- Watch video and take notes:MAKE A DECISION
- Many leaders have had to make extreme decisions during crisis. How do you think these decisions might have changed if leaders could make them in non-crisis situations? Give an example. [1-2 Paragraphs]
- ** Consider the different decisions leaders have had to make regarding war, epidemics, impeachments and natural disasters. In an emergency, leaders may make one decisions; given more time to explore options, their decisions may differ. Does crisis improve or detract from the decisions leaders make? [3-5 sentences]
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Post #11
Leadership Through Time:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jennifer Fuentes Avina
ReplyDeleteMr. Nunley
Digital Literacy
Period 5
11 October 2016
1. Done in class.
2. I think it would have helped people in need if they had made a decision that would help. Not just during a time of crisis. Only when something terrible big happens is when people take notice. But, in reality, bad things are always happening. And, what do they do? Nothing. Because, it hasn't effected the majority of people that would actually matter. Yet.
People always are hoping for the best and trusting their leaders. But, are they really helping them? Sending soldiers, people's children, off to war. a pointless war really. I know they are helping, but there is just too many criminal organizations. No matter which one they bring down, another will rise. Which has already happened.
3. I think it improves it, because they are aware of what is happening. They know what precautions to take. What steps. They have already seen what can happen. They can be ready for what happens after. Or, at least have an idea.
Thanh Derek Nguyen
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
10-11-16
1. DONE
2. I believe leaders will try to make a rational decision during a crisis. However if there is no crisis, then the leader or whoever is making the decision, will change their decision. A reason why the decision might change when there is no crisis is because there is nothing to worry about. When there is a crisis though then the leader will be pressured enough to make a rational decision and maybe leading to a good decision. Overall what I believe is when there is a crisis going on, the leader will make good decisions. However if there is no crisis going on, then the leader will make more poorer decisions because there is nothing on the line.
Some examples of a major crisis can be hurricane Sandy. The hurricane was so big that it wrecked many cities. Many people also died from that hurricane too. Almost 300 people had died in that hurricane alone. In times like this our country has to make the right decisions. One decisions is to send National Guard soldiers out to the area to help people that are in need. We also have to make a decision to send Red Cross over to the area and supply medical aid to people that are in need.
3. I believe that when a leader has to make a decision during a crisis, it might be a better decision. I believe this because the leader has to act on impulse and think rationally. In my opinion I think making ration decisions is smart. When you're making a decision that will affect the lives of thousand or maybe even millions, then your decisions might be better. That is why I believe making a rational decision during a crisis is smart.
Jonathan Tran
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
10/11/2016
2. I think the decisions might have been changed because of the time limit they had to make the decision. Maybe if they had more time to think about it in a non-crisis situation they would have done something different. It all really depends on the person and the situation. They could put more thought into a non-crisis situation which is really helpful. In crisis decisions the fear might affect the decision.
An example could be if a war just started and a leader made a decision to fight back head on without any plan. If it wasn't out of no where and he or she knew about they might have had a plan. They could have attacked differently maybe more stealthy. His or her decision might have been to prevent the war from even starting. One little thing could make a huge difference.
3. I think when its a crisis the decision is worse. I think that because when its not a crisis the leader has more time to think out the decision. They could put thought into it and look at the pros and cons of it. When they just make a decision real quick it doesn't have a lot of thought in it and you basically have to hope for the best. They would be more calm about because if it's a crisis they are probably freaking out trying to make a quick decision.
Denise Estrada
ReplyDeleteMr. Nunley
Digital Literacy
Period:5
11 October 2016
1) DID IN CLASSROOM
2) I think it would help people because they are making very hard decisions. I feel like when it's something really big the will notice. If it was something small they will not notice. Some people just wouldn't care because it does not affect them at all. Some people don't even try to help because they really don't care.
Some people just hope for things to improve. You should always just always treat people the way you want to be treated. Then, if you help them in moment they need help they will help you whenever you need help. Some people just help you even if you haven't helped them because they really care about you and how you're doing.You should always help people.
3) If people had more time to make decisions I feel they would make better choices because they will have time to think about it. They probably go through things that will help them make decisions. That's why you need time to make decisions even if they aren't decisions you will have time.
