Your search for: responsibilities

This book, containing contributions by outstanding scholars and practitioners in the fields of communication, organizational psychology and management, law, personnel, and industrial and labor relations, addresses the issues involved in communicating employee responsiblities and rights. Equally ...

This book, containing contributions by outstanding scholars and practitioners in the fields of communication, organizational psychology and management, law, personnel, and industrial and labor relations, addresses the issues involved in communicating employee responsiblities and rights. Equally important is achieving an understanding of the evolving workplace practices these rights mandate. Employer and employee understanding of these considerations offers enormous potential for avoiding situations that provoke and escalate conflicts in the contemporary workplace. At the heart of all of this is the need for clear, consistent, and effective communication in the modern organization.

Robert Gibbs presents here an ambitious new theory of ethics. Drawing on a striking combination of intellectual traditions, including Jewish thought, continental philosophy, and American pragmatism, Gibbs argues that ethics is primarily concerned with responsibility and is not--as philosophers have ...

Robert Gibbs presents here an ambitious new theory of ethics. Drawing on a striking combination of intellectual traditions, including Jewish thought, continental philosophy, and American pragmatism, Gibbs argues that ethics is primarily concerned with responsibility and is not--as philosophers have often assumed--principally a matter of thinking about the right thing to do and acting in accordance with the abstract dictates of reason or will. More specifically, ethics is concerned with attending to others' questions and bearing responsibility for what they do.Gibbs builds this innovative case by exploring the implicit responsibilities in a broad range of human interactions, paying especially close attention to the signs that people give and receive as they relate to each other. Why Ethics? starts by examining the simple actions of listening and speaking, reading and writing, and by focusing on the different responsibilities that each action entails. The author discusses what he describes as the mutual responsibilities implicit in the actions of reasoning, mediating, and judging. He assesses the relationships among ethics, pragmatics, and Jewish philosophy. The book concludes by looking at the relation of memory and the immemorial, emphasizing the need to respond for past actions by confessing, seeking forgiveness, and making reconciliations.In format, Gibbs adopts a Talmudic approach, interweaving brief citations from primary texts with his commentary. He draws these texts from diverse thinkers and sources, including Levinas, Derrida, Habermas, Rosenzweig, Luhmann, Peirce, James, Royce, Benjamin, Maimonides, the Bible, and the Talmud. Ranging over philosophy, literary theory, social theory, and historiography, this is an ambitious and provocative work that holds profound lessons for how we think about ethics and how we seek to live responsibly.

In the past 65 years, the United States Supreme Court has outlined, through its decisions, its conceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. media. Analyzing every Supreme Court media case from 1931 to 1996, this book explores the changes in how the Court has conceived of the media's ...

In the past 65 years, the United States Supreme Court has outlined, through its decisions, its conceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. media. Analyzing every Supreme Court media case from 1931 to 1996, this book explores the changes in how the Court has conceived of the media's freedom. Hindman focuses on the educational and political functions of the media, the ethical principles of truth telling, and the conflict between collectivist and individualist interpretations of the First Amendment. The author challenges accepted views in the field, arguing that despite the justices' rhetoric, the Court has treated media freedom as a social goal rather than a right.