Authoritarian Autocratic Report

You will make yourself comfortable... Once feeling comfortable and safe in your chosen place… You will close your eyes… Listen to my voice… Any noises in the background are unimportant… From now on, you will only hear my voice… Concentrate on your breathing… Breathe in… Hold it for a few seconds… Breathe out… Notice how each breath in, is equal to the amount of time it takes to breathe out… Repeat this one more time… Now you are going to relax your mind and body by allowing any tension to flow from your head, to the extremities of your toes… Keep concentrating… You are in control… You will be in control throughout this session…Continue with your breathing as you would normally … Now relax the

The theory of leaders can be autocratic, a person who doesn’t consider the person undertaking the task only getting the results. A democratic leader takes opinions of the staff and understands how they believe the best results can be achieved, whereas Laissez-faire style leaves the experienced staff to implement the work processes.

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

There are four main leadership styles, the first being Autocratic style which the manager retains as much control and decision making authority as possible, the manager does not give employees any input or consultation. The next is Bureaucratic which is where the manager manages ‘by the book’ which is where everything must be completed according to procedure and protocol. Mangers using this style will only consult with those above them in the chain of command. They simple enforce the rules of the workplace. The next style of leadership is Laissez-Faire which is also known as the ‘hands off’ approach to management. The manager usually provides little or no direction and give employees as much freedom as possible. All power is given to employees and they are to dictate their own work ethics. The last leadership style is the Democratic style which is also known as the participative style and this is where employees are encouraged to be a part of the decision making process. The democratic manager keeps their employees informed about everything that affects

the one that provides no guidance to the members of the team and fully let them make their own decisions. The fact that the author turned out a democratic leader was not surprising because the author believes this approach to be the most effective and focused on the members of the team rather on the leader.

Pursuit of various visions of social justice probably accounts for most human misery. What's more, the historical pattern that has emerged has been one whereby one form of injustice is replaced by one that is far worse. Russia's 1917 revolution expelling the Czars, and their injustices, ushered in Lenin, Stalin and a succession of brutal dictators who murdered tens of millions in the name of the proletariat revolution. The injustices of Chiang Kai-shek were replaced with those of Mao Tse-tung; Castro's ousting of Batista or Ayatollah Khomeini's toppling of the Shah of Iran produced regimes far more brutal. In Africa, after independence, the injustices of colonial powers

Autocratic- In this management style, the manager becomes the sole decision maker. The manager does not care about the other staff and their involvement in decision making. Therefore, the decisions reflect the personality and the opinion of the manager. The decision does not reflect the team 's collective opinion.

Shortly after the murder of LaPorte, the Canadian government established harsh state repression, not only in Quebec, but all over Canada. The government’s explanation for this aggressiveness was the belief that state repression would bring a stop to the current terrorist attack. Once the FLQ was stopped and James Cross was recovered, there was also the belief that the state repression stopped future terrorist attacks from happening in Canada. The question we are thus faced with is whether state repression decreases the number of future attacks after the repression has taken place. To answer this question, we could conduct a causal experiment on the effect of state repression on terrorist attacks.

The organization that I frequently volunteer my time for is Summit Academy North High School’s very own “Horn of the Dragons” Band. The band is a large group of students, 98 to be exact, with only one teacher. To be a successful band, they need volunteers to do multiple things. When working with the group I could be collecting money at car washes, setting up baskets at a bowling fundraiser, or loading up cars with flower baskets, all things that could be useful in a future career.

Authoritarianism is a regime type and, furthermore, a political vision that seeks to create compliance in authority and establish order and peace by striving for absolute legitimacy. In an authoritarian regime, power relations are vertically-organized, where there is little to no accountability for those in power and where civil and political rights of citizens, if established, are restrictive and violated. Two common misconceptions of authoritarianism are that they are durable and they have always have a paternal figure as leader. To the first point: though an authoritarian regime would be relatively simple to establish, the difficult task of legitimizing and consolidating absolute authority makes authoritarian rule an incredibly arduous endeavour. Authoritarian regimes can easily be snubbed out as quickly as they began to burn, pointing to how the legitimacy of authority is by far the most essential tool to the authoritarian. But who is the authoritarian? Many see authoritarian regimes as patrimonial, meaning that though there still might be complex institutions of bureaucracy, security, and even political parties, all authority comes from the top and the top alone. However, there can also be authoritarian regimes run by an institution, whether through a military junta or hegemonic political party. Authoritarianism can easily derive from civil society instead of through the military, yet the coercive powers of military are essential for consolidating power.

During the first week we asked the clients what type of music they enjoyed, and what artists they listened to. I was accountable for the music, speakers and candy, while my partner put together a current playlist and purchased candy as well. My partner and I obtained permission from the director to give out treats to the winners, and we purchased sugar free chocolates since most of the clients are diabetic. The other students decided to put together a brief presentation on music, and discuss the purpose of the activity. I compiled a playlist of number one hits of every year beginning with the 1940’s to today, because I wanted the clients to be reminded of different times in their lives through music. Although in my mind the activity was a great idea, my biggest fear was that the clients would be reluctant to participate, or dislike the song choices. I was hoping that the activity would elicit fond memories, and the clients would sing and dance and enjoy themselves. The clients seemed excited when they heard of the day’s activity and were eager to help “grade” our assignment. It took some time to get them involved, however after a couple of songs the majority of

If it were not for the crucial mistakes of Italy, Germany, and Spain’s governments to address interwar problems, then right-wing authoritarian regimes may never have formed. Seeing as to how countries across the world were left crippled after world war one, successful control of a nation was hard to obtain. In response, countries began strictly monitoring their economies, which the middle class was against. Regarding the issue of the agreement between socialist and catholic parties, Italy failed to find a solution. Germany unsuccessfully controlled socialist and communist influences, which inspired right-wing groups. Spain was powerless as its weak monarchy was taken over by coalitions of the nobility. As a culmination of these countries inabilities to govern, right-wing authoritarian regimes were formed amongst many European countries.

The leadership quiz results indicate that this writer is both a participative and a Delegative leader. The quiz results states; Participative leaders accept input from one or more group members when making decisions and solving problems, but the leader retains the final say when choices are made. Group members tend to be encouraged and motivated by this style of leadership. This style of leadership often leads to more effective and accurate decisions, since no leader can be an expert in all areas. Input from group members with specialized knowledge and expertise creates a more complete basis for decision-making. While Delegative leaders allow group members to make decisions, this style is best used in situations where the leader needs to rely on qualified employees. The leader cannot be an expert in all situations, which is why it is important to delegate certain tasks out to knowledgeable and trustworthy employees.

Laissez faire is the absence of effective leadership (Yukl G, 2010). Laissez faire leaders ignore problems and follower (Yukl G, 2010) and they do not contribute to the growth of the follower ( (Northouse, 2007). Feedback, rewards and leader involvement are totally absent in this type of leadership hence reduced organisational commitment.

The last style is called laissez-faire leadership. Here leader usually participates minimally and let team members find their own way out by allowing complete freedom in decision making (Simmons and Striley, 2014).