1)DONE
ReplyDelete2) If a leader couldn't make a decision during a crisis they shouldn't be considered a leader. Every leader has to try to be as calm as they can. For example, When Obama sent troops to Iran it was a tough decision. He didn't know if it would be the right or wrong one. It ended up being a good one because we are winning and we are in favor of winning. If he would've choked and not answered we could've been attacked.
In my life I've had to make a lot of decisions also. For me my biggest decision has been choosing to switch to my rival team. I made this decision because the rival team gave me a better offer and they've got me to where I am today. If i didn't make a decision I might have never made it to Galaxy. No one from my old team talks to me but I moved forward I didn't go back.
3) Most of the time when they make a decision like that, the decision has a positive affect. For example, hurricane Matthew just hit Florida hard. So they decided to evacuate people from Florida. If they didn't make that decision a lot of people would die. That's why I think the decisions have a positive affect.
1. DONE ON PAPER
ReplyDelete2. If big decisions were made even in a non-crisis, it would the situation change a lot. It would change it a lot because the situation might be small but you might think it is a big decision. If you think the situation is supposed to have a big decision, then it might put pressure on you and you might make a bad decision on something small. Decisions are made by leaders because something important is happening. Good leaders don't randomly make a decision, they take time to think about the what their decision is going to be.
3. I think crisis does improve the decision the leader is going to make. I think it improves it because the crisis might be a big crisis and the leader needs to think about his decision. If it were a small decision, than the leader would not put so much time into thinking about it. I also think that if the crisis was big, than the leader should be very careful and choose wisely about his decision.
1.) DONE ON PAPER
ReplyDelete2.) If leaders make extreme decisions in non-crisis situation they would be much wealthier people. It depends on the decision actually, if it's a good decision, they get wealthier. They'd be unstoppable and motivated to the max. Unless the decision was a bad one. Their mood and mentality can completely shift.
They would be going downhill very quickly. The decision they make would have their mentality at a different level they wouldn't know what to do or how to react. If the leader was a good one, and made a bad decision, they'd become a bad leader. They wouldn't be able to motivate as much, and will probably lose some of their followers. Their followers wouldn't want a leader who makes bad decisions.
3.) Crisis detracts the decisions leaders make. Reason being, they're under pressure when in a crisis and being looked up to. There's just two things that can happen when a leader is expected to make a decision and is looked up to. It can go good, or terrible. Crisis has people under pressure, so I say it detracts the decisions that leaders make.
1. WATCH VIDEO
ReplyDelete2. I think leaders and their decisions have changed the world because if they were never to go for it they wouldn't have it. I also think that if greats like MLK never choose to stand for the rights of everyone maybe the world would not be the way it is right now. Maybe slavery would have kept on going. So I do think the choices people have done have influenced our world. You can also change your own life around by making proper choices and leading yourself to the correct path and not the incorrect.
Presidents also have to make critical choices while in office. I think everyone always gets put in a position where you have to choose the correct or incorrect and sometimes you choose the correct sometimes you choose the incorrect.
3.I do think the amount of time people have to make a choice can change their answer because they can be smart about it or if in a hurry choose their first answer they see. Like if their was a tornado they would evacuate but if they had more time they would do something else. So I do think time changes someones decision.
1. DONE ON PAPER
ReplyDelete2. If big decisions were made even in a non-crisis, it would the situation change a lot. It would change it a lot because the situation might be small but you might think it is a big decision. If you think the situation is supposed to have a big decision, then it might put pressure on you and you might make a bad decision on something small. Decisions are made by leaders because something important is happening. Good leaders don't randomly make a decision, they take time to think about the what their decision is going to be.
3. I think crisis does improve the decision the leader is going to make. I think it improves it because the crisis might be a big crisis and the leader needs to think about his decision. If it were a small decision, than the leader would not put so much time into thinking about it. I also think that if the crisis was big, than the leader should be very careful and choose wisely about his decision.
1. DONE ON PAPER
ReplyDelete2. If big decisions were made even in a non-crisis, it would the situation change a lot. It would change it a lot because the situation might be small but you might think it is a big decision. If you think the situation is supposed to have a big decision, then it might put pressure on you and you might make a bad decision on something small. Decisions are made by leaders because something important is happening. Good leaders don't randomly make a decision, they take time to think about the what their decision is going to be.
