Personal Culture Essay University Essay Example

The Seven Dimensions of Culture provide a framework for understanding the various observable characteristics of different societies. While it’s not always easy to describe how culture operates, the various elements have helped me do just that. Members of my family were both Peruvian and Christian.

The universalist-pragmatist divide addresses the rigidity or malleability of governing principles in interpersonal interactions. Generally, universalists are rule-followers who think the rules should not be broken under any circumstances. Clearer rules and norms govern relations in these societies. My upbringing occurred in a more universalist than particularist society. The rules of conduct in particularistic communities are flexible and subject to change. These cultures generally believe that each event calls for a unique response since it depends on the nature of the individuals involved. I’m not used to this looser way of life at all. There were no exceptions in my Christian and Peruvian household.

The range between an individual’s wants and the wants of the group to which the individual belongs is discussed along the dimension of individualism against communitarianism. This facet of the game made me wonder if my culture emphasizes teamwork versus encouraging individuals to go outside the box. There is a strong emphasis on communal values in my culture. I grew up in a family of six, including my parents, two brothers, sisters, and four cousins. In our household, we always worked together.

The third factor, involvement/commitment and context, examines the degree of interpersonal investment and a culture’s focus on detail. For instance, those who fall under the “specific/low context” category pay close attention to minute particulars. People in these societies tend to cherry-pick aspects of a problem rather than address it head-on. On the other hand, people from dispersed cultural backgrounds are more likely to look at the big picture than the details. I identify with the specific camp since I was brought up to dissect issues and situations piece by piece to find workable solutions.

We examine the difference between apathetic and empathic interactions in the fourth dimension. People in emotional cultures are not only less likely to suppress their emotions but are actively encouraged to express them openly. In contrast, members in “neutral” cultures often view displays of emotion as unacceptable and indicative of a lack of strength. Those of me who belong to the culture I was up in is surrounded by a lot of sentiment. My parents and grandparents have always modeled open communication and pushed my brothers and me to do the same. Both happy and sad feelings were never judged as invalid in my home. The people of Peru are known for their warm hospitality and personal friendships.

Achieved versus attributed status is the next cultural factor to be explored. In societies where a higher level of education, career success, age, or social standing is viewed favorably, the more accomplished are held in higher esteem. Respect is given to people for various reasons, including merit, age, gender, and status. As opposed to achievement-based admiration, ascription-based societies admire others for who they are as individuals. As a child, I was raised in a devout Christian home where the principle that each man is of equal worth was ingrained in me. My mother has always stressed that success does not imply goodness, and she has done so for as long as I can remember.

Specifically, I needed help to place my culture along the time orientation dimension. Most societies live in the present, and their members view the future as a natural extension of the present. The opposite is true for cultures that place a premium on the here and now, which hold that people are shaped by their daily interactions with the world. As a result, the present, rather than the past, shape people’s expectations and actions. Sequentialism and synchronism represent the second half of the time orientation dimension. My society places a premium on a sequential understanding of time, while other cultures may have completely different perspectives. Plans are rarely altered, and my society takes time commitments very seriously.

To conclude, one of the fascinating aspects of culture is the relationship between religion and other beliefs. Internal versus external control is a dimension that examines the significance of the environment from the perspective of various cultural groups. Cultures that emphasize the exterior of nature tend to have the belief that humans are powerless over the natural world. Where I come from, nature is seen more on the inside than out. As a child, I remember my Peruvian ancestors talking about how helping the earth helps us. But the Christian home in which I was raised had a more reflective approach, holding that one must take responsibility for one’s happiness or unhappiness. I was able to have a better understanding of the similarities and differences between cultures all across the w

orld because of the Seven Dimensions of Culture. It’s fascinating to think about how people from different cultures might behave differently in a social setting. As a Christian, I’ve discovered that my family’s customs and values differ from those of most Peruvian families. It’s important to recognize mental and behavioral ruts better to comprehend the causes of our ideas and actions.

References

Hannichenko, T. (2021). Сross-cultural negotiations in English. The seven dimensions of culture.

