- 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)
1) Video/Notes
ReplyDelete2) A decision might change to a leader if the situation was harmless. For example, one important decision that the Americans want freedom from the British. They had to decide if they were ready to battle the British for america's freedom. However the situation might a been different if the Americans and the British work it out in a meeting. It would have been a different era of history since the Americans and the British would solve the problem by explaining it to each other and no war or violence. That how a decision might change if the situation was solve in a reasonable and nonviolence matter.
3) A crisis can change a leader decision in problem. If the problem is big like war or taxes issues then the government will take action in the problem. If the problem is small like a fundraising or simple taxes issues then the people will decide how to solve the problem. That how a crisis can change a leader decision in a problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaily Writing #18
ReplyDelete1.) - ( VIDEO )
2.) - If leaders made extreme decisions in non-crisis situations, then it would be unnecessary. Sometimes, you don’t need to make wild decisions on something that does not mean a lot. It all just depends on the situation. For example, the Civil War. The Confederate and the Union live in the same country, yet they were n0ot friendly towards one another. They made the decision of going to war, which would then later be one of the biggest wars fought in America’s history. It would have changed if the Confederate and the Union made the decision to work things out and become allies. That is at least one example of how an extreme decision was made in a non-crisis situation.
3.) - It just depends. It depends on the situation and the leader. Depending on the crisis itself, it could improve and/or detract from the decisions the leader makes. And depending on the leader, they could be either quite sure about their decision or they hold out for options. They either take in action or they make plans. Like the video said, “Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen.” It all just depends on the crisis itself, and how the leader works.
One way these decisions could have changed in none crisis situations is mind set. We have a different mind set in critical thinking. And when we have to make fast decisions we tend to go with the fastest and easier solution. If we had a better mind set then maybe the decision could have been made better. And the decision itself would have been better.
ReplyDeleteAnother way it could have changed was time. If the decision was made based on crunch time and the product of that decision was crappy then the decision was crappy. Timing in cretin situations have a lot to do with everything. Its the time they took thinking to the time they took doing. Its all in perception on how well they did quick thinking and did they get the results they wanted. The decision to take time and do properly or to wait and crunch everything together and face consequences of a bad decision.
Crisis does detract decisions leaders make. Its because they dont have a verity of good options and if so not good ones. If making day to day decisions are hard crisis decisions are empecably difficult. Thats why crisis decisions detract decisions leaders make.
1. on paper
ReplyDelete2.These decisions could change if leaders made them in non crisis situations because they/leaders would have more time to think and fully process what they are about to do and have planned already what they want to do and have imagined what will happen in cause of that decision. It can help to be more prepared with more time. Leaders are tend to be more prepared when it comes to making decisions but it does still stress and having more time to make decisions would help tremendosly.
3.i Believe that having less time and in a crisis detacts from the leaders decision because, in these situations the leaders are not really focusing on on the decisions they have to make but focusing on that you have to make that decision quick, i cant think to long, quick quick quick it does't give proper time to actually procsess and think about everything that is happening.
2) Everything that leaders decide will not be easy. It may affect a person thy care about or know, and it might also make another person happy. But the leader makes what is best of him/her. We all have to understand that life is not easy, that's why anything we do we should always do our best. If we don't then someone will take your spot and they will work harder them you because he worked harder then you. That's why we all need to grind and work hard.
ReplyDeleteFor example say that the best football player in someones team did never show up to practice and only showed up to the games.Then the football coach will be up set and mad so he might kick him out the team and another person who always shows up to practice and works hard and handles his businesses, that guy will take the other guys spot because he grinder and worked more hard then he did.
3) A crisis can have a bad or good impact on the decision he/her will make. That is why the leader will make the decision and he will make a good decision. For example say there was a fight and a leader saw it he should run to it and try to break the fight so he can make it better that's why being a leader you have to make some really good decisions.
1. Notes/video
ReplyDelete2. A decision can change a leader in many ways. An example can be if a person wants to bulk up he or she has to make a decision on what to do. If he either eats better or works out or does nothing. If he just eats healthier he may or most likely not have the same results as a person who exercise and he might just loss weight. If that person decides to work out but does not eat that healthy he might just gain weight or gain muscle that you cant see because the person has fat over them. Though if that person does both eating healthy and working out with a balanced program he will have better results because he made the best decision in that setting.
if a teacher wants to have better students that teacher must make a decision. If the teacher will educate them and input a lot of energy to inspire the students. If the teacher wants them to be more kind instead of rude she can do that and work on it. The teacher can be smart and make something in which involves both factors and that would be a good decision.