3. I think crisis does improve the decision the leader is going to make. I think it improves it because the crisis might be a big crisis and the leader needs to think about his decision. If it were a small decision, than the leader would not put so much time into thinking about it. I also think that if the crisis was big, than the leader should be very careful and choose wisely about his decision.
1. DONE ON PAPER
ReplyDelete2. If big decisions were made even in a non-crisis, it would the situation change a lot. It would change it a lot because the situation might be small but you might think it is a big decision. If you think the situation is supposed to have a big decision, then it might put pressure on you and you might make a bad decision on something small. Decisions are made by leaders because something important is happening. Good leaders don't randomly make a decision, they take time to think about the what their decision is going to be.
3. I think crisis does improve the decision the leader is going to make. I think it improves it because the crisis might be a big crisis and the leader needs to think about his decision. If it were a small decision, than the leader would not put so much time into thinking about it. I also think that if the crisis was big, than the leader should be very careful and choose wisely about his decision.
1. WATCHED VIDEO !!!
ReplyDelete2. Many leaders have to make decisions during a time of crisis. If leaders were to make extreme decisions during a time of non crisis it will probably make the world better or maybe even worse depending on what is the problem that they are trying to deal with . Also the way that the leaders make these decisions because for example if they were to make these decisions during a time of crisis they will probably feel pressured vs if they were to be in a non crisis decision making enviroment they will have more time to actually think the problem through . For example if leaders or presidents were dealing with a problem regarding war and they pushed and forced to make a decision right away they will probably not think the problem through and make some mistakes . If the leaders were to have time to think the problem through the outcome will most likely be a good one .
3. In my opinion I think crisis detracts the decisions leaders make . I think this because leaders need time to think a crisis through to act upon and its very important that they do because if they do not have that time the outcome will probably not be good one . Also crisis can make a leader feel that if they mess it up with whatever decision that they make they may not want to do it again because they don't want to let anyone down.
raven gunn
ReplyDelete10-11-2016
period5
2. I think the decision would be less extreme. During the crisis their panicking, scared, and trying to make the right decision. If it wasn't during a crisis they would have time to think and plan it out. They would be calm and be able to collect their thoughts other than being in panic during a crisis. their decision could be the same but then again it couldn't.
For example, during a war. If they had time to plan everything it would be organized. Soldiers would be in their stations and ready for the enemy. Now if was during a crisis they may not be as organized. If a leader just says go fight without warning things may not turn out as well. There is a difference.
3. It detracts from the decisions leaders make. They don't have time to think and plan things out. They cant make the decision they really need to make cause they have to give it right then and there. But of course if they had more time they would be set to lead the way they want to lead.
Jaylon Booker
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
11 October 2016
|1| DONE
|2| Possibly the decisions would not have been so extreme as it would in a crisis-zone. Most of the time, certain decisions can be more harsh while under-pressure rather than having a more non-precise decision. Most of the time, while under-pressure and attempting to make a decision can be as hard as finding something to wear in the last minutes of getting something to wear going to school.
Each and every reason of making a crisis-zone decision is all about knowing how to control your inner-self. Knowing how to control your self confidence and knowing how to keep cool under-pressure. To much pressure can possible cause stress, and depression.
|3| In my personal opinion, I believe that crisis's detract from the decisions that leaders make. Because, the bigger the crisis the harsher the decision will be. Mostly because of the pressure and fear of the act of being under-pressure usually orientates around that specific topic. Without pressure, everything would be so much easier to explain and even-out.
1.Watched video
ReplyDelete2. Making choices while being a leader can take out time and energy.Especially when being in a crisis, is when a leader is giving more energy and time.Being in a less pressured position can be a way how a leader chooses between important decisions.They have a little more time to think about the change wanting to make rather than the time limit during a crisis.But if those decisions were to be taken during a time where the pressure was less,how would they have a different impact?
The same decisions that are trying to be made in a non-crisis situation could have a different change from those who were made while a crisis.For example,choosing to evacuate the town while being in a weather crisis could be different from evacuating the town from just a disease going around.They change because one of them is being done throughout a really important event which in this case is the weather crisis.They were also change in a non-crisis situation because it would give the people more time rather than rushing everyone out just like a leader in a crisis would.The decisions would have different meanings depending where and where they are being made.