Personal Philosophy Of Leadership Essay Example

My leadership philosophy is rooted in the belief that the core purpose of a leader is to empower and inspire those around them to reach their full potential. Leadership is about creating an environment where people can flourish, achieve their goals, and be their best versions. Leaders should strive to foster a culture of collaboration, trust, and respect and to create an atmosphere of trust and openness that encourages teamwork and cooperation. Leaders should also be willing to take risks and make difficult decisions that will benefit the organization in the long run.

At the heart of my philosophy of leadership lies the concept of servant leadership. To me, a leader should serve their team and organization rather than be served by them. A leader should be willing to put their team’s and organization’s needs ahead of their own and make sacrifices and take risks to help the organization reach its goals (Pawar et al., 2020). A leader must create an environment where everyone can contribute and be ready to lend a helping hand when needed.

A leader should also have the courage to take responsibility for their team’s successes and failures and be willing to take ownership of their decisions. This includes taking a proactive stance in actively seeking out solutions when faced with problems, as well as listening to their team for input and feedback. Leaders should also strive to foster collaboration and unity within the workplace and promote a culture of trust and respect. By doing so, a leader will be able to promote a sense of accomplishment and motivation among their team and instill a sense of loyalty and commitment.

In addition to leading by example, leaders should also be willing to invest in their team’s development. This includes providing their team with the proper resources and guidance needed to succeed and encouraging them to participate in professional development opportunities (McCauley et al., 2021). A leader should also look for feedback from their team to ensure that the team is on the same page and working towards the same objectives.

Leaders should also be open and honest with their team and be willing to provide constructive criticism when needed. Leaders should recognize their team’s strengths and weaknesses and use this information to set realistic goals and objectives. A leader should also be willing to provide their team with the support they need to ensure they reach their goals and objectives.

The most effective leaders motivate their teams by setting a good example and exhibiting qualities that will inspire their team. Effective leaders should be passionate about their work and willing to go the extra mile to ensure their team’s success (Peng et al., 2021). A leader should be able to communicate clearly and effectively and be open to listening to the ideas and opinions of their team. This will help create an environment of collaboration and respect.

A leader should be able to demonstrate the qualities of a good leader by leading by example and inspiring their team with their actions. A leader should be able to demonstrate their dedication to the team by showing that they are willing to put in the extra effort to help their team reach their goals. A leader should also be able to show their team that they are invested in the team’s success and their members.

A leader should also be able to effectively communicate their ideas, goals, and expectations to their team members. A leader should be able to clearly articulate their vision and strategy and explain their decisions and actions in a way that is understandable to the team. A leader should also be open to feedback and criticism and be willing to take constructive criticism and use it to improve their leadership skills.

A leader should also be able to recognize the achievements of their team members and show appreciation for their efforts. A leader should be able to reward their team for their hard work and accomplishments and create a positive working environment that encourages team members to continue to strive for excellence. A leader should also be able to recognize when team members are struggling and be willing to provide them with the resources and support they need to succeed.

A leader should be able to create a culture that promotes trust, respect, and collaboration. A leader should be able to create a safe and supportive environment where team members can openly share their ideas and opinions without fear of judgment or criticism. A leader should also be able to foster a culture of mutual respect and understanding and be willing to address any issues that arise respectfully and professionally.

A leader should be fair and just, treating everyone in their team and organization with respect and dignity, regardless of gender, race, or background. This means that a leader should strive to create an inclusiveness and belonging environment where everyone feels welcome and accepted (Handayani et al., 2022). At the same time, a leader should not be afraid to make difficult decisions to ensure the organization’s success. This means that a leader must be able to balance the needs and feelings of those they lead with what is best for the organization.

In order to be a successful leaders, they need to have strong communication skills. They should be able to listen to their team and understand their needs while also being able to communicate their ideas and vision effectively. A good leader should also be able to inspire their team and bring out the best in them. They should be able to motivate and encourage their team to reach their goals and keep them on track.

A leader should also have a strong sense of integrity and honesty. This means that they should always be truthful and never be afraid to admit mistakes. They should always strive to do what is right and be willing to take responsibility for their actions (Hadi et al.,2019). A leader should also be open to feedback and criticism and recognize that it can help them grow and become a better leader.

