Policy-Making in the Federal System Research Paper

Policy-Making in the Federal System - Research Paper Example Obamacare is a good policy it raises federalism issues in various ways. The mandate of the federal government was the power-sharing notion. This means the s that the states each can set the rules of its governance rather than be forced into rules that do not apply to them at the local level. However, Obamacare has been seen by local heads as coercing all the states to follow is strict rules this is deemed unconditional. Furthermore, the federal dollars was used as an incentive to coax governors to go along with the policy. Governors feel like they have to embrace the policy or destroy their indemnity markets. Obamacare sure has a lot of pros than cons but either way it is conflicting. The pros of Obamacare are that it gives more time for young adults since they are allowed to be under their parents care until they reach 26b years old. Obamacare does not prejudice people based on health status thus nobody is denied coverage. Furthermore, the policy does not terminate you when you fall sick. Obamacare is an equal insurance and not discriminatory on gender. The best part is that more people are insured because the policy insists that large companies must insure their staff. Moreover, Obamacare has set rules regarding insurance companies from hiking their rates. And finally, this policy gives the insured rights to have the quick appeal of insurance company decisions while covering millions of people. The cons to this policy are that Obamacare insist on covering even sick people and this means high costs for everybody covered. Moreover, the money needed to cover the millions of people come from taxes, this means that taxes must be hiked. Many people have had to change their policy or had them canceled by their respective companies. This is because they did not meet the policy’s ten essential health benefits.

Self Leadership Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Self Leadership - Essay Example In today's dynamic world, we need leaders to challenge the status-quo, to create vision of the future, and to inspire organizational members to want to achieve the visions. There are many models and theories that have come into existence high lightening the different facets of leadership. There are many who still believe that leadership is a born talent, leadership is only for top management and one should have an inbuilt charismatic personality to be a leader. The media has long been a believer in trait theories of leadership differentiating leaders from non leaders by focusing on personal qualities and characteristics. The media identify people like Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Richard Branson and Rudolph Giuliani etc., and then describe them in terms such as charismatic, enthusiastic and courageous. However, in addition, more recent research provides strong evidence that people who are high self monitors that is highly flexible in adjusting their behaviour in different situa tions are much more likely to emerge as leaders in groups then low self-moni6ors (Dobbins et al., 1990; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Overall the cumulative findings from more than half a century of research leads us to conclude that some traits increase the likelihood of success as a leader, but none of the traits guarantee success (Yukl & Fleet, 1992). The inability to strike gold in the traits 'mines' led researchers to look at the behaviours exhibited by specific leaders. The difference between trait and behavioural theories, in terms of application, lies in their underlying assumptions. If trait theories are valid then leadership are borne rather than made. On the other hand, if there were specific behaviour that identified leaders then we could teach leadership-we could design leadership programmes that implemented these behavioural patterns in individuals who desire to be effective leaders. Other model like contingency theory also been discussed as the understanding of leadership in creased. Attention turned to the study of situations and the belief that leaders are the product of given situation. This approach to leadership recognizes that there exists an interaction between the group and the leader. Fred F. Fielder (1995) has suggested a contingency theory of leadership in which he told that the people become leaders not only because of the attributes of their personalities but also because of various situational factors and the interactions between leaders and group members. The path-goal theory suggests that the main function of the leadership is to clarify and set goals with subordinates, help them to find the best path for achieving the goals and remove obstacles. The theory builds on various motivational and leadership theories of others. More recently, Fiedler and an associate Jeo Garcia (1987) focused on a theory of leadership that states that stress unfavorably affects a situation and that intelligence and experience can lessen the influence of stress on leader. They named the theory as Cognitive Resource Theory. Basically it's the capability or quality of leader who perform under stress. Inspite of its newness cognitive resource theory is developing a solid body of research support (Fiedler, 2002). Paul Hersey, Ken Blanchard and Johnson (2001) have developed a leadership model that has gain a strong following among management development specialists. This model is called situational leadership theory. Situational