Crisis Management vs. Risk Management - Which is Obama's style?

It seems like our foreign policy is in shambles. Our domestic front is shaky economically and socially. We are constantly getting conflicting statements among people supposedly in charge, and the White House itself seems more often than not disconnected and uninformed.

Key governmental positions seem, imo, to be based on politics rather than qualifications.

We have a health concern in our country now with the Ebola virus having come to our soil. Many Americans just don't feel safe anymore. We don't trust our leadership, its ability, capability, nor its motives. A smooth-talking empty suit with a pretty smile and big cute ears is becoming a Halloween mask of the scariest kind.

I had to deal with a company one time whose local management style was that of Crisis Management. The guy waited until there was a problem, then an escalation of the problem, then he assigned a lower-rung supervisor to handle it, THEN when the problem was completely out of hand, he engaged. By then, the problem was enormous and his own superiors had to be called in.

In contrast to risk management, which involves assessing potential threats and finding the best ways to avoid those threats, crisis management involves dealing with threats before, during, and after they have occurred. It is a discipline within the broader context of management consisting of skills and techniques required to identify, assess, understand, and cope with a serious situation, especially from the moment it first occurs to the point that recovery procedures start.

Crisis Management vs. Risk Management

I think our prez and some of his key assignees are in way over their heads.

Your post reminds me of this video:

a reply to: alexball

hahaha! Too cute...and sooo understandable.

Crisis or risk. Take out the word management and it may be appropriate. Obama can't properly manage things.

Blame Obama all you want...it's not just him that is the problem. In fact, he is only a small part of it. The real issues are in congress and state governments that sell-out to big business and special interest groups, including foreign governments, and pass legislation that benefits them.

They have taken our freedoms away, put us into a perpetual war(s), keep taking more and more from the public and even though we know this, we continue to vote R or D on election day.

So ya, Obama sucks and so does any Republican we put in the WH, but all of us are to blame for that because we keep voting along party lines like good little brainwashed fools.

a reply to: sheepslayer247


Well said. But, really, what choices do we have other than R or D? We are too divided philosophically to be able to organize a grassroots new party that represents most of what we, as individuals, stand for. I am a right-leaning moderate. The Republican party comes closest to my philosophy about government and economics, but I am more moderate regarding certain social issues. My choices, like yours, are limited. I just try to avoid extremism on either side.

But, management style in government is important and Obama's style disturbs me and, imo, is detrimental to the safety and well being of our country. But, then again, we really had no way of knowing what his management style would be like, because he never really managed anything.

Now, we have a huge health concern that is upsetting the populace, and his style of management is becoming evident---Crisis type. I hope America has learned something from the disastrous choice that was made in 2008 and 2012.

a reply to: queenofswords

Sadly, you're correct. We do not have many choices. Well, we do have choices but we tend to demonize and belittle those that step forth to shake-up the system; like the Ron Paul/Kucinich types.

I can also agree that Obama does have a crisis management style, but he is not the end-all be-all of the US government. Congress can act without his approval if they would get together and do something. But they wont. Both the left and right have the same sort of management style and really don't want to change anything.

They just want to keep everything going as is so that they can keep getting their campaign funds and their cushy little job.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: sheepslayer247


Well said. But, really, what choices do we have other than R or D? We are too divided philosophically to be able to organize a grassroots new party that represents most of what we, as individuals, stand for. I am a right-leaning moderate. The Republican party comes closest to my philosophy about government and economics, but I am more moderate regarding certain social issues. My choices, like yours, are limited. I just try to avoid extremism on either side.

Vote third party, it doesn't matter which. The more smaller parties that get votes the more they get to be involved in the political process. With two parties there are going to simply be two groups at extremes that move ever further apart. Adding a third party also involves adding moderation because when two parties stop getting too crazy the third can automatically present a compromise solution. With 4, 5, 6, 7, and more parties the situation only gets better.

Parties are really more like sports teams than a reflection of values, and it's not like we actually vote issue by issue al a carte style... we take politicians as packages. With the big tent system we have people rarely fit directly into the mold, instead they simply support a side they like. The best thing you can do as a voter is to keep more parties involved in the process as they moderate each other.

Crisis management after golf, risk management deferred until after Crisis management instructions are delivered to Obama by Susan Rice.