Exploring the shared meaning of being at one’s best in work

This research takes an iterative multiple case study approach and seeks new insight from common language in the workplace – specifically exploring what we mean when we say that we’re at our best in work. Being at your best is a common term in the workplace but one that is not reflected in the academic literature. Given that it is commonly used, perhaps there is a common or shared meaning. Exploring that shared meaning could help identify how to get more from individuals and support the development of positive workplaces. There are three strands to this research thesis. Firstly, the notion of being at one’s best is introduced. The literature review identifies an overlap in the concepts of work performance, engagement and commitment. These three concepts are complex and have challenges of definition and measurement. It is suggested that being at one’s best can be understood as involving high performance, engagement and commitment and will involve factors that are consistent to each of the three concepts. The overlap of the concepts is demonstrated in the pilot studies undertaken in three retail stores: the highest performing store; the store with the highest staff engagement survey results; and the store with the longest serving (committed) staff. Interviews, wordlists and questionnaires were interrogated and consistent themes across the 3 contexts formed a tentative framework of positive subjective states and positive behavioural patterns. Secondly, this thesis explores the possibility of a shared meaning of being at one’s best – extending the research to wider organisations. Further case studies are undertaken involving a total of 154 individuals in: a highly engaged hotel team; a high performing executive search team; the top performing shop managers in one company; and a study of individuals with at least five years’ service and intending to stay in their jobs. The common experiences of these individuals form the refined framework that describes being at one’s best in terms of: Positive subjective states (feelings); Positive behavioural patterns; and values. Individuals were feeling positive about themselves, their job, and their colleagues. They also showed positive behaviours related to achieving, supporting, and interacting. The connection between an individual’s values and their work was also highlighted as playing a role in being at one’s. The third and final strand of the research is the opportunity to reflect on techniques used to explore shared meaning. There is little consistency in the literature regarding how to explore shared meaning. The iterative approach of this research allowed for reflection on: interviews, questionnaires, word lists, focus groups and mental model activities as potential techniques for exploring shared meaning. The reflections provide insight regarding each technique and lead to the suggestion that focus groups are used earlier in the process of exploring shared meaning in the future

Double Indemnity for Operators of Nuclear Facilities? \u3ci\u3eIn re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation\u3c/i\u3e, the Price-Anderson Act, and the Government Contractor Defense

Thousands of people who lived downwind of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have brought suit against the contractors who operated the facility, claiming that radiation releases caused property damage, illness, and death. For the defendants, there is little at stake. Because they fall under the Price-Anderson Act, the U.S. Government will indemnify them for their legal expenses and any judgments against them. Nevertheless, the defendants have invoked the government contractor defense, claiming that they should be immune from suit because anything they may have done wrong was done at the direction of the government. This Comment argues that the government contractor defense, which is a creation of federal common law, should not be available to Price-Anderson contractors. Operators of nuclear facilities are already protected by the indemnity provisions of Price-Anderson. Price-Anderson carefully balances the need to ensure that victims of nuclear accidents receive swift and adequate compensation with the goal of facilitating the participation of the private sector in the nuclear industry. To preserve this balance and avoid denying recovery to plaintiffs with legitimate claims, Price-Anderson must preempt the government contractor defense

The Political Question Doctrine and Civil Liability for Contracting Companies on the “Battlefield”

Out of a myriad of concerns in this evolving arena-ranging from criminal jurisdiction, to training, to labor and employment law-this Article focuses on providing an overview of the "political question" doctrine's development in recent case law associated with civil complaints brought in American courts against contracting companies operating in battlefield environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan, a matter addressed by the author at the Review of Litigation's Symposium- Terror on Trial: Civil Litigation in the War on Terror. The political question doctrine, which excludes from judicial review all controversies involving policy choices and other value determinations that the Constitution reserves to the Congress and the Executive for resolution, represents a formidable jurisdictional shield and will no doubt continue to be a source of jurisprudence and debate in the future

Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism: Teaching the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design in the Public Schools

