Search results

Chris Provis (2017) has discussed Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean and its counterpart in Confucianism. The Doctrine of the Mean informs an agent that ‘acting as a virtuous person will often be constituted by avoidance of choosing excess or deficiency’ (Provis, 2017, p. 118). Indeed, Provis (2017) argues against any act ‘oriented towards maximisation’ (p. 127). Provis’s (2017) focus is the encounter ‘between European and East Asian ethical traditions’ (p. 116). Our chapter is a response to Provis (2017). We respond to Provis (2017) by exploring a debate amongst Jewish scholars which originated in North Africa. Some of these scholars advocated Aristotle’s Mean. But others advocated forsaking that Mean and pursuing the extreme.

An academic method, derived from Jewish doctrine, is proposed as an alternative to government‐imposed economic principles. A logical code of behaviour could be substituted for the current scenario, financial and economic, bedevilled as it is by government intrusion. This ideal and its practical application are discussed in relation to Hebrew teachings.

Despite the existence of a variety of approaches to the understanding of behavioral and managerial ethics in organizations and business relationships generally, knowledge of organizing systems for fidelity remains in its infancy. We use halakha, or Jewish law, as a model, together with the literature in sociology, economic anthropology, and economics on what it termed “middleman minorities,” and on what we have termed the Landa Problem, the problem of identifying a trustworthy economic exchange partner, to explore this issue.

The article contrasts the differing explanations for trustworthy behavior in these literatures, focusing on the widely referenced work of Avner Greif on the Jewish Maghribi merchants of the eleventh century. We challenge Greif’s argument that cheating among the Magribi was managed chiefly via a rational, self-interested reputational sanctioning system in the closed group of traders. Greif largely ignores a more compelling if potentially complementary argument, which we believe also finds support among the documentary evidence of the Cairo Geniza as reported by Goitein: that the behavior of the Maghribi reflected their deep beliefs and commitment to Jewish law, halakha.

Applying insights from this analysis, we present an explicit theory of heroic marginality, the production of extreme precautionary behaviors to ensure service to the principal.

Generalizing from the case of halakha, the article proposes the construct of a deep code, identifying five defining characteristics of such a code, and suggests that deep codes may act as facilitators of compliance. We also offer speculation on design features employing deep codes that may increase the likelihood of production of behaviors consistent with terminal values of the community.

Despite the emphasis on contemporary historical case studies in groupthink research, Janis believed that examining decision‐making processes recorded in antiquity was also relevant. However, neither Janis nor other groupthink researchers have adequately explored the model among decision‐making bodies described in earlier history. The current paper aims to begin to fill this gap by analyzing the judicial and legislative body of ancient Israel, known as the “Sanhedrin,” in the context of Janis's groupthink model.

The authors focus on classic Jewish rabbinic sources such as the Mishna, Talmud, and writings of Maimonides, exploring the functioning of the Sanhedrin, the authoritative body of ancient Israel, in the context of Irving Janis's groupthink model.

The authors highlight the insightful ways the Sanhedrin's members may have avoided groupthink and the symptoms of defective decision‐making that have plagued other groups.

The authors' analysis enables them to further understand the rationale behind many of the Sanhedrin's unique regulations, granting insight into an important and authoritative ancient group.

This analysis of the Sanhedrin's procedures also highlights multiple practical ways that Janis's ideas and prescriptions may be implemented by juries, modern day managers, and organizational bodies.

The authors are the first to explore the functioning of the Sanhedrin in the context of the groupthink model, highlighting the insightful ways its members may have avoided the symptoms of defective decision‐making that have plagued other groups. Their approach should be of interest to researchers and theorists in both the fields of management and history. Importantly, they include practical application relevant to the science of modern organizational behavior.

The purpose of this issue is to provide an overview of the special issue on practical wisdom for management from the Jewish traditions.

The guest editorial introduces the papers in this special issue, focusing in practical wisdom for management from the Jewish traditions.

The question on the relationship between the Jewish tradition and practical wisdom for management is answered in two different ways: first, providing a particular Jewish answer to managerial problems and second, presenting how Judaism can be a field of reflection learning for managerial praxis at both organizational and individual level.

The paper shows that the special issue offers insights into the value of practical wisdom of the Jewish traditions, from two particular points of view, as a guide for action and as an ethical approach to management.

