Do Employees Know How Their Supervisors View Them? A Study Examining Metaperceptions of Job Performance

This study investigated employees’ views about how their supervisors would rate their job performance (i.e., employees’ metaperceptions). Two hundred forty employees from a high-tech firm provided self- and metaperception job performance ratings, and their supervisors also provided ratings of the employees’ performance. The study produced several notable findings, including that metaperceptions were more strongly related to supervisory ratings than were self-ratings, that meta-accuracy was stronger for task versus contextual performance, and that employees who engaged in more impression management behavior exhibited higher meta-accuracy. Discussion focuses on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.     

Neuroprotection and stroke rehabilitation: modulation and enhancement of recovery

Recent advances in research are modifying our view of recovery after nervous system damage. New findings are changing previously held concepts and providing promising avenues for treatment of patients after stroke. This review discusses mechanisms of neuronal injury after brain ischemia and the attempts to study neuroprotection options based on such mechanisms. It also considers measures available at present to improve outcome after stroke and presents new areas of research, particularly stimulation techniques, neurogenesis and trophic factors to enhance recovery. In order to improve outcomes, medications that may be detrimental to recovery should be avoided, while symptomatic therapy of problems such as depression, pain syndromes and spasticity may contribute to better results. Continued surveillance and early treatment of complications associated with acute stroke, along with supportive care remain the mainstay of treatment for stroke patients in the recovery phase. Present research on limiting brain damage and improving recovery and plasticity enhance the prospects for better clinical treatments to improve recovery after stroke.     

Authorization and The Morality of War

Why does it matter that those who fight wars be authorized by the communities on whose behalf they claim to fight? I argue that lacking authorization generates a moral cost, which counts against a war's proportionality, and that having authorization allows the transfer of reasons from the members of the community to those who fight, which makes the war more likely to be proportionate. If democratic states are better able than non-democratic states and sub-state groups to gain their community's authorization, this means that some wars will be proportionate if fought by democracies, disproportionate if not.