3. A crisis can have a good impact or a bad impact. If the leader just takes a random decision it could be negative. But if the leader analyzes real and think of the benefits and non benefits of that decision it would be better. Sometimes they must think on what if i do this what will happen. After they realize what is the best option they see the one that helps the most and injures the less and that is the best.
2. How these decisions would change if they were in non-crisis situations are that the decision might be planned very slightly and might have flaws. If you are in a crisis you have to act quickly. But if you are not in a crisis you can think about the decision more. To make good decisions in a crisis you need to work well under pressure. So if you have to make a decision it is better in a non-crisis situation.
ReplyDeleteFor example my dad does horrible under pressure. When he has to do something he panics. He asks everyone for insight and runs around. When you are under pressure you think too much on other things. When your thoughts are scattered it is harder to focus on making a good decision. This is why decisions would change depending on a crisis.
3. Crisis' lower the success rate of decisions because you have to think quickly and the outcome would either raise you up, or destroy you. Sometimes people overthink and choose the wrong thing. But if you have time you can really think to yourself, " Should I really do this." Given time helps you tremendously and if it is the right decision or not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.These decisions might change a leader if they can make them into nun-crisis situations by the leaders changing the plan so it wont affect the other people in a crisis way.The leaders would change there "Game Plan" so it wouldn't be a crisis situation. A example would be my dad he works in a very dangers place where the use knife cutters and they use sharp and dangerous stuff.He was always very protective and he know he works in a crisis place.Also my uncle he is a house con structure and there are so many dangerous tools and the knows the place is crisi so he is very cautious.
ReplyDelete2.Crisis does affect and improve the decisions our leaders make. It improves it by making the plan less dangerous and less panicking.If i would affect the plans our leaders make then there wouldn't be as much panicking as there is in the world.
Ana Munoz
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 7
11 October 2016
1. Done
2. Many leaders, when in a crisis, make extreme decisions. The situations they are in can have a big effect on the decisions they make. They are more pressured, and desperate to make a decision. They take a big risk while making decisions this way. The decisions they make can either worsen the dilemma they are facing, or resolve it.
If the leaders had to make similar decisions in different circumstances, their decisions may change. They will change because their decisions make will be more thought-out and the person will be aware of the consequences of each decision made. For example, a leader might be surprised with a question that he is not prepared to answer, so they have to quickly make a decision. If they say the wrong thing, their career may be jeopardized. However, if they had to make a similar decision in a different situation where they are more prepared, they will be able to reply confidently, knowing what the outcome of their response will be.
3. Leaders everywhere have had to make critical decisions regarding important topics, like war and natural disasters. Often times they will be put in a situation where they do not have much time to make an accurate decision. Crisis can detract from the decisions made. For example, if a person were in a crisis, they will have to make decisions in short amounts of time, which can detract from those decisions. They will not be fully aware of what will happen. However, if a person had more time, they would be aware of the effects, but at the same time they may be influenced by others or biased, and become indecisive.
1.) Video and Notes
ReplyDelete2.) These decisions could of changed if you make them yourself. Don't let other people make your decisions. For example, I didn't know what decide between going to the movies with my friends or going to dinner with my family. I told my brother "Where should I go?" He told me that I had to make my own decisions and not letting others decide for you. So I decided to go with my family to dinner.
3.) The leaders have to decide if the problem is big or not. If the problem is big its going to be very difficult to decide on and may lead a war. If the problem is small it's going to be easier to decide and may fix your problems.
Johnathon Peels
ReplyDeleteDigital Literacy
Period 7
October 11 2016
1. Video and Notes
2.
I think each person is different . For example, Hillary and Trump. Lets say their is a terrorist threat going on. Hillary might just send troops and Trump might go to war with that country. Everyone has their own decision about something.
Non- Crisis are easier to handle because there is less pressure on you. They are easier to handle. Crisis is way different from non-crisis. A crisis could be a life or death. You have to make 1 decision and stick to it. A leader will have an easier time with a non-crisis situation.
3. In my opinion it could be both good and bad for a leader. It may be good and improve his level of handling situations because it can teach responsibility. It also helps decision making. It can not because a leader might feel too much pressure and just crumble. Some people can handle pressure and some just can not.
2) I think that it all comes down on the leaders themselves. While an individual is remaining calm under pressure, another is overwhelmed and jumps to rash and unfinished thoughts. However, I think that in non-crisis situations, a leader would definitely have a different decision.Some factors that led me to conclude to this is time and the impact of that decision. When you have more time to think about things, a person is able to thoroughly analyze and come up with good decisions. If the leader is in a crisis situation, then the leader will not have time to truly think about their decisions because of stress.
