For my opoinion, being a member is better than being a leader for these reason
-leader needs lots of skills and quality in order to lead the group with good leadership.
-leaders usually must do the hardest work in the group.
-leaders must do everything correct and planed in order to make no mistakes. If the leader makes a small mistake, the whole group might lapse with the leader because the group depends on the leader.
Prepare, a little pesticide is better than losing your entire crop. A $20 flu shot is better than being hospitalized by severe flu..... Safely placing the candle away from flammable is better than rebuilding your burnt down house.
A leader doesn't throw his weight around, respects other members of the group, is courageous, is bold when they have to be but never does anything that might risk anyone but his own life, does his part, doesn't act like he is better than everyone else, knows his limits, and stands up for other members of the group! That is what makes a leader! Hope it helps :D
Because he saw an oppertunity to own a company while new computer were being built and he thought "I can do better than that."
Women have the ability to multi task as well as work collaboratively in groups. Women can grab attention and can manage people well. On the other hand, men generally take leadership to the extreme and turn into being the 'dominator.' In a nutshell, women lead better than men in some areas, and men lead better than women in some areas.
A Leader has to be confident because he has to be stronger than his team in order to achieve a worthy goal. If your not confident as a leader, how can you thrive? How can yu lead people who look up to you? ecxactly, you cannot! So confidence is the first step to begin a leader. The next step can be found in the related link
There is no right answer to this question as it depends on individual preferences and circumstances. Both leadership and followership are important and necessary in different situations. Some people thrive in leadership roles, while others prefer to support and contribute as followers. Ultimately, it is about finding what suits your strengths and goals best.
That depends on what role you are more comfortable with.
Both Gandhi and Stalin were influential leaders in their own right, but their leadership styles were vastly different. Gandhi is often remembered for his nonviolent approach to achieving social and political change, while Stalin was known for his authoritarian rule and the use of violence to maintain power. Ultimately, the determination of who was a better leader is subjective and dependent on individual perspectives.
This question calls for an opinion, not an example sentence.
Being a good reader can certainly enhance one's ability to understand and follow written instructions or guidelines effectively. However, being a good follower also involves traits such as commitment, accountability, and teamwork that extend beyond just reading skills. It's important to consider the context and requirements of a specific situation when determining the relationship between being a good reader and a good follower.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being a leader OR a follower! A follower can:Defer to someone else's judgment, opinion, or experience.Hide behind someone else's decisions, so the leader might get in more trouble than the follower.Learn by watching the leader(s).Make fewer waves and have less conflicts with others.Opt out of following to become a leader.I would rather be a follower if:We were walking through snake infested waters.We were wading through a swamp with alligators around.We encountered an angry bull elephant.We were walking behind horses in a parade (since horses excrete whenever and wherever they please).You opened a closet door where a man with a hatchet was hiding.I wanted to learn from watching how a leader handles situations.I was alive following the coffin of a leader....in which case, I might become a leader since you died.
no
I really think he is becaus he is an overall better player I disagree , i think ronaldo is alot better than beckham but i dont think he could ever be a leader !
Advantage:You have less responsibility. Disadvantage: You do not become who you are.You have to follow the leaders' decision rather than yours
The Norman leader William was much better equipped than the Anglo leader Harold. William had a good mixture of infantry and cavalry.
One thing about presidential government that is better than parliamentary government is how the leader is chosen. In a presidential government the people choose their leader. This gives the people more say in their country and who governs it.
It was after WW2 and it meant being dead was better than being a Communist