Professor Addicott’s article addresses the future legal ramifications that the fledgling intelligent design movement and the scientific concept known as the Anthropic Principle will have on the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools. Both ideas are associated with the concept that an “unnamed” intelligent designer is responsible for the creation and sustainment of life. Predicting that the Supreme Court will ultimately allow, for instance, school boards to incorporate intelligent design in the science curriculum, he believes neither of the two ideas violate the Establishment Clause and cannot be “dismissed as yet another back door attempt by creationists to get a sectarian religious idea into the public schools.” In tracing the evolution/creation debate, Professor Addicott clearly establishes all the interested segments in the controversy to include the Fundamentalist creationists and “Darwinian activists.” Interestingly, in evaluating how the Court will view intelligent design, Professor Addicott explores what he terms the “Darwinian paradigm”―arguing that Darwinian activists may have already violated the Establishment Clause by making Darwinian evolution its own religion

Operation Desert Storm, R. E. Lee or W. T. Sherman?

Many are unaware of the phenomenal benefits that our military has most certainly drawn from General Lee. Curiously, this was brought out by the battle in the Persian Gulf, When reporters asked General Schwarzkopf which military leaders he most admired, Schwarzkopf, as expected, turned to the War Between the States for his examples. What was totally unexpected to some, however, was that he departed from the opinions of recent prominent American military leaders who typically cited General Lee, and instead cited General William T. Sherman as one of his heroes As this article will assert, the United States of America was fortunate that both General Schwarzkopf and the forces under his command emulated the tactics and humanity of the Confederate General instead of the Union leader he mentioned. Although General Schwarzkopf’s public admiration for General Sherman really raised little concern about the soundness of America’s military strategy or its willingness to abide by the law of war in the conduct of hostilities, his recognition of Sherman and exclusion of Lee does raise several critical issues. First, recognizing the importance of image projection, it provides an opportunity to examine the roots of America’s international reputation in terms of war-making and the role of law in regulating this conduct. Second, from both a tactical and law-of-war perspective, whom did our commanders and soldiers most emulate-Robert E. Lee or William T. Sherman

Contractors on the Battlefield: Contractors on the "Battlefield:" Providing Adequate Protection, Anti-Terrorism Training, and Personnel Recovery for Civilian Contractors Accompanying the Military in Combat and Contingency Operations

Along with identifying the legal and policy considerations associated with these issues, this Article addresses civil liability to the parent contracting company should it fail to provide adequate protection, or appropriate AT training, or both, to their civilian employees serving overseas in hostile environments. Providing adequate protection, antiterrorism (AT) training and, if necessary, personnel recovery for civilian contractors deployed to support U.S. military operations presents significant legal and policy challenges that both the military and civilian contractor companies have yet to fully appreciate, let alone properly institutionalize. One of the consequences of the global War on Terror is that American and coalition contractors are increasingly subjected to kidnappings, torture, and murder by terrorists, criminal elements, and other insurgency forces. Without question, civilian contractors will continue to be integral participants in the ongoing War on Terror. Therefore, it is imperative that issues of force protection, AT training, and personnel recovery be fully delineated and the related legal contours be more clearly defined

Cyber Security and the Government / Private Sector Connection

Whether emanating from a terrorist organization, criminal element, severe weather incident or human error, a significant cyber disruption is very likely to affect the United States in the foreseeable future; it is naïve to think otherwise. Despite these serious risks, most experts agree that the United States does not currently possess a sufficient cyber security framework to adequately protect cyberspace and the information it contains, processes, and transmits. In part, this is because over 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is controlled by private industry. In most instances, government cyber security standards do not apply to the civilian sector

Proposal for a New Executive Order on Assassination

The purpose of this article is to provide a policy and legal analysis of the U.S. position regarding assassination, as viewed in the context of the lawful use of preemptive military force. In doing so, the article examines the deficiencies of the current Executive Order 12,333 and suggests that it should be replaced by a new executive order which clearly defines the circumstances under which individuals may be lawfully targeted for death by military forces-either in peacetime or war. Alternatively, if a new and more precise executive order is not issued to replace Executive Order 12,333, this article suggests that there are two interlocking principles that militate against overturning Executive Order 12,333. The first of these reasons regards properly interpreting the most common definition of assassination; the second considers the proper use of armed force under the rule of law. Taken together, this article concludes that those who advocate that the ban on assassination should be lifted without modification are essentially advocating that the United States should be able to engage in unlawful killing, or murder