Restoring Trust: The Role of HR in Corporate Governance

Theories of knowledge-based competition focus on internal resources as the source of value creation. The HR architecture (Lepak & Snell, 1999) brought human resource management directly into this forum by developing a model of human capital allocation and management. We attempt to extend the HR architecture by introducing a framework of relational archetypes—entrepreneurial and cooperative—that are derived from unique combinations of three dimensions (cognitive, structural, and affective) that characterize internal and external relationships of core knowledge employees. Entrepreneurial archetypes facilitate value creation from external partnerships while cooperative archetypes facilitate value creation from internal partnerships. This paper identifies how each of these archetypes is managed by a corresponding HR configuration and how they together contribute to value creation by facilitating organizational learning via exploration and exploitation

Individuation in the Main Characters of J.K. Rowling's HARRY POTTER Series

This paper examines the individuation of Potter and Voldemort in Harry Potter series. To be a holistic individual, a person needs to be individuated by managing their three main archetypes. The three main archetypes are persona, shadow, and anima or animus. Potter and Voldemort have to manage their archetypes their journey as human beings. Each of them has to know his persona including his appearance, behavior and role; confront his shadow; and balance his anima. In the end, Potter manages himself to be a individuated person who can lead a good life, while Voldemort fails to be an individuated person and, as a result, he died

Developing archetypes for domestic dwellings : An Irish case study

Stock modelling, based on representative archetypes, is a promising tool for exploring areas for resource and emission reductions in the residential sector. The use of archetypes developed using detailed statistical analysis (multi-linear regression analysis, clustering and descriptive statistics) rather than traditional qualitative techniques allows a more accurate representation of the overall building stock variability in terms of geometric form, constructional materials and operation. This paper presents a methodology for the development of archetypes based on information from literature and a sample of detailed energy-related housing data. The methodology involves a literature review of studies to identify the most important variables which explain energy use and regression analysis of a housing database to identify the most relevant variables associated with energy consumption. A statistical analysis of the distributions for each key variable was used to identify representative parameters. Corresponding construction details were chosen based on knowledge of housing construction details. Clustering analysis was used to identify coincident groups of parameters and construction details; this led to the identification of 13 representative archetypes

Probabilistic Archetypal Analysis

Archetypal analysis represents a set of observations as convex combinations of pure patterns, or archetypes. The original geometric formulation of finding archetypes by approximating the convex hull of the observations assumes them to be real valued. This, unfortunately, is not compatible with many practical situations. In this paper we revisit archetypal analysis from the basic principles, and propose a probabilistic framework that accommodates other observation types such as integers, binary, and probability vectors. We corroborate the proposed methodology with convincing real-world applications on finding archetypal winter tourists based on binary survey data, archetypal disaster-affected countries based on disaster count data, and document archetypes based on term-frequency data. We also present an appropriate visualization tool to summarize archetypal analysis solution better.Comment: 24 pages; added literature review and visualizatio

Legal Archetypes and Metadata Collection

In discussions of state surveillance, the values of privacy and security are often set against one another, and people often ask whether privacy is more important than national security.2 I will argue that in one sense privacy is more important than national security. Just what more important means is its own question, though, so I will be more precise. I will argue that national security rationales cannot by themselves justify some kinds of encroachments on individual privacy (including some kinds that the United States has conducted). Specifically, I turn my attention to a recent, well publicized, and recently amended statute (section 215 of the USA Patriot Act3), a surveillance program based on that statute (the National Security Agency’s bulk metadata collection program), and a recent change to that statute that addresses some of the public controversy surrounding the surveillance program (the USA Freedom Act).4 That process (a statute enabling surveillance, a program abiding by that statute, a public controversy, and a change in the law) looks like a paradigm case of law working as it should; but I am not so sure. While the program was plausibly legal, I will argue that it was morally and legally unjustifiable. Specifically, I will argue that the interpretations of section 215 that supported the program violate what Jeremy Waldron calls “legal archetypes,”5 and that changes to the law illustrate one of the central features of legal archetypes and violation of legal archetypes. The paper proceeds as follows: I begin in Part 1 by setting out what I call the “basic argument” in favor of surveillance programs. This is strictly a moral argument about the conditions under which surveillance in the service of national security can be justified. In Part 2, I turn to section 215 and the bulk metadata surveillance program based on that section. I will argue that the program was plausibly legal, though based on an aggressive, envelope-pushing interpretation of the statute. I conclude Part 2 by describing the USA Freedom Act, which amends section 215 in important ways. In Part 3, I change tack. Rather than offering an argument for the conditions under which surveillance is justified (as in Part 1), I use the discussion of the legal interpretations underlying the metadata program to describe a key ambiguity in the basic argument, and to explain a distinct concern in the program. Specifically that it undermines a legal archetype. Moreover, while the USA Freedom Act does not violate legal archetypes, and hence meets a condition for justifiability, it helps illustrate why the bulk metadata program did violate archetypes