It is also important for a leader to be organized and have good time management skills. This means that they should be able to set goals and objectives for their team and have a plan for how to achieve them. A leader should also be able to delegate tasks and provide support and guidance to their team.

A leader should also be able to create a positive work environment. This means that a leader should strive to create an environment free from discrimination and harassment. They should also promote a culture of collaboration and teamwork and foster an atmosphere of trust and respect between team members.

A leader should be passionate about their work and commit to excellence. They should be willing to go the extra mile and take risks to reach their goals. A leader should also be open to learning and growing, always striving to become better.

I believe that a good leader should possess several key qualities. Chief among these is selflessness and humility. A leader must be willing to put the needs of their team before their own and to recognize that no one person is always right. They should be willing to accept input from their team, even if it conflicts with their own beliefs.

In addition, a leader should have a strong sense of self-awareness. They should know their own strengths and weaknesses and be willing to own up to their mistakes and learn from them (Graham, 2020). This will allow them to be more effective leaders, as they will be able to recognize and address issues before they become major problems.

Another important trait of a leader is the ability to accept feedback and criticism gracefully. This requires a certain level of emotional intelligence, as a leader must be able to take constructive criticism without becoming defensive or hostile. By doing this, they will be able to make better decisions based on the input of their team, and will gain the trust and respect of those they lead.

By exhibiting these qualities, a leader can create an environment where team members can be motivated to do their best work and strive for excellence. Effective leaders are those who are able to inspire their team by setting a good example, communicating effectively, and creating a culture of trust, respect, and collaboration.

In conclusion, My philosophy of leadership is grounded in the belief that a leader should be an example to those they lead, and should strive to empower and inspire those around them to reach their full potential. A leader should be willing to take risks and make difficult decisions and should strive to create an environment of trust and respect that encourages collaboration and teamwork. A leader should also be fair and just and should be willing to be selfless and humble in order to ensure the success of their team and organization.

References

Graham, M. H. (2020). Self-awareness of political knowledge. Political Behavior, 42(1), 305-326.

Hadi, A. A., Abdullah, H., & Atshan, N. (2019). Effect of organisational integrity and leadership behaviour on organisational excellence: Mediator role of work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

Handayani, E., Pandansari, T., Aji, M., Wahyuni, S., & Hapsari, I. (2022, August). Support for Transformational Leadership through Fairness and Accountability in the Implementation of Performance-Based Budgeting for Indonesian Private Universities. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Business, Accounting, and Economics, ICBAE 2022, 10-11 August 2022, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia.

McCauley, C. D., & Palus, C. J. (2021). Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: A relational view. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101456.

Pawar, A., Sudan, K., Satini, S., & Sunarsi, D. (2020). Organizational servant leadership. International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 63-76.

Peng, J., Chen, X., Zou, Y., & Nie, Q. (2021). Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance. Human Relations, 74(11), 1864-1888.

Philosophy Of Sex And Love Essay Sample For College

Sexual objectification has been a hot topic since the rise of feminism. Scholars and feminists have divergent views of sexual objectification. Therefore, due to divergent views, some people may not see any bad in sexual objectification regardless of the premises it occurs. Marino and Nussbaum have different perspectives on what constitutes permissible sexual objectification. While Nussbaum considers relationship contexts as factors to consider when determining permissible sexual objectification, Marino maintains that genuine consent and respect for autonomy should form the basis for permissible sexual objectification. Therefore, I agree with Marino that genuine sexual consent should form the basis for permissible sexual objectification.

Marino’s view of sexual objectification being unproblematic is solely based on her view of the role of consent and respect for autonomy. She argues that sexual objectification can only be permissible if, for example, A consents to sexual objectification from A (Marino, 2008). However, her argument of consent and respect for autonomy being critical factors to consider if sexual objectification is to be considered permissible or not is based on the nature of consent. She argues that consent should be genuine for sexual objectification to be considered benign.

Moreover, she adds that background factors such as social equality and politics should form the basis of the genuineness of consent. In addition, she expounds that social and political pressures might force partners to consent to sexual objectification. In this case, Marino argues that genuine consent is impossible due to the deformed nature of people’s preferences in such circumstances (Marino, 2008). Therefore, Marino’s view of sexual objectification being permissible is solely based on the political and social factors that make consent genuine. She argues that in certain circumstances, such as economic hardship or social pressures, one might consent to sexual objectification but not genuinely.