ReplyDeleteFor example,suppose that a leader is controlling an enormous group of people and are experiencing a severe hurricane. There are several injured, many remain in the impacted areas, and to finish their food supply is running low. People begin to worry about the spaces left for the injured and whether or not there is enough for to last for any longer. In this situation, the leader is most likely experiencing a lot of stress and thinking of the quickest solution to solve these two major problems. After a short while of thinking, the leader concludes that they will ration out the amount of food left, and to only let those with a higher probability of surpassing their injuries into the hospital. Even though the leader knows that a wave of disapproval is soon approaching, he knows that a decision has to be made soon. If the leader had more time and less stress,the leader may have been able to make a more effective solution.
3) I think that crisis detracts the decisions that leaders make. Even though a leader is supposed to be a problem-solver, it might change because of the crisis at hand. Not everyone has experienced or has truly felt the impact of these major issues. When you actually are living in it, and not reading and watching a video about it, it changes you. Being inexperienced or not being able to cope with the stress of these situations strengthens the fear of failure and disappointment.
1. Video and Notes
ReplyDelete2. Leaders make extreme decisions when in a crisis. There are some ways those decisions made can end up being altered in a non-crisis situation. It depends on how severe the crisis is. If we were to engage in war, leaders choose to fight back. If we weren't in war though, leaders would more likely either step away from theirs enemies or at least attempt to be allies.
Decisions are really situational and depends on how the crisis or situation is. Most leaders work to prevent any crises and know what decisions to make when there is one. The only alteration to any crisis related situation when there is no crisis is doing the opposite of it. An example would be making allies instead of fighting in war.
3. I believe that crisis improves a leader's decision. I say this because leaders can get more focused on their thinking as disaster approaches. They can react quickly and think more wisely than a non-crisis situation. On the downside, some leaders can get negatively affected by the type of crisis. In conclusion, I believe that crisis improves a leader's decision, but it really depends on the leader and type of crisis.
1. Video and Notes
ReplyDelete2. Leaders make extreme decisions when in a crisis. There are some ways those decisions made can end up being altered in a non-crisis situation. It depends on how severe the crisis is. If we were to engage in war, leaders choose to fight back. If we weren't in war though, leaders would more likely either step away from theirs enemies or at least attempt to be allies.
Decisions are really situational and depends on how the crisis or situation is. Most leaders work to prevent any crises and know what decisions to make when there is one. The only alteration to any crisis related situation when there is no crisis is doing the opposite of it. An example would be making allies instead of fighting in war.
3. I believe that crisis improves a leader's decision. I say this because leaders can get more focused on their thinking as disaster approaches. They can react quickly and think more wisely than a non-crisis situation. On the downside, some leaders can get negatively affected by the type of crisis. In conclusion, I believe that crisis improves a leader's decision, but it really depends on the leader and type of crisis.
1. NOTES
ReplyDelete2. These decisions might've changed because lets say there was a fire. The kids were making the fire bigger instead of doing the same thing you could probably call the firefighters or at least help divert the crisis.During a crisis you have to make a great decisions. Maybe that decisions save a families life or saved one of your friends that why making decisions is very important now days. Maybe if you would've never made a decision and just watched everything happen probably someone got hurt or something real bad happened.
3.I believe that crisis reduces decisions that the leader has to make. It reduces the decisions of the leader because when you make a good decision it probably could knockout other crisis that were in the way.In order to make a difference you have to make a decision.Some leaders in the past have not made decisions because they were going to loose there followers like some athletes hide there secrets from there followers because they are afraid of loosing them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Video
ReplyDelete2. If leaders had been given a non-crisis situation, they might have reacted differently in the aspect that they wouldn't worry as much about the situation and they wouldn't have gone through a lot more effort to overcome the situation. I think that if leaders were given that option of not having to treat them as crisis situations, they would have also slacked off and not done much to prevent anything from happening. What this means basically is that people don't put much effort into what they're doing if it doesn't affect them or what they do greatly. People won't bother on doing smaller things because they don't think those kinds of things will really matter since they're not as meaningful as other things that might affect them more. An example can be the presidential election this year, where we can count as the leader. We worry about who will be president because whoever becomes president will be the person who is in charge of the country. They will determine all kinds of laws, and rules. However if it wasn't that big of a deal, we wouldn't care about who become the president.
3. Crisis can improve or detract the decisions leaders make. It really depends on the personality of a person, for example, if someone works well under pressure then they'll probably make good decisions. However, if someone is very impulsive and gets nervous under pressure, their decisions might not be very wise or helpful. Most of the time though, being in a crisis will make a person feel like they need to do something imminently to change or fix something, which will result in bad choices.
