Search results

This paper aims to examine how individuals’ need for distinction moderates the effect of perceived harm to others as a result of preferential treatment on customers’ attitudes towards the service provider.

Two experiments test the hypothesis that when a customer receives preferential treatment, the effect of perceived harm to others on the customer’s attitudes towards the service provider is moderated by their need for distinction and mediated by negative moral emotions, such that mediation occurs for customers with a lower (but not higher) need for distinction.

When customers have a lower need for distinction, they scan the environment to seek information about others when judging their own experience. In contrast, customers with a higher need for distinction tend to disregard others’ opinions and feelings, focusing solely on the benefits they receive from the service provider and avoiding moral emotions. Our results show that customers with a higher need for distinction tend to evaluate the service provider more favourably than those with a lower need for distinction in scenarios where the benefit given to an advantage customer imposes a disadvantage on other customers.

To the best of author’s knowledge, this research is the first to examine the interaction between perceived harm to others and one’s need for distinction as drivers of customers’ response to preferential treatment. The authors are the first to show that negative moral emotions may arise for customers with a lower need for distinction but not for those with a higher need for distinction.

Argues that a set of distinctions between methods for information systems development is useful for learning about the methods and their relation to practice. Examines three projects conducted in three similar branches of the same bank. Evolves a set of distinctions: the context, the consequences and the conditions, for application of the models. Suggests areas of further research.

This conceptual paper looks at and discusses differences between the concepts of organizational learning and (the) learning organization. Since there still seems to be confusion regarding the meaning of the two concepts, aims to clarify the two main existing distinctions – that organizational learning is existing processes while learning organization is an ideal form of organization. Also distinguishes between a traditional and a social perspective of organizational learning, which the existing distinctions have not – at least not explicitly. Thus, distinctions are made between three concepts. In addition to the improvement of the existing distinctions, suggests two complementary ones – entities of learning and knowledge location. These two distinctions might make it easier to distinguish also between the two perspectives of organizational learning.

The distinction between a meta‐ and an object‐language has become increasingly familiar in information science, through the diffusion of the concept of metadata. A significant antecedent to this distinction can be found in the development of formal logic. This paper proposes an analogous distinction for information retrieval research, between the metalanguage of discourse about information retrieval systems and the object‐language of transformations within systems. In formal logic, acceptance of a meta:object distinction has had a clarifying and simplifying effect. An understanding of potential object‐language transformations as the writing, erasure, and substitution of symbols has also been developed. The existing metalanguage of information retrieval research has displayed a founding assumption (the value of delivering all, and possibly only all, the records relevant to a given query), some central concepts, entities for evaluative purposes, and derived measures. An alternative founding principle of enhanced informed choice is endorsed. The emerging view of operations within information retrieval systems such as transformation, sorting, and partitioning is strongly analogous to the more fully established account of possible object‐language transformations in formal logic. Analytical clarity has been obtained and economy in research effort is made possible.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify possible distinctions between the terms “cyberneticist” and “cybernetician” with the intention of helping the growth of the cybernetics discipline in new directions.

After the American Society for Cybernetics ALU 2013 conference in Bolton, a small group of conference participants continued the conversations they had begun during the event, focusing on the comparison of the terms “cyberneticist” vs “cybernetician”. The group felt the need for clearer distinctions drawn (or designed) between the terms, in order to sustain the discipline of cybernetics and to support its growth. The aim of providing these distinctions is that theory should feed into practice and practice should feed into theory, forming a cybernetic loop, so that the discipline of cybernetics is sustained while growing. The conference participants had conversations between themselves, and came up with multiple perspectives on the distinction between “cyberneticist” vs “cybernetician”. The distinctions drawn mirror the distinctions between Science and Design: the science of cybernetics contrasted with the design of cybernetics.

The findings of this paper consist of recommendations to understand and act differently in the field of the discipline of cybernetics. In particular, a clear distinction is suggested between the terms “cyberneticist” and “cybernetician”. It is also suggested that in order for cybernetics to grow and be sustained, there should be a constant flow of developments in theory of cybernetics into the practice of cybernetics and vice-versa.

The authors believe that some people (called “cyberneticists”) should work on the science side of cybernetics, making strong contributions to the understanding and development of cybernetics theory. Others, (called “cyberneticians”) should work on the design side of cybernetics, to contribute through their actions and through the development of cybernetics practice. The result of this will be a self-organization that evolves naturally between theory and practice of cybernetics, leading to better learning of cybernetics, and in the process, sustaining it through continued growth. In this direction, the paper proposes several radical suggestions that may not be to the liking of traditionalists, but may be better received by the scientists and designers of cybernetics who can make a difference to the growth of the discipline of cybernetics.

