Search results

The study of humor has a long tradition in philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and communications. Evidence from these fields suggests that humor can have effects on creativity, cohesiveness, and performance, but organizational scholars have paid it relatively little attention. We hope to “jump-start” such a research program. To do this, we first outline the theoretical rationale underlying the production and appreciation of humor, namely, its motivational, cognitive, and emotional mechanisms. Next, we review the literature linking humor to creativity, cohesiveness, and other performance-relevant outcomes. In particular, we note how this literature is theoretically well-grounded, but that the empirical findings are largely correlational and/or based on qualitative research designs. Finally, we go beyond the current humor literature by developing specific predictions about how culture might interact with humor in organizational contexts. Throughout the paper, we discuss possible research directions and methodological issues relevant to the study of humor in organizations.

This writing is performed with and about disappointment in moments of failed research and teaching. The bulk of this chapter was written some years ago and describes, reflects on, and analyzes a self-study inquiry about the phenomenon of pedagogical reading. Having returned to and studied this earlier work, I offer a posthuman postscript that rereads the initial inquiry primarily through the work of Deleuze. Rereading intimate scholarship through a post-human lens decenters the self as knower, writer, and teacher, making possible otherwise ways of imagining reading, writing, and studying together. In my case, posthumanism provides tools for rereading two concepts offered for understanding teaching literature, naked and belated pedagogy. While these concepts were somewhat productive in helping me understand what I was experiencing as a researcher and writer, they reproduce and justify traditional, text-centered teacher identities and practices. They are a product of and themselves reproduce what Deleuze and Guattari (2003) called “arborescent” thinking. Ultimately, naked and belated pedagogies reinforce traditional curriculum practices, sidestep students’ lives, and position the teacher as final authority in matters of curriculum control and interpretation. Disappointment includes those affections and emotions that arise through a posthuman rereading of the research scene – including what I, the researcher and teacher, failed to do, say, think, and teach.

SINCE the year 1940, there have appeared two major reports on the Public Library system in Great Britain. The first, “The public library system of Great Britain: a report on its present condition, with proposals for post‐war re‐organisation” by Lionel R. McColvin, appeared in 1942. It suggested sweeping changes in the organisation of the public library system, more radical and far‐reaching than those embodied in the recent recommendations of the Library Association for local government reform. On library co‐operation, the report was equally radical, though certain similarities with the recommendations of the second report are apparent.

Bernard Malamud said “…a short story packs a self in a few pages predicating a lifetime. The drama is tense, happens fast, and is more often than not outlandish. In a few pages the story portrays the complexity of a life while producing the surprise and effect of knowledge…” According to Helen Haines, “The short story may be, perhaps, best defined as the equivalent in fiction to the lyric in poetry and the one‐act play in drama: the intensified, concentrated expression of an idea or theme…It demands greater, but less sustained, mastery of style than does the novel…The brevity of the short story, while it limits, also makes for freedom…” The freedoms it allows include posing problems without solutions, ignoring logical development to a conclusion, and referring to vague ideas which are never detailed. These allowable omissions of the short story lead to its great power for the reader. For a short story is only completed through the interaction of its reader. “The readers are forced into active collaboration: they flesh out the story through memory, sympathy, and insight, and they feel its truth as immediately as a toothache.”

This paper aims to explore the conditions for meaningful work as a moral responsibility. Meaningful work is important in an increasingly globalized world in which greater wealth does not necessarily contribute to greater happiness and workers' well‐being is often not within their own control. Often, meaningful work is considered to be desirable but not morally obligatory despite the continuing need for work that improves social and environmental welfare.

This paper utilizes literary examples to explore objective (Melville's Bartleby) and subjective (Proust's Marcel and Joyce's Stephen) conceptions of meaningful work.

How we define what meaningful work is – who has control over it and whose interests are at stake – makes a difference as to whose responsibility it is. An objective conception of meaningful work, focusing on the tendency for industrial production to exploit the worker, entails a weak (though nonetheless important) claim about moral responsibility, that there is a negative duty on the part of the employer not to deprive the worker of the possibility to choose work that is meaningful. A subjective conception of meaningful work, focusing on the worker's choice, raises a more contentious question about whether it is a moral responsibility at all to pursue meaningful work, when the only stakeholder is oneself.

The paper uses literary texts to explore in a concrete way how meaningful work can be considered to be a moral responsibility of individuals and institutions or employers, to make progress towards a holistic view of management.