Examples Of Paternalistic Leadership

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived

Paternalism is the belief that someone knows 'better' than the individual him or herself what is the right way for that individual to live. For example, for centuries, many men had paternalistic attitudes about middle-class women, deeming it unseemly for women to work. Paternalism was used by self-interested whites to justify enslaving African-Americans for 'their own good,' or to colonize non-white people to 'carry the white man's burden.'

According to behavioral theories of communication and decision-making the rational solution to a problem is not always the best answer. Therefore, when diversity creates controversy, which inhibits the development of an organization, the organization is forced to adopt other useful tactics that would result in positive outcomes. This document will focus on several aspects of cross-cultural conflicts; A)

Canada is known to be a country of diversity, inclusion, and acceptance. It is a country that consists of many individuals with various cultures and ethnic backgrounds. To live in Canada, it would be inevitably for one to be working with others that are of a different ethnic/ cultural background in the near future or even currently. Communicating with people or groups of people that group up with different norms, values and beliefs can cause miscommunication. Regardless of whether their communication be verbal, non-verbal or written, subtle differences for each member can create misconceptions and failure in collaborating to meeting the groups end goal. Therefore, this essay is dedicated to outlining practices that are able to assist teams

Authoritarian parents hold their children to an exceedingly high level of status and success. In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure in following rules typically results in

Diversity leadership has been defined as "ways in which people and groups relate to one another and how management [leadership] decisions are made in the midst of the differences, similarities, and tensions among groups." (Lim, Cho, & Curry, 2008) And in order to accomplish this, a good leader must know the difference between the assimilation and inclusion. Assimilation takes a diverse group and homogenizes them, while inclusion maintains the individual differences between people and capitalizes on those differences for the benefit of all. For instance, instilling a goal-oriented sense of identity allows for each individual to maintain their uniqueness, while coming together to accomplish the goal. It is the goal that each individual concentrates on, not the differences between the members of the group. Also, a good leader will facilitate good

One of the profound challenges that the United States of America faces today is poor leadership. I’m not just speaking about the President of the United States, but all those that are leading our great country. Our leaders today have poor communication skills, self-serving nature, poor character nevertheless they are not looking forward to helping the United States of America.

Paternalism is in place to look out for and enforce what is in our best interest, whether they are choices we would or would not make. If decisions we make now are likely to be regretted in the future and are more likely to be irreversible, paternalistic intervention is there to step in and aid the decision. For example, someone chooses to drop out of school at a young age. That person will eventually regret this decision because they will find it hard to get a job with limited education, and also find it virtually impossible to put themselves back through school with limited funds to do so. This situation is a justified situation for paternalism to step in. Paternalism is mainly used in large decisions in people’s lives, decisions that involve high stakes. The advantages of having paternalism in place is that in the long run, with paternalistic intervention, our decisions will be better made. Paternalism is used by officials when make public policy. They look at your surface preferences and judge them on a standard of deeper preferences when configuring limitations and freedoms. There are, however, four types of preferences that prevent paternalistic intervention. They are relevant, settled, preferred, and your own preferences. As

The authoritarian approach involves giving directives. It entails the leader instructing the employee that he needs a specific person to form a certain task. This style leaves no room for bargaining, and any non-compliance or objection of this directive will be viewed by management as insubordination.

Now, I will explain the difference between strong and weak paternalism. Strong paternalism is the

Often times an authoritarian leader has full control of those around them, and believes to have complete authority to treat them as they want. An authoritarian leader would provide instructions without looking for inputs and superintend his or her nurses in a close manner. However, problems may arise if a nurse must wait for the manager's decision or direction before taking action regarding a patient. Although the authoritarian leadership style can be viewed as undesirable, it has proved to be very efficient in emergent and stressful situations. One of the key benefits of authoritarian leadership is the fact that decision making becomes much more simple and fast, as the leader doesn't have to consult or convince anybody. Basically authoritarian leadership can work wonders for the organization when decision making has to be quick and during some crisis.

Since birth, there is an exposition of the human being to different types of Leadership. From mother emanates a sort of gentle Leadership, where she is constantly protecting her offspring, and preventing from danger. She is capable of precluding them from getting harm or maybe having singular experiences just to make them feel safe. The mother will support her offspring on each decision they make, even the dumbest ones. From father, there is a somewhat more aggressive Leadership style, where he also protects his offspring however; he encourages them to try different adventures, even if they are dangerous, to make his offspring as experienced as possible. This way when the father sets the example, his offspring will know that whatever moment of their journey they fail, he will support them because they have tried. The father 's primary goal is to make whatsoever he can in order to his offspring reach higher levels of proficiency, effectiveness, and success. The father wants his offspring to do better than he did. There are also Leadership styles that emanates from the grandparents. This kind of Leadership is between the Leadership style of the mother, and the father. It is protective like the mother 's nevertheless it is as well comforter when it concerns to the father 's aggressive Leadership style.

When it comes to being a parent there are many ways a parent can raise their child or children, for example there are four types of parenting styles which are authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved. The authoritative parent are characterized by having reasonable demands and high responsiveness. Authoritative parents are strict on their children, but they are very loving, warming, and supportive towards their children by listening to their child opinions, encouraging independence, expressing warmth and nurturance, and encouraging their child to discuss options. (Reference: Rathus S.A. (2014).Psych.GengaqeLearning) Authoritarian parents are like authoritative parents except they are extremely strict almost like military, and authoritarian parents are very unforgiven by have strict guidelines towards their children without any tolerance for disobeying.

Cross cultural team members also face a challenge of having to understand that other team members possibly have a different idea of how to treat their bosses. Drawing from the example of my job team at work, I noticed that my American team members do not really run their ideas through our team leader before taking actions. However, my Turkish boss does not like this as he comes from a culture where everything a subordinate does should be run through the boss for approval. This had caused strains in the team’s effectiveness in the past; until my American team members adapted to fit our team leader’s wishes.

Becoming culturally aware I was able to understand that the French and Chinese culture held a high degree of respect for authority figures. Therefore, my experience and expertise in healthcare led Adam and Grace to see me as the person who should lead. Though humbled by that, I began to discuss that in America teams are often built upon flat structures and rely on consensus minded discussions and decisions, not hierarchy. I hoped this would encourage them to interact and embrace shared leadership roles, but when asked to share their ideas with each other it seemed difficult. Upon talking with Grace, I realized that she was fearful of being humiliated if she were to continue her behavior in a egalitarian team. Suddenly I realized that I was trying to place a single culture approach on my multicultural team. Looking at all our cultures, I saw that we shared the concept of power differences in leading. Instead of imposing the american way on them, I adjusted my approach in instilling a difference in power and allowed them to see me as a leader. In becoming the leader, I noticed both Adam and Grace became much more comfortable and eager to work on the task. In hopes of overcoming future conflict I established norms in that meeting which encouraged the members to share knowledge together. This balance between hierarchy and egalitarian allowed us as a team to build success, while