3. Leaders make their decisions based on what is going on.Most of the time they make decisions that might be a little off toward what is happening around them.In my opinion, a leader can make decisions that might detract during a crisis.They can choose any way out without actually thinking twice.Just like "fear of loss" was mentioned in the video, a leader during a crisis could have a fear that might be holding the leader back from the correct choice.
2. Some decisions of major decisions create a lot of anxiety and nervousness.
ReplyDeleteMental torment. in Order to began reinvent your life. some of the decisions might be bad or g good . you got to do what you got to do.
When you determined it tells you a good leader .
3. Some leaders had to but there neck out there. Plus the leaders had to put there men in danger.
some leaders made bad decisions and some leader made bad decisions.
Different leaders are bad. Leader stand up that is good.
Peter Carrillo
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5.
11 October 2016
1. Done
2. Leader wouldn't have to do anything that extreme for the crisis. They can start talking to people and they can have a speech broadcasting about the crisis we have and explaining what they can do about the crisis and how to stop it, They d' have to do anything extreme that will get the people mad.
Everybody if they want to help the crisis will need to know how they can behave them self and control themselves. Knowing how to control themselves with pressure cam help them. They need to know what to do in situations.
3.
People need to know that we cant go to war with every country like its a game. And they need to know that natural disasters are always going to happen. But that why were always going be here for them, to help them out.
Jaivalynn Toia
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
October 11, 2016
#1) WATCHED THE VIDEO IN CLASS.
#2) Well since the leaders make the decision in a crisis situation means that the decision was very urgent and may be able to save their life, but it was urgent then it should be urgent all time. Leaders make decisions that can either benefit someone's life or destroy their life. For example, say a leader was helping a kid out a little bit and was trying to motivate them to do good in school only sometimes. Since the leader saw that the kid was failing and not trying he took action in this crisis situation but before didn't care about the kid because he didn't know that the kid was failing. Now he is trying to help the kid out because it is a crisis situation because if his parents found out they would not trust him to help the kid out anymore. Instead of caring sometimes, the leader should have been on the kid and tell him to always try and care about grades and school. This is how the leader should have took action not only in a crisis but before the crisis even began.
#3) Decisions made in a crisis depends on how much time given to the leader to make the valuable decision. The leader, being a leader, should be able to make a decision that will help and benefit the world and the people around them. Sometimes if leaders, or even people in general, are rushed and have to make decisions that may be right or wrong, they tend to not make the best decision and that causes them to fail. Sometimes leaders who have made the wrong decision before tend to not want to make the wrong decision again so they just don't bother to try, but if they want to be successful they need to try and change what they did wrong before so that they don't have a chance of failing again.
Watched video
ReplyDeleteThe extreme decisions wouldn’t be considered extreme because they already make those kind of decisions for non crisis events. Every non crisis event would be solved fast and wouldn’t take months or years. The crisis events decisions would have to be more drastic and risky if they want to solve it faster than non crisis events. If our country had to get rid of an enemy immediately. Nowadays the extreme decision would be that we will send a lot of airstrikes at their leader's location or most important resources they have. If leaders could make those decisions in non crisis events. They would probably end the enemy with nukes and big bombs. No matter the cost.
Crisis detracts the leader's decisions because they have to make a plan fast with little thinking. If they more time they would make an efficient plan that will work. But they are leaders, so they should be prepared for anything to happen, and should have a plan for everything. Since the leaders have partners, even in little time, they all should come up with a fast and efficient plan.
Victor Macedo
ReplyDeleteDigital literacy
period 5
October 11,2016
1. seen
2.I think that the leaders that took decisions in a crisis if they would take them in a non-crisis situations I think they might be more calm they would take their time to make the best decision for it.And they wouldn't have to worried a lot about that decision because when some one makes a decision with out pressure they make better decisions.If you try to make a decision with pressure you wont be able to take the best decision.
The only way on how they could be able to take does decisions was with out pressure. Other wise they wouldn't be able to make the decision because they would make the wrong decision. No one can make a good decision when it's on pressure because they cannot concentrate on what they are doing.