This chapter compares a ‘deific decree’ insanity case with constitutional originalism debates as a way to understand the boundaries of the legal person and the nature of law. The criminal defendant who claims innocence on the ground that ‘God told me to’ does not embody a conflict between law and religion, but a conflict between law’s demand for intersubjectivity and the subjectivity of a ‘higher truth known only to me’. In the same way, the originalist interpreter of the constitution rejects precedent in favour of a higher truth that need not be ‘like’ anything before. One approach to broaching this conflict between law and revelation is to understand law’s domain as temporal and incomplete – to imagine a humble rather than absolute law. On this view, the person is also not ‘absolute subjectivity’, but is compelled by legal fidelity to treat like alike and therefore under an obligation to imagine a ‘me’ as ‘we’. Or, to put it another way, to bring the person and the law into relationship is to reject a ‘revelatory’ interpretation of ‘original’ or ‘divine’ law in favour of an incompletely intersubjective common law that links me to we through customs and time. At the same time, by acknowledging law’s incompleteness, we can see unreasonable revelation sometimes as a possibility and not always as an insanity.

The religious tradition of male circumcision has come increasingly under attack across a number of European states. While critics of the practice argue that the problem is about children’s rights and the proper relationship between secular and religious traditions, Jews tend to see these attacks within the longer history of attempts to assimilate and remake them according to the norms of the majority. Using the 2012 German legal controversy concerning the issue as my vantage point, I explore how contemporary criticism of male circumcision remains entangled with ambivalence toward Judaism and the Jews as the “other.” Through a close reading of the arguments, I show how opponents use the seemingly neutral language of universal human rights to (re)make Jewish difference according to the norms of the majority. I conclude by arguing that such an approach to this issue runs the risk of turning Jews once again into strangers at a time when cultural anxieties are troubling European societies.

Examines the Biblical positions concerning humankind’s relationship to nature. The Biblical ecological system is a hierarchical system with human beings at the pinnical of nature and the animal and vegetative worlds below to serve humans. The same hierarchical structure prevails in human relations. Reviews the all‐embracing principal “Do not wantonly destroy”, which encompasses both humans and animals. Provides a Biblical perspective on environmental regulations Suggests that environmental agencies should focus less on rules and much more on prudential judgement. Regulatory activities should then require a balancing of benefits and costs.

Our purpose in this paper is three‐fold. First, we shall briefly describe what is almost a truism— that is, the classical (especially the Greek) intellectual heritage of the Arab‐Islamic scholars upon which the latter, imbued by their young faith, developed their own comprehensive synthesis. Second, as part of that synthesis, we shall explore briefly the economic thought of a few early‐medieval Arab‐Islamic scholastics who extended that heritage and wrote on numerous issues of human concern, including economics. Those discourses took place during what is sometimes called the “golden age” of Islam — a period that coincided roughly with the so‐called Dark Age of Europe. Parenthetically, it might be noted that one of 20th century's most prominent economists, the late Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) had, unfortunately for the continuity and evolution of human intellectual tradition, declared that period as “the Great Gap,” representing “blank centuries,” during which nothing of significance to economics, or for that matter to any field, was said or written anywhere — as though there was a complete lacuna over intellectual evolution throughout the rest of the world (Schumpeter, 52, 74; see Ghazanfar, 1991). And finally, we will provide some evidence as to the historically influential linkages of the Arab‐Islamic thought, including economic thought, with the Latin‐European scholastics‐a phenomenon that facilitated the European intellectual evolution. An underlying theme of this paper is predicated on the premise that the classical tradition (i.e., Greek knowledge, though not exclusively) is part of a long historical continuum that represents the inextricably linked Judeo‐Christian‐and‐Islamic tradition of the West. This theme, though not common appreciated, is amply corroborated through the writings of well‐known scholars from the East and the West (see, for example, Durant, Haskins, Myers, O'Leary, Said, Sarton, Sharif, and others).

It is by now a foregone conclusion that the Talmudic sages possessed a remarkable knowledge and understanding of highly sophisticated economic laws and practices. In fact, as far back as 1911, the eminent economist and scholar, Werner Sombart, had expressed his deep admiration for their high degree of economic sophistication and keen insight when he wrote: