the main thing you measure your success by is what you do in comparison to your opposition. If you're in an industry where you're the leader, then you're performing very well.
Campaigns often make standing on principle the highest of virtues - and listening to your opponents a sure sign of weakness. It's the virtual opposite of what it takes to succeed in office. Squaring the circle takes a powerful combination of skills. But presidents who can campaign and compromise are generally the most successful.
In organizations, once you articulate how success will be measured, everybody tries to game the system so that they are measured in the best possible way.
In order to fulfill the aspirations of masses, we have to sharpen the tool called the government machinery: we have to make it keen, more dynamic, and it is in this direction that we are working.
If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success.
No matter how many goals you have achieved, you must set your sights on a higher one.
And I believe in having an administration that has clearly defined goals, objectives and time lines such that it and its people can be held accountable.
No expectations, no tension between goals and performance, no outrage, resolve or intention, no action, no results. There's only one way to get a government - and a nation - to stop drifting to low performance. That's to wake up and insist on higher standards.