1. I think that the decisions that leaders take in non crisis situations are different from crisis situations in many ways. One way how they are different is because in moments of crisis, you usually have to think quick and make up a decision. The decision you take may be fatal or the best decision ever but what makes it iffy is that you have not fully thought out the outcomes of it. While in a non crisis situation you get to fully think and analyze the outcome and the main purpose of it all.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this is when you take a decision in cutting down a tree from your backyard. When it is not a crisis you get to think whether or not you should even cut down the tree. Since my dad is the leader, he decides whether the tree should be cut or not. It would be a good idea because it gives you more room for your garden and you would not have leaves surrounding the grass. It would be a bad idea to do so because the tree can actually be useful. You can get fruits out of it and it would be good for the environment. Also after you cut it you have to deal with the tree trunk and fallen branches. It would be harder to clear up a mess after. In conclusion, these were the reasons why the non crisis to crisis situations that leaders take are different.
2. This crisis detracts from the decisions leaders make. It detracts because it gives the decision a higher risk of failing. In emergencies, when you are exploring the options it gives you a further understanding of the decision that you need to take. In a crisis though, the decision has to be quick or else it can result into an even larger problem. Doing that will result in more decisions to take and a much less time to decide.
1.The decisions might change in a non-crisis situation because they have more time to decide the right choice.If the decision is not too important they won't worry about it.And also that gives them time to discuss the issue with other people.Since leaders need a advice from other people to be a great leader.The decision would've more well though to benefit the people.If they wouldn't have enough time to decide leaders could not think of a good decision because they have a time frame to make the decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if you tell a little kid that they have a time frame on deciding which toy they will play with for recess.The will start panicking on which toy they could use.The start holding onto other toys hoping to decide quickly on what toy they want.In their panicking stage they don't notice the condition of the toys.And the choose a broken toy,but then regret it for not choosing a better toy.When people have a time frame they will often not notice on the decisions they make and choose a random decision without improvising it first.
2.I believe it does not affect the decisions because some leaders are often in a crisis in a difficult environment.Some leaders know how to choose the good decisions in bad crisis.While others don't know how to face it because they never experienced a crisis before.Some leaders don't make decisions at all for the fear of failing their people.But it's important to make a decision because if you don't people won't trust you as a leader.
2. They probably wouldn't have made a decision because it wasn't something that they had to do. If something is urgent someone is most likely to do it. For example, if you have to make a decision right then and there you make it. If you have time to make a decision you take longer or end up not making a decision at all. If a leader didn't have to make a decisions urgent they probably would've made a different decision. The leader probably would've made a bad decision.
ReplyDeleteThe leader would've made a bad decision because they would have the time to overthink. When you overthink you usually end up not making a decision at all. Making a decision on the spot helps because you don't have the time to overthink about it. When your only option is to make a decision you make it. So, if a leader makes a decision on the spot it would've been a different decision if they had time.
3. It depends on the decision the leader makes in the crisis. For example, if a leader makes a decision urgently it will make a difference whether it's positive or negative. I believe that the decision will be positive because making a decision is better than making no decision. Although since the leader doesn't have enough time to think about the decision, the act of making the decision will be an effort. So, making a decision is a positive effect on the situation because it is better than making no decision.
2. If a leader were to make an extreme decision in a crisis, compared to a decision in a non crisis situation, is would be different because the decision would be more thought out. Say you left a candle burning in your house. Then your dog is playing around at night and knocks the candle over. Not only does wax get everywhere, but the flames do too. So you and your mom are awoken from your sleep because of the smoke. This is a major crisis because you house is now burning down. As your mom being the leader of your house, she makes the decision to grab those important papers in that special folder. She gets your little brother from his crib and his diaper bag. Your family makes it out just before the house collapse on you. Your mom had to think fast and save only the valuable things.
ReplyDeleteNow let’s say that this wasn’t a major crisis. For example, it’s the middle of the day and everyone in your family is at home. You have a candle burning in your bathroom to get rid of that fresh bleach smell because you just cleaned it. Then, your dog is playing in the house, and knocks the candle over. Your family is in the next room. Since they are awake and alert, they hear the crash sound and run to the bathroom. So your mom turns on the shower and sprays the flames going up the wall. She cleans up the wax and the glass and the soot on the wall. This is a decision she made that was not a crisis because she had time to resolve the situation.
