Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
A variety of models for making decisions are available. Three of these models are paternalistic, informative, and shared decision making.
Discuss the pros and cons of each of these models and the problems that are best suited for the various methods.
Determine which method has the strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change.
The Shared Decision-Making model has the strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change because it successfully bridges the gap between external direction and internal motivation.
Permanent change requires both adherence (doing the new thing) and internalization (believing in the new thing).
Shared Responsibility Maximizes Adherence: By being involved in the process, the individual feels ownership over the decision. This emotional and cognitive investment is a more powerful predictor of sustained behavior than compliance driven by authority (Paternalistic) or confusion driven by choice without guidance (Informative).
Cognitive Restructuring for Internalization: The dialogue in SDM—where the individual must articulate their concerns and the rationale is explained in a personal context—helps them restructure their understanding of the problem. This shift in mindset and development of new skills or beliefs is crucial for creating neural pathways (neuroplasticity) that support lasting, self-directed change, rather than temporary compliance.
The strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change lies with the Shared Decision-Making model.
Here is a discussion of the pros, cons, and best applications for the Paternalistic, Informative, and Shared Decision-Making models.
In this model, the authority figure (the decider) acts as an expert who determines the "correct" course of action for another party (the client or subordinate), often without fully soliciting or integrating their input. The focus is on the outcome the authority deems best.