Working from home and management controls

The Covid-19 pandemic and the corresponding shift toward working from home (WFH) amplifies control problems within organizations and poses severe challenges for management control as employees' tasks are difficult to observe under WFH conditions. We examine the association between WFH and action controls. Based on a survey among employees in a large international corporation, we find that under WFH conditions the organization more intensively uses standardization and planning participation. We also examine the association between WFH and employee outcomes. The findings suggest that WFH is associated with more time employees spend in meetings and a higher job focus. Overall, the study adds to the literature by exploring the association between WFH and the use of management controls in organizations.

Characterization of Spaces and Didactic Units for the Improvement of Diversity Gaps

Currently, most educational centers have specific spaces where, depending on the technology available in them, specific practices are carried out. Some examples of these spaces are the computer labs, electronics, biology, chemistry, or maker spaces. The CreaSTEAM project aims to create STEAM spaces in schools, so that they are multidisciplinary and transversal spaces where elements and technologies of all kinds coexist, and above all, rather than being focused on technology, they are focused on the development of STEAM skills and vocations, especially to reduce gaps in diversity. This article focuses on the design of an instrument that allows the conceptualization of STEAM practices in these new educational environments, contemplating and relating both educational methodologies, technologies, and diversity gaps to be solved or studied.

Person, Right, and Nature on the protection of life as a state task against the background of the Covid-19 pandemic

To what extent can the protection of life and health justify a restriction of fundamental rights and social life, as in the current Covid-19 pandemic, regarded from an ethical and jurisprudential perspective? Only ethics and law, and not medicine, can give the ultimate orientation framework here. This does not preclude that medical arguments, too, can play an important role in the process of deliberation. Hence, questions arise concerning this normative orientation framework and concerning the status of the appeal to "the right to life and physical integrity" (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, article 2, paragraph 2, sentence 1) in relation to this framework. In how far is the protection of life a governmental task? First, I focus on the concepts of 'person' and 'human dignity' from the perspective of Kant's philosophy (1). Questions arise concerning right as well as the relation of the person to nature and life. Here I go beyond Kant's dualism towards a more 'integrative' perspective: On the one hand the human being must be regarded as a psychosomatic unity, on the other hand a plurality of relevant perspectives must be included (2). This has consequences for the relation of the human being towards the virus and for the concept of health (3). However, these aspects must be incorporated within the normative background of Kant's practical philosophy. Not life or health, but only dignity can be an absolute end in itself. Against this background, I consider some central arguments of the public and legal debates which arose in the course of the first lockdown in spring 2020, especially concerning the relationship of dignity and life and the proportionality of the restriction of fundamental rights (4). As I demonstrate by reference to the examples of elderly people in nursing homes as well as children and young people, we must take into account the specific conditions and necessities of different social groups as well (5). I conclude that the protection of life is subordinated to the principle of dignity in the case of doubt;an integrative and differentiated view is needed which takes into account the specific situations of different social groups (6). © 2021 University of Salzburg.

Central banks and their limits in a pandemic

This chapter details the reactions of central banks to the current Covid-19 pandemic and contrasts them with their monetary policy operations during normal (non-crisis) times and their reactions to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. It situates the response of central banks in Asia within a global context, examining and comparing the responses of central banks in the United States, the Euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Moreover, the chapter explains why this crisis is unprecedented, making it dangerous in terms of financial stability and state finances and difficult for central banks to return to normality. In the current crisis, central banks find themselves in an ambiguous situation. On the one hand, they are better prepared than they were thirteen years ago when the GFC erupted. On the other hand, relying on experience from the GFC comes with risks. No two crises are ever the same, and this is especially true for the Covid-19 pandemic. Financial markets and economies are not the triggers of this crisis as they were in many previous crises when central banks had to react swiftly and forcefully;instead, they have fallen victim to a calamity that paralyzes society, trade, and business globally. © the several contributors 2021.