dictatorial

简明释义

英[ˌdɪktəˈtɔːriəl]美[ˌdɪktəˈtɔːriəl]

adj. 独裁的，专政的；专横傲慢的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Long gone are the days when parents were much more dictatorial and children were to be seen, not heard.

父母们过去独断，小孩要乖乖的听大人讲话的年月已经早就一去不复返了。

2.Therefore the young man, slightly too dictatorial, directed the guests to their places.

所以只好由这小伙子指引客人们入席了，他做这件事时显得有点太专横。

3.Her father is very dictatorial.

她父亲很专横。

4.They resent being ruled OVER by a dictatorial boss.

他们憎恨受一个专横傲慢老板的管制。

5.In the dictatorial world of orchestras—where conductors choose the repertoire, organise rehearsals and tell musicians how to play—Orpheus is fond of proving that it thrives without a baton.

虽身处管弦乐这个一切听从指挥的世界里（确定保留节目单、组织排演、指挥音乐家们演奏的都是指挥），奥菲斯室内乐团却热衷于向世人证明：没有指挥棒，奥菲斯依旧璀璨耀眼。

6.In the dictatorial world of orchestras—where conductors choose the repertoire, organise rehearsals and tell musicians how to play—Orpheus is fond of proving that it thrives without a baton.

虽身处管弦乐这个一切听从指挥的世界里（确定保留节目单、组织排演、指挥音乐家们演奏的都是指挥），奥菲斯室内乐团却热衷于向世人证明：没有指挥棒，奥菲斯依旧璀璨耀眼。

7.The manager's dictatorial style made it difficult for employees to voice their opinions.

经理的专制的风格使得员工很难表达他们的意见。

8.In a dictatorial regime, citizens often lack basic freedoms.

在一个专制的政权中，公民通常缺乏基本自由。

9.Her dictatorial approach to leadership created a toxic work environment.

她专制的领导方式造成了有毒的工作环境。

10.The coach's dictatorial methods alienated many players on the team.

教练的专制的方法使许多队员感到疏远。

11.Many people fled the country due to its dictatorial government.

许多人因该国的专制的政府而逃离。

作文

In a world where leadership styles vary greatly, the concept of a dictatorial leadership approach often raises eyebrows and sparks debates. A dictatorial leader is one who exercises absolute power and control over their followers, making decisions unilaterally without seeking input or consensus. This style can be characterized by a lack of democratic processes and an emphasis on obedience and compliance. While some may argue that such a leadership style can lead to efficiency and quick decision-making, it often comes at the cost of employee morale and innovation. Historically, many governments have operated under dictatorial regimes, where a single leader or party holds all power. Examples include leaders like Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany or Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, both of whom ruled with an iron fist. Under these regimes, dissent was not tolerated, and citizens lived in fear of persecution. The dictatorial nature of their rule stifled creativity, freedom of expression, and individual rights, leading to widespread suffering and oppression. In contrast, modern organizations often thrive on collaboration and input from various levels of employees. A dictatorial approach in a corporate setting can create a toxic work environment. Employees may feel undervalued and disengaged, resulting in high turnover rates and low productivity. For instance, if a manager insists on making all decisions without consulting their team, they risk alienating their staff and losing out on valuable insights that could improve the organization’s performance. Moreover, the rise of technology and social media has empowered individuals to voice their opinions more than ever before. In today’s interconnected world, a dictatorial style of leadership can quickly lead to backlash. Employees are more likely to speak out against unfair practices or policies, and organizations that fail to adapt may find themselves facing public relations crises. Companies that embrace a more democratic approach, encouraging feedback and participation, often see greater loyalty and motivation among their workforce. It is essential to recognize that while a dictatorial leadership style may yield short-term results, it is not sustainable in the long run. Organizations that prioritize transparency and inclusivity tend to foster a culture of trust and respect. Leaders who value their team members’ contributions and promote open dialogue are more likely to inspire loyalty and drive innovation. In conclusion, the term dictatorial carries a heavy weight, often associated with oppression and authoritarianism. Whether in politics or business, this style of leadership can lead to negative consequences for both individuals and organizations. As we move forward in an increasingly complex world, embracing collaborative and inclusive leadership styles will be crucial for fostering environments where creativity and productivity can flourish. Ultimately, the shift away from dictatorial practices towards more democratic approaches can lead to healthier, more resilient organizations that are better equipped to face the challenges of the future.

在领导风格各异的世界中，专制领导方式的概念常常引发争议并引起讨论。专制领导者是指那些对追随者行使绝对权力和控制的人，他们单方面做出决定，而不寻求意见或共识。这种风格的特点是缺乏民主过程，强调服从和遵从。虽然有人可能会争辩说，这种领导风格可以导致高效和快速决策，但往往以员工士气和创新为代价。 历史上，许多政府在专制政权下运作，其中一个领导者或政党掌握所有权力。例子包括纳粹德国的阿道夫·希特勒或苏联的约瑟夫·斯大林，他们都以铁腕统治。在这些政权下，异议是不被容忍的，公民生活在被迫害的恐惧中。他们统治的专制性质压制了创造力、表达自由和个人权利，导致广泛的痛苦和压迫。 相比之下，现代组织往往依赖于合作和来自各级员工的意见。在企业环境中，专制的方法可能会造成有毒的工作环境。员工可能会感到不被重视和失去参与感，从而导致高流失率和低生产力。例如，如果经理坚持在不咨询团队的情况下做出所有决定，他们可能会使员工疏远，并错失能够改善组织绩效的宝贵见解。 此外，科技和社交媒体的崛起使个人比以往任何时候都更有能力表达自己的意见。在当今这个相互联系的世界中，专制领导风格很快可能导致反弹。员工更有可能对不公平的做法或政策发声，而未能适应的组织可能面临公共关系危机。那些采纳更加民主的方法、鼓励反馈和参与的公司，往往会看到员工的忠诚度和积极性更高。 重要的是要认识到，虽然专制领导风格可能会带来短期结果，但从长远来看并不可持续。优先考虑透明度和包容性的组织往往会培养信任和尊重的文化。那些重视团队成员贡献并促进开放对话的领导者，更可能激励员工的忠诚并推动创新。 总之，专制这个词承载着沉重的分量，通常与压迫和威权主义相关。无论是在政治还是商业中，这种领导风格都可能对个人和组织产生负面后果。随着我们在日益复杂的世界中前进，拥抱协作和包容的领导风格将对于培养创造力和生产力蓬勃发展的环境至关重要。最终，从专制做法转向更民主的方法的转变，可以导致更健康、更具韧性的组织，使其更好地应对未来的挑战。