3.Crisis Improve the decisions the you have to make because you are worried about that crisis and it gets harder to make a decision. Crisis doesn't let anyone take the best decision but every one has to make their decision.making the decision is the only way you can take the crisis out of the way is by making that decision.
Victor Macedo
ReplyDeleteDigital literacy
period 5
October 11,2016
1. seen
2.I think that the leaders that took decisions in a crisis if they would take them in a non-crisis situations I think they might be more calm they would take their time to make the best decision for it.And they wouldn't have to worried a lot about that decision because when some one makes a decision with out pressure they make better decisions.If you try to make a decision with pressure you wont be able to take the best decision.
The only way on how they could be able to take does decisions was with out pressure. Other wise they wouldn't be able to make the decision because they would make the wrong decision. No one can make a good decision when it's on pressure because they cannot concentrate on what they are doing.
3.Crisis Improve the decisions the you have to make because you are worried about that crisis and it gets harder to make a decision. Crisis doesn't let anyone take the best decision but every one has to make their decision.making the decision is the only way you can take the crisis out of the way is by making that decision.
1. WATCH THE VIDEO
ReplyDelete2.a Many leaders have to make big decision in a time of crisis. If leaders could change crisis into non-crisis situations it would be a drastic changed. This will change in a good thing because during a time of danger when people have to make an important decision it leaves them in stress and discomfort. This is because they wouldn't know if the decision they made was right or not. So by leaving them without making any decisions and having a non-crisis situation would relieve stress and our society will be in peace without any dangers.
2.b However I disagree with this theory as well. Some reasons why is because having to make no decision from important people like the government,president etc. could make them lazy. This could lead to lack of knowledge, laziness. Eventually our society would fall apart. To conclude making decision can be good or bad depending on the situation. This goes for making no decision as well.
3. In some situations crisis can be detracted. They can also be improved. For example Barack Obama started Obama Care this improve and helped people when natural disasters occur. However when Obama went on vacation a natural disaster occurred and Obama chose not to take care of his business. This is what I think about crisis.
2. Some decisions of major decisions create a lot of anxiety and nervousness.
ReplyDeleteMental torment. in Order to began reinvent your life. some of the decisions might be bad or g good . you got to do what you got to do.
When you determined it tells you a good leader .
3. Some leaders had to but there neck out there. Plus the leaders had to put there men in danger.
some leaders made bad decisions and some leader made bad decisions.
Different leaders are bad. Leader stand up that is good.
Watched video
ReplyDeleteThe extreme decisions wouldn’t be considered extreme because they already make those kind of decisions for non crisis events. Every non crisis event would be solved fast and wouldn’t take months or years. The crisis events decisions would have to be more drastic and risky if they want to solve it faster than non crisis events. If our country had to get rid of an enemy immediately. Nowadays the extreme decision would be that we will send a lot of airstrikes at their leader's location or most important resources they have. If leaders could make those decisions in non crisis events. They would probably end the enemy with nukes and big bombs. No matter the cost.
Crisis detracts the leader's decisions because they have to make a plan fast with little thinking. If they more time they would make an efficient plan that will work. But they are leaders, so they should be prepared for anything to happen, and should have a plan for everything. Since the leaders have partners, even in little time, they all should come up with a fast and efficient plan.
Watched video
ReplyDeleteThe extreme decisions wouldn’t be considered extreme because they already make those kind of decisions for non crisis events. Every non crisis event would be solved fast and wouldn’t take months or years. The crisis events decisions would have to be more drastic and risky if they want to solve it faster than non crisis events. If our country had to get rid of an enemy immediately. Nowadays the extreme decision would be that we will send a lot of airstrikes at their leader's location or most important resources they have. If leaders could make those decisions in non crisis events. They would probably end the enemy with nukes and big bombs. No matter the cost.
Crisis detracts the leader's decisions because they have to make a plan fast with little thinking. If they more time they would make an efficient plan that will work. But they are leaders, so they should be prepared for anything to happen, and should have a plan for everything. Since the leaders have partners, even in little time, they all should come up with a fast and efficient plan.