The significant difference between Nussbaum’s views of sexual objectification and Marino’s own is the Relationship significant view. Nussbaum’s view of good sexual objectification is based on the relationship significance view, which has three aspects; mutuality, symmetry, and intimacy (Nussbaum, 1995). It is vital to remember that Marino is against using the relationship significance view as a condition to determine the permissibility of sexual objectification. Marino argues against using context to determine the permissibility of sexual objectification. She says using the type of relationships to justify sexual objectification is not robust. For her, the only condition that can justify sexual objectification is respect for persons’ autonomy, where the background context and not the relationship context is needed to determine if the consent is genuine or not. In contrast, Nussbaum argues that using a partner or person’ sexually may not be necessarily bad as long as it is done in the proper context and in the right way.

In addition, according to Nussbaum, “good” objectification is one where a respectful relationship has intimacy, mutuality, and symmetry. Hence good sexual objectification can only be considered as such if it happens in a significant relationship (Nussbaum, 1995). Therefore, according to Nussbaum, wrong sexual objectification is considered as such if one is treated as a means to an end and there is a denial of autonomy (Nussbaum, 1995). To further reject Nussbaum’s use of relationship significance view as conditions to determine the permissibility of sexual objectification, Marino argues that there are instances that can make sexual objectification not permissible even if it happens where there is an instrumentality, intimacy, and the partners’ consents.

Furthermore, Marino argues that due to narrative history and intimate relationships, partners may find it difficult to say “no” to sexual objectification for fear of being viewed by their partners as not intimate. Therefore, many partners may feel obliged to consent to sexual objectification in an intimate relationship even if they do not feel like it. This, therefore, contradicts Nussbaum’s uses of intimacy as a condition to determine if sexual objectification is permissible or not. Besides, she puts succinctly that “the complexities of intimate relationships ensure that the participants are involved in a web of interwoven requests, demands, and favors” (Marino, 2008). Thus, “intimacy may make use more morally troubling rather than less .”Therefore, Marino argues that it would easy for someone to sys no to sexual objectification from a stranger than they can say no to someone they are intimate with or even a friend.

Marino’s most significant critique of Nussbaum’s conditions of sexual objectification is solely based on the use of relationship contexts and not background contexts to determine the permissibility of sexual objectification. Nussbaum might defend herself from Marino’s criticism by arguing that they both agree on wrong sexual objectification. Nussbaum considers bad sexual objectification to be one where one is denied autonomy and is treated as mere means, similar to Marino’s view of what constitutes bad objectification. In my opinion, Marino’s description of violating one’s autonomy stems from background factors that might render the consent not genuine. However, Nussbaum’s view of the violation of one’s autonomy stems from relationship contexts factors which Marino is vehemently against.

The middle ground in Nussbaum’s and Marino’s view for when sexual objectification can be permissible is autonomy. They both agree that violating one’s autonomy amounts to wrong sexual objectification. Regardless of the differences in how they both arrive at the violation of one’s autonomy, they both agree that a lack of respect for autonomy constitutes bad sexual objectivity.

In my opinion, however, I agree with Marino’s conditions of permissible sexual objectivity. Respect for autonomy and the genuineness of the consent should be critical predictors of permissible sexual objectification. Although we all live in a society where we are subject to cultural and social dictates, in many cases, consenting to sexual objectification out of social and political pressure should not be acceptable. Consenting to sexual objectification should therefore be solely informed by one’s genuine consent. The consent should come from one’s own volition without being coerced by circumstances. In this respect, therefore, relationship contexts should not be used to justify sexual justification. As we have seen, it is usually difficult for people in intimate relationships or even friends to say no to sexual objectification due to the deformed nature of their preferences.

References

Marino, P. (2008). The Ethics of Sexual Objectification: Autonomy and Consent. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1967950_code1758713.pdf?abstractid=1967655&mirid=1

Nussbaum, Martha C. (1995). Objectification. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2961930

error: Content is protected !!