1.Write about the following: In your recent reading, what has your author/main character said that has stood out to you. Something they did or said, A quote, an experience they had that you had a reaction to?2. Talk about someone you know who either lives by the characteristics or traits your author talks about or lives like the subject of your book. Someone who you believe does what the author says to do/or lives by.3. Is it important for us to study leadership? Is it important for us to look at what others say or do as inspiration or as an example of how to live or lead? Why or why not?
One of the last thing I read that really impressed me was a paragraph about what a king has to do to keep a new Republican state. It said that the easiest way is to destroy some cities so that people get scared and understand who has the power. It made me think a lot about it, and actually i think it is pretty true. Anyway I can't compare anything of today's world to this. I've been thinking a lot about how Romans conquered the world and kept it for a very long time. And today I think ONU wouldn't let happening anything like that, but probably a lot of presidents and chiefs use this scarying-politic against their people. For example Mao Zedong used a lot this rule in China. I think that it is very important to learn these things, even if i'll never be a president i will always be able to judge their actions with a more chritical eye.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
1. Reactions to the latest pages you have read. What have you found interesting so far? What do you agree/disagree with?
2. What leadership traits has the subject of your book shown? Or what leadership traits has your author talked about being important? Use specific examples from the book including page number.
3. Talk about a specific quote or passage that has stood out to you so far. What is it? Why do you feel it is important?
4. Give me an example of a time that you had to make an ethical decision. What was the situation? Who (no names necessary) was involved? What was the ethical dilemma? Ultimately what did you decide to do and why?
My book is still talking about the same thing since the last time. In the 6th chapter the author explain how should be threaten the neighbors kings. It is also about how kings should react to a war. It says that if they try to postpone it, or to leave small people attacking their territories then it becomes always a loss. In the case of Republican territories conquered, the possibilities are 2: moving to the place and try to impose conquerors' laws with the strength, or destroy some of their cities so that they get scared by the new king. A passage that impressed me a lot was the example the author used to prove this thing. One example is the Roman Emperor. They always threaten colonies very smartly, and they never left going a rebellion. This is the reason why they were so powerful. Then it says that Spartans tried to keep Athene and Tebe making a state governed by few of them. In this way they lost them. The Romans to keep Cartagine, Capua and Numanzia destroyed them, and they did not loose them. The Roman's mistake was in Greece; they wanted to let them free. After a while they realized they couldn't go on like that and they had to destroy a lot of cities to keep Greece. I don't have any example to show this characteristics because these are polithical decisions.
2. What leadership traits has the subject of your book shown? Or what leadership traits has your author talked about being important? Use specific examples from the book including page number.
3. Talk about a specific quote or passage that has stood out to you so far. What is it? Why do you feel it is important?
4. Give me an example of a time that you had to make an ethical decision. What was the situation? Who (no names necessary) was involved? What was the ethical dilemma? Ultimately what did you decide to do and why?
My book is still talking about the same thing since the last time. In the 6th chapter the author explain how should be threaten the neighbors kings. It is also about how kings should react to a war. It says that if they try to postpone it, or to leave small people attacking their territories then it becomes always a loss. In the case of Republican territories conquered, the possibilities are 2: moving to the place and try to impose conquerors' laws with the strength, or destroy some of their cities so that they get scared by the new king. A passage that impressed me a lot was the example the author used to prove this thing. One example is the Roman Emperor. They always threaten colonies very smartly, and they never left going a rebellion. This is the reason why they were so powerful. Then it says that Spartans tried to keep Athene and Tebe making a state governed by few of them. In this way they lost them. The Romans to keep Cartagine, Capua and Numanzia destroyed them, and they did not loose them. The Roman's mistake was in Greece; they wanted to let them free. After a while they realized they couldn't go on like that and they had to destroy a lot of cities to keep Greece. I don't have any example to show this characteristics because these are polithical decisions.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Good Morning,
Today I want you to write about:
1. Your reactions to what you have read so far since last time you posted. Have any of your thoughts about the book changed? What has stood out so far? What do you agree/disagree with?
2. Have your views of what you thought leadership was changed in any way so far? If so How?
3. Can you relate a time when you were put in a leadership position. What was it? How do you feel you did in this position? Is there anything you regret? What would you do differently?
4. Following up from the question above, citing particular quotes or passages from the book, write about something you can use that the author said or did when you are put in leadership role now or in the future.
1. The 3rd chapter surprised because even if it was written 500 years ago it is still true. It is about the new kings that buy or conquer a new region. It says that if the region has different customs and language for the king's one everything will be harder. The king won't have an easy period, because he need to convince his people. It probably involves violence to scare the people. Then it says that a very easy way is if the king move in the new region: 1st he will get used to costumes and everything soon, 2nd the new people will think he cares more about them, and 3rd the region will be more protected by outsider. I agree with the author and I'm really surprised because everything was written a long time ago.
2. No my view of leadership is not changed.
3. I can't think about anything on me, but something that happened to my dad can be related to this. He works for a multinational company since 10 years ago. He had always work in Italy until 2 years ago. They started to propose him offers of promotion and everything, but the condition that they really wanted was that he moved for a period to the U.S.A. The company's origin is American, and no one non-American has ever been in his position. They want him to stay here for a short period to get used to the American mentality and their attitudes. Then hopefully they will move him back to Europe with a bigger assignment, having done the American experience.
4. The thing that can be related to my dad's experience is when the author talks about the advantages of moving to the new region conquered by a king.
Today I want you to write about:
1. Your reactions to what you have read so far since last time you posted. Have any of your thoughts about the book changed? What has stood out so far? What do you agree/disagree with?
2. Have your views of what you thought leadership was changed in any way so far? If so How?
3. Can you relate a time when you were put in a leadership position. What was it? How do you feel you did in this position? Is there anything you regret? What would you do differently?
4. Following up from the question above, citing particular quotes or passages from the book, write about something you can use that the author said or did when you are put in leadership role now or in the future.
1. The 3rd chapter surprised because even if it was written 500 years ago it is still true. It is about the new kings that buy or conquer a new region. It says that if the region has different customs and language for the king's one everything will be harder. The king won't have an easy period, because he need to convince his people. It probably involves violence to scare the people. Then it says that a very easy way is if the king move in the new region: 1st he will get used to costumes and everything soon, 2nd the new people will think he cares more about them, and 3rd the region will be more protected by outsider. I agree with the author and I'm really surprised because everything was written a long time ago.
2. No my view of leadership is not changed.
3. I can't think about anything on me, but something that happened to my dad can be related to this. He works for a multinational company since 10 years ago. He had always work in Italy until 2 years ago. They started to propose him offers of promotion and everything, but the condition that they really wanted was that he moved for a period to the U.S.A. The company's origin is American, and no one non-American has ever been in his position. They want him to stay here for a short period to get used to the American mentality and their attitudes. Then hopefully they will move him back to Europe with a bigger assignment, having done the American experience.
4. The thing that can be related to my dad's experience is when the author talks about the advantages of moving to the new region conquered by a king.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Prince
The thing that really surprised me is that the writer wrote it as he was actually talking to a prince. In the first chapter he tries to explain that he does that just because he thinks only people can judge kings and only kings can judges people. So in this book he tries to teach everything he learned in his career to a prince, so that he can learn all these things in a very quick way. On the other hand the prince reading this book should be able to understand how his actions are judged by the people. In the second chapter he talks about the type of Principati (reigns). He divides them in hereditary, bought and mixed. Then he compare them, saying that hereditary reigns are easier to govern than new reigns because in the first case people already know how was the last king.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)