Ismael Cervantes
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
11 October 2016
1.notes
2.Some changes have made countries stable some, not so much.For instance The French revolution was due to the extreme gap between the 1 percent and all the peasants.If the enormous change that caused thousands of aristocrats to be decapitated had never happened, who knows what the fate of the French could have been.Also the events in the real world are due to extreme decisions, we blocked Iran from any possible access to the nuclear codes because if we didn't, there would be a cataclysmic event, no one would survive the nuclear fallout.
If the changes were not made in the time of crisis, it would be highly questioned.Many decisions leaders make change countries entirely.For example, Josef Stalin's come to power with the Red army. He was cold, one of the cruelest leaders, and had made the Soviet Union rather powerful but more isolated from other countries.If it wasn't for his alliance with the Germans, he would have probably never attacked Poland. This would have been much different, if they were not in such a desperation to stay in power over Russia, if it had been Lenin's right hand man, who was supposed to be elected was placed into power, Russia would have been much more aggressive, all of the west against the Soviets. The desperation of the red army brought this all up, if it wasn't for the power hungry revolutionaries, Russia wouldn't be communist.Urgency and all the desperation caused all the changes.
3.It depends on what crisis it is for, as some can affect in disastrous ways, others can bring a nation together. Tragedies and wars can cause a country to be more united than ever for the sake of the nation to keep thriving.Same with natural disasters and epidemics. They can also split countries apart, making people more cold to one another.It depends on the way the people take the tragedy and how others feel about that.Tragedies like 9/11 and the black plague have left different effects on the countries they came from. Bubonic plague split Europe and 9/11 made America stronger and wanting more protection, we started becoming stronger in National Security.
Ismael Cervantes
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 5
11 October 2016
1.notes
2.Some changes have made countries stable some, not so much.For instance The French revolution was due to the extreme gap between the 1 percent and all the peasants.If the enormous change that caused thousands of aristocrats to be decapitated had never happened, who knows what the fate of the French could have been.Also the events in the real world are due to extreme decisions, we blocked Iran from any possible access to the nuclear codes because if we didn't, there would be a cataclysmic event, no one would survive the nuclear fallout.
If the changes were not made in the time of crisis, it would be highly questioned.Many decisions leaders make change countries entirely.For example, Josef Stalin's come to power with the Red army. He was cold, one of the cruelest leaders, and had made the Soviet Union rather powerful but more isolated from other countries.If it wasn't for his alliance with the Germans, he would have probably never attacked Poland. This would have been much different, if they were not in such a desperation to stay in power over Russia, if it had been Lenin's right hand man, who was supposed to be elected was placed into power, Russia would have been much more aggressive, all of the west against the Soviets. The desperation of the red army brought this all up, if it wasn't for the power hungry revolutionaries, Russia wouldn't be communist.Urgency and all the desperation caused all the changes.
3.It depends on what crisis it is for, as some can affect in disastrous ways, others can bring a nation together. Tragedies and wars can cause a country to be more united than ever for the sake of the nation to keep thriving.Same with natural disasters and epidemics. They can also split countries apart, making people more cold to one another.It depends on the way the people take the tragedy and how others feel about that.Tragedies like 9/11 and the black plague have left different effects on the countries they came from. Bubonic plague split Europe and 9/11 made America stronger and wanting more protection, we started becoming stronger in National Security.
1. WATCH THE VIDEO
ReplyDelete2.a Many leaders have to make big decision in a time of crisis. If leaders could change crisis into non-crisis situations it would be a drastic changed. This will change in a good thing because during a time of danger when people have to make an important decision it leaves them in stress and discomfort. This is because they wouldn't know if the decision they made was right or not. So by leaving them without making any decisions and having a non-crisis situation would relieve stress and our society will be in peace without any dangers.
2.b However I disagree with this theory as well. Some reasons why is because having to make no decision from important people like the government,president etc. could make them lazy. This could lead to lack of knowledge, laziness. Eventually our society would fall apart. To conclude making decision can be good or bad depending on the situation. This goes for making no decision as well.
3. In some situations crisis can be detracted. They can also be improved. For example Barack Obama started Obama Care this improve and helped people when natural disasters occur. However when Obama went on vacation a natural disaster occurred and Obama chose not to take care of his business. This is what I think about crisis.
2.In a time of crisis leaders have to make a decision,but he or she doesn't know if they made the right decision or bad decision.It will make the leader nervous and worried if he made the right decision.The leader is worried about what the people might think about the decision.If it was a non-crisis situation the leader would calm and can think about making a decision.The leader can see things in a different perspective.The leader is likely to make a good decision.
ReplyDelete3.I think its both because in a time when it's chaotic it can make the leader nervous and that can detract the leader.The leader might make the wrong decision.If the leader was focused on what he or she is doing the leader would make a decision based on what's going on and improve his or her decision.
2.In a time of crisis leaders have to make a decision,but he or she doesn't know if they made the right decision or bad decision.It will make the leader nervous and worried if he made the right decision.The leader is worried about what the people might think about the decision.If it was a non-crisis situation the leader would calm and can think about making a decision.The leader can see things in a different perspective.The leader is likely to make a good decision.
ReplyDelete3.I think its both because in a time when it's chaotic it can make the leader nervous and that can detract the leader.The leader might make the wrong decision.If the leader was focused on what he or she is doing the leader would make a decision based on what's going on and improve his or her decision.
1). watched video
ReplyDelete2). In many cases leaders are in charge of making difficult decisions, in some cases we wonder if the case had not been a crisis would their decision have changed. Many times leaders are under pressure when making decisions, especially when the decision has little to no time to be made. I believe that if leaders had more time and the case was non emergent it might effect their decision. When people are rushed it limits their time to think about the effects of their possible decision and might choose something that might only momentarily solve the issue. If the case was a non-crisis case they could possibly have more time to think their decisions through and ultimately find the decision with the best possible long-term outcomes.
An example of a the effect on the leader of a non-crisis case versus a crisis case. In a non crisis case they might rush and not think things through. Their answer might be a split but only for the moment. The effect of this decision could have a long term effect. Ultimately it's always best to have more time to make choices.
3). Leaders are in charge of making important decisions that could ultimately have a negative outcome. If leaders had more time it could improve their decision making skills. Having a little amount of time puts pressure on the leader and doesn't give them time to think about the effects of their decision or plan anything out. On the other hand having less time can encourage them to make bolder moves which could help the outcome. The bad thing about the bold decision is that if it does not go as planned it could negatively impact the situation.
Zandalee Palacios
ReplyDeletePer.5
Digital Literacy
10/13/16
2. I believe many leaders make extreme decisions during crisis. I think leaders who make decisions in a non-crisis situation make poorer decisions. I beleive this because they have nothing to worry about and just make a random decision. However if they make a decision on a extreme crisis they have to put more thought into it. And they feel pressured so they try to come up with a really good decision.
For example, at a war a leader has to feel presured when he knows someone is going to attack them so he can come up with a good plan. But if he doesn't worry about it he won't be prepared for what he will do. The leader has to feel presured and think what could happen to them if they don't come up with a decision. He has to think what will happen in the future and that will help him come up with a plan. This is why I believe leaders make better decision in a crisis situation.
3. Many people have different opinions about if the decision is better when there is a crisis and when there is not a crisis. In my opinion I believe crisis improves a leaders decision. I believe this because when there is a crisis leaders have to act quick and think what is the better decision. For example, if it has to do with saving people's lives, that will impulse them to make a better decision because they want to save them. This is my opinion why I think crisis improves a leaders decision.
ReplyDelete1.) if leaders can make extreme decisions and change things they you wouldn't need to work hard.When you grind and make your own decisions. It may not work you will get tired and fail a few times but that will make you better and make you deal better.When you fail get back up and try again it will come to you after hard work.
Leaders and everyone else decision would change because they see someone who is a leader work and grind all day.Other people would want to be like them,and also do what they are doing. Leaders would change people idea and would help them out.When leaders have the tone set everyone works hard to get to the top of the level they com peat to be the better person.
3.) I believe been a leader would motarvate others to do better and follow what I do so they can be like me .i spent up and become a leader in football because I have a lot of experience from playing about nine years and everyone else hasn't played at all or not that long.i want a team that becomes a better team work together and follow a leader that is helping them out not bringing them down. A leader helps out bring there team up when they are doing bad so I help them out an say they could do it even if we down. I like helping and becoming a leader and help others out not just my self.