The article extends the distinction of semantic from syntactic labour to comprehend all forms of mental labour. It answers a critique from de Fremery and Buckland, which required envisaging mental labour as a differentiated spectrum.

The paper adopts a discursive approach. It first reviews the significance and extensive diffusion of the distinction of semantic from syntactic labour. Second, it integrates semantic and syntactic labour along a vertical dimension within mental labour, indicating analogies in principle with, and differences in application from, the inherited distinction of intellectual from clerical labour. Third, it develops semantic labour to the very highest level, on a consistent principle of differentiation from syntactic labour. Finally, it reintegrates the understanding developed of semantic labour with syntactic labour, confirming that they can fully and informatively occupy mental labour.

The article further validates the distinction of semantic from syntactic labour. It enables to address Norbert Wiener's classic challenge of appropriately distributing activity between human and computer.

The article transforms work in progress into knowledge for diffusion.

It has practical implications for determining what tasks to delegate to computational technology.

The paper has social implications for the understanding of appropriate human and machine computational tasks and our own distinctive humanness.

The paper is highly original. Although based on preceding research, from the late 20th century, it is the first separately published full account of semantic and syntactic labour.

The distinction between formality and informality has been a topic central for many scholarly fields. Without rejecting the usefulness of this distinction, the authors argued that instead of analyzing an empirical situation in terms of what is formal and what is informal, it could sometimes be fruitful to focus on what is stable and what is fluid.

This paper reports the results of review and analysis of secondary sources on the distinction between formality and informality, followed by a conceptualization of an alternative distinction between fluidity and stability. This conceptualization was inspired by a science and technology studies (STS) understanding of relations, and was assessed through applying it to a case of patient organizations’ participation in patient councils in Russia.

Stability and fluidity do not map neatly into formality and informality; rather, the stability and fluidity cut across these categories. The authors propose a view of both stability and fluidity as kinds of relations between elements of the societal fabric. The distinction proposed here could be especially fruitful when applied to analyses of (1) complex bureaucracies where formal requirements are extensive and potentially in conflict with each other and (2) oppressive situations where significant power imbalances exist.

Instead of providing yet another line of demarcation between formality and informality, this paper proposes a shift in attention to what is stable and what is fluid. This novel distinction can help not only in discerning how things actually work but also in bringing to the fore hitherto unnoticed forms of creativity, responsiveness and inclusion.

This paper aims to examine the effects of the social distinction of company directors on firm performance.

The social distinction of company directors adds to the firm’s reputation, allowing the firm to access resources and privileges. The indicators of social distinction this study uses are the prenominal titles of directors in Malaysian companies. As Malaysian companies are known to have directors with political connections and the prenominal titles can be intertwined with these connections, to ascertain the effects of social distinction on firm performance, this study examines whether social distinctions proxy and complement political connections in improving firm performance. This study uses Tobin’s Q (TQ) for longer-term performance and gross sales for current-year performance.

This study finds evidence to suggest that the impact of higher-order titles on Tobin’s Q and sales is greater in politically unconnected firms than in connected firms. This study also finds evidence to suggest that higher-order titles amplify the effect on Tobin’s Q in politically connected firms, whereas lower-order titles amplify sales, both moderated by firm-age. The findings shed light on the mediating variables that contribute to the above, and are robust for alternative performance measures, and account for endogeneity concerns.

The results are generalisable only to countries where social distinctions are of significance.

Future research on political connections should consider social connections that affect firms. Also, such research should prompt the awarders of titles to prohibit the use of titles for pecuniary motives to minimise market imperfections.

Adding to the prior literature on the characteristics of directors and firm performance, this study shows that the social distinctions of directors do matter.

To reflect on the matter of self‐consciousness.

The purpose is achieved through the process of answering four questions presented to me by Heinz von Foerster in the course of our many conversations.

It is not possible to understand the nature of self‐consciousness without understanding the operation of human beings as living systems that exist as emotional languaging living systems: self‐consciousness is a manner of living.

We human beings can become more aware of our responsibility in the design of robots that imitate us.

Reflects on what makes us humans special, on subjective experience, and on the world we bring forth.

This study aims to present a solution-focused approach to current problems and criticisms faced by business schools.

To facilitate the required shift from problems to solutions, this study outlines a theory method and demonstrates how it has informed my teaching at Financial Times (FT)-ranked business schools and other institutions of higher education in two subjects and on three continents.

The study reports on two student exercises showing that even advanced business school students confuse organizations with political economic hierarchies.

The study concludes that business schools pursuing a smart specialization strategy by challenging this reductionist view may turn into new schools of management distinguished by a broader, multifunctional concept of themselves and their impact on their environment.