Search results

The aim of this paper is to refine the concept of work commitment by proposing a dissociation between self‐related work commitment (namely, employees' career commitment) and other‐related work commitment (pertaining more strongly to others such as team members or supervisors). The dissociation is demonstrated empirically through the differential predictive validity of Machiavellianism, which holds when the influence of broad personality dimensions is controlled for.

Personality characteristics (Machiavellianism and the six factors of the HEXACO model of personality) as well as organizational, supervisor, team, and career commitment of 154 employees were assessed via self‐reports.

Results support the hypotheses that Machiavellianism is related positively to self‐related work commitment (career commitment) and negatively to other‐related work commitment (organizational, supervisor, and team commitment), and explains unique variance in all criteria above the six broad dimensions of personality.

Although meta‐analyses have indicated strong overlaps between diverse work commitment foci, it is argued and shown that there are core differences between self‐related career commitment and other‐related commitment foci. Additionally, Machiavellianism as well as the HEXACO dimensions are investigated as predictors of work commitment foci for the first time.

It is demonstrated that the Austrian school in economics had very different ideas about the creation and change of social institutions and especially about the relation of state and market, which is still one of the fundamental problems of economic theory. Menger′s fundamental distinction of pragmatic and organic institutions and Wieser′s contrary model are discussed, followed by the “impossibility theorem” of Mises and the contrary position of Schumpeter. Hayek′s liberation model of society is presented and criticised, and finally Menger′s position is interpreted as one of moderate liberal interventionism.

This article seeks to discuss trust within the context of public health crises using an autopoietic systems perspective that positions communication as one of its core concepts. This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises in this Millennium (from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics), including their problems; briefly summarize Luhmann's concept of Vertrauen; and use this concept to analyze trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics, including their problems. The perspective used is an explication of Niklas Luhmann's theory regarding Vertrauen which was derived as a framework for reading empirical facts on trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research design and exploration stages were inspired by the theory of autopoiesis systems by Niklas Luhmann.

From a systems perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extraordinary complexity of the linkages between social systems. Trust will continue to evolve dynamically as new variants emerge in society. Consequently, the pandemic has provided the momentum necessary for maximally exploring the concept of trust. Indonesia thus experienced significant obstacles when making and implementing disaster mitigation policies. Owing to the lack of a trust system, greater emphasis was given to control and power. There has been little preparedness to create and reinforce public trust, and this in turn has stifled efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19.

This study of trust, communication and public health crises has provided space to reflect on the development of trust within the social system. This study shows that trust can prove to be a very important factor in resolving a crisis. However, the complexity of the interrelationships of the social system can affect the quality of trust. The context of Indonesia's social system which is very complex due to population density and the dynamics of the development of its social system which is very diverse as an archipelagic country has contributed to the originality of the study of trust in times of crisis in a growing contemporary society.

Self‐referential reflection inevitably reveals paradox. For some, paradox is a fruitful metaphor; for me, it raises problems that have epistemological implications. Traditionally paradox has been avoided by the problematic means of removing the observer from the domain of observation. Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems offers an alternative manner of dealing with paradox. Such systems observe the self‐reference resulting from including an observer within the domain of observation and in their recursively closed operations combine other‐reference with every self‐reference. In this way, paradox is able to be "unfolded" in the operational moment. Luhmann’s social systems require, however, a radically different view of the place of the individual in society from that of traditional social theory – he or she does not belong!Communications are the elementary units for the social processing of meaning. This requires a radical revision of our concept of communication: it is communication that reproduces communication, not individuals.