3. A crisis can detract from the decision because in a state of panic you don’t have time to sit down and think. You just think of something that will fix the problem and you act on it. You don’t think about the repercussion or what will happen after the decision you made. Say Korea declares war on the USA tomorrow afternoon and then all of a sudden, we see bombs and missiles shoot across the sky. At this point, Obama wouldn’t have time to recruit soldiers and send them on a boat or plane or jet to Korea and fight back. He would have to do something now that would save the american people. Now, whether this decision is a smart one or not, he didn't have the time to sit back with his staff and come up with a plan, he has to do something spur of the moment. And because of this the aftermath could be great, or it could be fatal.
1. (Video)
ReplyDelete2. If a leader were to be able to make a crisis situation non-crisis their decisions might be changed because they would actually be able to stop and think about it. Many leaders make decisions that don't sense because they don't put thought into it. Sometimes leaders have no choice but to commit actions due to the fact that the crisis might be extremely bad and they have no time to process it through.
For example, my sister and little brother always tend to argue and fight. My mom then has to either yell or threaten them into taking their electronics away. But if she could make it non-crisis she could separate them and keep them away from each other. Also, she could tell them in advance about the consequences.
3. Crisis detract the decisions leaders make. They detract them because they limit their thinking time. By that I mean that they act without thinking whether it was a right thing or wrong thing to do. Also, that could ruin their reputations because their decision could have not been useful, leaders should have plans before things occur because that's what leaders do they do things in advanced.
1. VIDEO
ReplyDelete2. Many leaders are where they are because there decisions led them there. Great decisions to me is a great life as well because you took time to see what you wanted to do. Leaders see the outcomes in everything so that's why they take there decisions seriously because if they don't that will effect them harshly. People sometimes like to complicate things when in reality it can be done in two simple steps. i believe that a leader can make great decisions for others in a crisis if people don't rush them. Leaders need time to think of there decisions and their actions before a big decision.
When its in time of a crisis i think leaders make poor decisions. I say that because i think there overwhelmed they cant think straight because there rushed to make a decision. People expect leaders to know what to do at the moment if something happens because they expect more from them. If leaders cant make up a decision somebody else will and that can effect them too because the decision somebody else made can affect people and the leaders as well. It can affect them in a positive way or in a negative way either or. For example in a life and death situation you are question if we should try our best to escape the fire ( your trapped ) or just stay and die. For example, You cant make a decision for everybody because everyone can have different views on the situation so you back out. That's when somebody tries to take over and make decision, as i said before in this situation it can go either or... good or bad.
3. During a crisis, natural disasters, war, or in a emergency i think leaders decisions are made poorly. As i said before i believe that leaders are force to make a decision right there at an instant but of course the decision has to be fast. Given more time i do believe that leaders will make better decisions. I think they will make better decisions because they have more time to think about what the outcomes has to them and see the negatives and the positive. Over all i do believe that leaders can sill make a good decision no matter the time there given to make one.
1. I think that the decision would change because now the know that there won't be too much consequences to pay for. In non crisis the wouldn't consider the decision that much as they would in a crisis situation because so much anxiety would build up in them that would make them go crazy. But in a non crisis situation would no anxiety and no hard feeling the wouldn't actually mind making a decision that would result in something terrible. Sometimes in a non crisis situation the wouldn't even consider making a situation at all.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a fireman goes to a house in fire they get everybody out safely but then suddenly one woman screams about there child still in the house. Now the fireman has to make a decision, putting his life on the line to go get the baby or just let the baby die in the fire. Because this is a crisis situation he has to make a fast decision because the more time he wastes the more the child suffers.
2. Sometimes crisis improve a leaders decision because now the know how important it is to make a decision and also because the decision that the make might save someone else life. Sometimes it detracts from their decision because the might make a terrible decision that would change their whole life. That's it is important to consider the decision before making it and also think about the consequences before choosing that decision. It is important to make a decision in crisis situation because sometimes someone life might be on the line. A non crisis is good because now you that you have time to think your decision over before making it because whatever decision you make will effect you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. I think that leaders would act differently in a non-crisis situation because it is not as big as a crisis situation. For example when blacks couldn't go any places that whites went to. They had signs up that said ," Blacks only," and,"Whites only". But that changed when a women named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and fanned the flames of the civil right movement.
ReplyDeleteFor a non-crisis situation they would act different because pressure would not be as heave because result would not matter as much. For example Rosa parks giving up her seat on the bus with out civil right movement. After what happened to Rosa parks blacks stopped riding the bus so the only people riding the bus was whites.
3. It depend on what decision it is. For example in Brazil president Fernando Collor De Mello the 32nd president of Brazil was impeached due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation. He resigned before the Brazilian Congress could do anything.Then they opened a case on Fernando so vice president Michel Temer stepped up and became acting president. If he had made better choices he wouldn't have be impeached.