Search results

This study aims to investigate the effects of attribution of responsibility (AOR) for layoffs on the components of ethical decision-making. Internal, external and no-fault AOR were examined using the model of moral intensity to determine if placement of blame for the layoff influences ethical awareness, judgment and intent.

Surveys were collected from 397 students. The survey provided a scenario about a layoff situation involving an African-American woman and a Caucasian woman. Respondents then answered questions about moral intensity, moral judgment and moral intent concerning the layoff and identified the reasons they believed the layoff occurred. We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analysis.

Subjects were more likely to make a moral judgment about the situation when layoffs were blamed on the company’s actions (external AOR) and less likely to make a moral judgment when the layoff decision was blamed on employee performance (internal AOR) or on economic factors beyond anyone’s control (no-fault AOR). Results also indicate that layoffs blamed on employee performance negatively moderate the relationship between moral judgment and moral intent.

Previous studies of layoff ethics have not examined the influence of AOR for layoffs using the model of moral intensity. Thus, this paper extends the current understanding of these concepts in ethical decision-making.

Officially, of course, the world is now post-imperial. The Q’ing and Ottoman empires fell on the eve of World War I, and the last Leviathans of Europe's imperial past, the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires, lumbered into the grave soon after. Tocsins of liberation were sounded on all sides, in the name of democracy (Wilson) and socialism (Lenin). Later attempts to remake and proclaim empires – above all, Hitler's annunciation of a “Third Reich” – now seem surreal, aberrant, and dystopian. The Soviet Union, the heir to the Tsarist empire, found it prudent to call itself a “federation of socialist republics.” Mao's China followed suit. Now, only a truly perverse, contrarian regime would fail to deploy the rhetoric of democracy.

There is a persistent image of the Catholic Church as an authoritarian institution which is opposed to democratic practices. While it is true that the Church retains its right to be authoritarian in what pertains to faith and morals, it is not true that the Church believes it must or should be authoritarian in all matters. So long as the primary ends of administration are assured, the church is not necessarily concerned with the actual form of administration adopted. In recent times, although there has been no negation of the doctrine that all authority is granted by God, the Church has displayed an increasing sympathy for democratic ideals. Indeed, the Church's own institutions have for centuries followed democratic administrative procedures and the more wide‐spread adoption of such procedures in Catholic schools is to be highly commended.

Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford: the names of these universities instantly conjure up images of the highest attainments of higher education. Of course, great universities also operate great university presses. So any reference book with the name of Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard in the title possesses immediate credibility and saleability. But it was not always so. Prior to the latter half of the nineteenth century the Oxford and the Cambridge University Presses were known to the public primarily as publishers of the Bible. Oxford broke into reference publishing, and along with it widespread public recognition, by means of its famous dictionaries, of which the pinnacle was the massive Oxford English Dictionary. The Cambridge University Press [hereafter referred to as CUP] took a different approach to publishing scholarly reference works by producing authoritative and encyclopedic histories. According to S.C. Roberts, a long‐time secretary to the Syndics of the CUP, “apart from the Bible, the first book that made the Press well known to the general public was the Cambridge Modern History.”

In recent years, public administration has been targeted by multiple reform efforts. In multiple instances, such initiatives have been ideologically couched in public-choice perspectives and entrenched beliefs that government is the problem. One unavoidable consequence of this continued bout of criticism is the fact that government currently has a noticeably decreased capacity of boosting creation of public value. Within this context, there certainly is an important need for approaches that would counterbalance the loss of public value induced by market fundamentalism. This article suggests that leadership, as a concept of theory and practice, due to its partial immunity to the private-public dichotomy, can provide a pragmatic avenue for nurturing public interest and public value within the devolution of governance, a declining trust in government and a diminished governmental capacity to propagate the creation of public value. While this article critically examines and assesses the capacity of different leadership perspectives in terms of creating and maximizing public value, its primary scope is not the provision of definite answers but rather the instigation of a much necessary discussion.

THOSE who were present at the induction of the President of the Library Association on January 26th must have left that pleasant, but very limited, assembly with two thoughts ; that the speeches were adequate and deserved a much wider audience than the relatively small Council Chamber at Chaucer House can accommodate, and that our affairs are in good hands for 1949. Mr. McColvin made the speech of thanks to Mr. Nowell, as a man straightforward, sane, loyal, simple, broadminded and fundamentally sound. We echo these and could add other praises but, fortunately, Mr. Nowell has many years of active service ahead, and we hope for many opportunities yet to acknowledge it. Sir Ronald Adams showed that modesty and charm which we were assured from his record he possesses. Our readers have found these speeches in the L.A. Record for February, and our only purpose in alluding to them is to say our own word of thanks for past service and our good wishes to both outgoing and incoming Presidents. And again to repeat our view that the Association loses a great ceremonial opportunity by holding the inauguration in a small room in London in the winter, rather than at the great annual assembly of the Conference as was at one time the practice. It was the central occasion of the year.

IT WAS THE then Duke of Gloucester who, observing the said Mr Gibbon (of Roman Empire fame) writing, said, to quote as accurately as my reference source will allow, ‘Another damned thick square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr Gibbon!’