1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to be a member of a group than to be the leader of a group. ======================================================================= For the sake of effectiveness, all kinds of group are mostly formed with a policymaker, who we call a leader. Generally, leaders manage the decision-making affairs, while the members practice them. Both of them play crucial roles in a group, but there are still some differences, which make me agree with the statement “It is better to be a member than to be a leader of a group.” The first difference is that leaders are considered to make decisions. Although in a democratic organizations, most decisions are based on the common consensus of all. However, according to the psychological theory “ Duty Diffusing Effect”, the more the members are, the less the responsibility is for everyone. Consequentially, leaders are expected to make the final decisions by themselves. Due to the first reason mentioned above, the second difference is obvious that leaders are in charge of the success or loss. That is to say, merits and demerits are mostly attributed to them in accordance with whether the policy works. Leaders have to support their policies with persuasive viewpoints, even if others do not bring up any ideas. In addition, leaders have the duty to ensure the group to run smoothly. Take some frequent situations for example: First, they have to break the ice if there is lack of responses. Second, in case of quarrel, it is unshirkable for leaders to play the negotiators. Third, the time-management is also a significant work for them to stop members from sidetracking. To sum up, leaders have much burden than members of a group. They are the last ones to dawdle over, even in a little while. They are also the targets if any errors occur. That’s why I think being a leader is better than a member. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 59.117.118.3 ※ 編輯: jarlinlove 來自: 59.117.118.3 (02/23 22:25)