Zur Begriffsbestimmung der Signifik

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

A Multi‐Source,Multi‐Study Investigation of Job Performance Prediction by Political Skill

Political skill is a social effectiveness construct with a demonstrated capacity to predict job performance. However, because performance prediction research in this area to date has made exclusive use of self‐reports of political skill, and due to frequent distrust of self‐ratings of constructs in important personnel decisions, there is a need to investigate how multiple alternative sources of political skill and job performance measures relate, thus raising both theoretical and methodological issues. In three studies, employing a triadic data collection methodology, and utilising both cross‐sectional and longitudinal designs, this research tested the hypotheses that employee political skill, measured from the perspective of employees' assessor A, will positively predict job performance rated by assessor B (i.e. Hypothesis 1a), and vice versa, that employee political skill measured by assessor B will predict job performance ratings measured by assessor A (i.e. Hypothesis 1b).     

Attributions restore consistency in bargaining with liked/disliked partners

The experiment deals with the impact of self-esteem and liking for the partner on the attribution of agreement and deadlock in bargaining. Fifty-eight male and 70 female students played the Harsanyi-Selten bargaining game with incomplete information eight times, allegedly each time with a randomly selected partner. In fact in four games a computer program simulated the partner. Combining an experimental variation of liking (liking—disliking), own costs (low, high), partner costs (low, high) the experiment followed a 2×2×2 repeated measures design. As predicted by a path model from balance theory (a) failure (deadlock) was attributed more to the partner and less to self than success (agreement), (b) success was attributed more to the liked than the disliked partner, whereas failure was attributed more to the disliked than the liked partner.     

Business ethics and computer ethics: The view from Poland

An Aristotelian approach to understanding and teaching business ethics is presented and defended. The newly emerging field of computer ethics is also defined in an Aristotelian fashion, and an argument is made that this new field should be called “information ethics”. It is argued that values have their roots in the life and practices of a community; therefore, morality cannot be taught by training for a special way of reasoning. Transmission of values and norms occurs through socialization — the process by which an individual absorbs not only values but also the whole way of life of his or her community. It follows that business ethics and information ethics can be considered kinds of socialization into a profession: role learning and acquiring a new self-identification. This way of understanding fields of applied ethics is especially important for their proper development in Central-Eastern Europe because of endemic factors which are the result of recent political developments there.     

Hume's refutation of the cosmological argument

Conclusion Let me summarize the results of this paper in a way that seems fitting to Hume's discussion of the cosmological argument. There are some philosophers who adopt the most stringent empiricist principles. Such men and women would reject any notion of necessity that is not analytic, and for this reason they would never admit a proof of the necessary existence of anything. Other philosophers, though empiricists, are not so dogmatic. They question the need for, not the coherence of, necessary existence. They believe that the material universe is nothing over and above the sum of its material parts and, thus, see no reason to conclude that a necessary being exists based on PSR. Still others are driven by a rationalist persuasion. They would gladly recognize the existence of almost anything provided it be proven by reason and argument. When they confront the cosmological argument they do indeed find it compelling but still see no reason to conclude that God, or any transcendent being, necessarily exists. The entity established need be nothing more than the universe itself. Therefore, as Hume has demonstrated, no philosopher need accept the conclusion of the cosmological argument.