9/17/2010

GESTÃO 19

CARAPETO,Carlos e FONSECA, Fátima, Administração Pública Modernização Qualidade e Inovação. Lisboa: Ed. Sílabo, 2006, 2ª ed. (ca. 438 pp. e 25 euros)







“Um feedback eficaz é uma informação fornecida a uma pessoa sobre aquilo que ela alcançou (desempenho/comportamentos anteriores) e as consequências que daí resultaram (resultados). Não se trata de emitir uma simples opinião (por exemplo, «excelente trabalho»)



Mas sim fornecer uma informação desprovida de juízos de valor” (p. 143)



“As parcerias no sector público não são uma mera moda de gestão. (…) São a expressão de novos modos de acção pública, um novo meio de mobilização de actores e recursos” (p. 269)





“Na era do conhecimento, o capital humano é o principal recurso estratégico das organizações”
(…)




“Várias estudos conduzidos noutros países indicam que a modernização da administração pública tem de se fazer com e para os funcionários”
(…)




“Este discurso [que “culpa” os funcionários públicos pelo mau funcionamento dos serviços - N. de Kriu] tantas vezes repetido que ganhou contornos de verdade científica. Mas a verdade é que uma análise mais desta questão deita por terra esta pseudo-verdade” (in Epílogo)

TESTEMUNHOS 20


RAMO, Joshua Cooper, A Era do Imprevisível. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2010 (ca. 270 pp. e 16 euros)




“(…) precisamos de decisores e pensadores políticos que tenham a percepção revolucionária intuitiva das exigências inevitáveis da inovação. (…) Por exemplo, acreditar que o triunfo da democracia e do capitalismo é inevitável deveria afastar-vos de imediato de um cargo sério em política externa.

(…) na era em que muitas das forças mais dinâmicas da sociedade vêm de fora dos círculos das elites, de tipos estranhos que, outrora, teriam sido considerados “falhados, uma tal abordagem é um erro de proporções catastróficas” (p. 44,5)

ECONOMIA

KRUGMAN, Paul, A Consciência de um Liberal. Lisboa: ed. Presença, 2009 (ca. 269 pp. e 16 euros)

 
“Nos anos 30 e 40 foram criadas instituições e estabelecidas normas que limitavam a desigualdade; a partir dos anos 70, essas instituições e normas foram anuladas, o que provocou um aumento de desigualdade.

(…) na Europa, por exemplo, os sindicatos continuam fortes e não se dissiparam as velhas normas que condenavam os salários elevados dos executivos e enfatizavam os direitos dos trabalhadores” (pp. 142,3)



“Em 2000 Katherine Harris, secretária de Estado republicana da Florida, levou a cabo aquilo a que o New York Times chamou uma «maciça purga de eleitores elegíveis». Sem essa purga, George W. Bush nunca teria conseguido chegar à Casa Branca” (123) (p.195)

(123) «Foram rejeitadas críticas à lei eleitoral», The Washington Post, 17 de Novembro de 2005, p. A01


“Ser liberal é de certa forma ser conservador: significa, em larga medida, o desejo de voltarmos a ser uma sociedade de classe média” (p.266)



“O facto central da vida política norte-americana moderna é o controlo do Partido Republicano por parte dos conservadores de movimento, cuja visão daquilo que os EUA deveriam ser é uma antítese completa da visão do movimento progressista” (p.268)

Se cada final é recomeço


E tudo é nada do avesso


A despedida é sempre desmedida


O saber uma verdade desmentida


E porque de nada me despeço


Legível ou ilegível partirei ileso





(Gonçalo Luis Barra)

9/16/2010

DESTAQUE

"CONSENSUS STATEMENT" in Conferência "Edge"

A statement of consensus reached among participants at the Edge The New Science of Morality Conference Washington, CT, June 20-22, 2010

(...) The participants in the conference described their own work, and then attempted to draft a list of points on which all could agree. They reached consensus on the eight points listed below.

 
This Consensus Statement is not intended to speak for all who study morality, nor is it intended to be a definitive pronouncement about morality. Rather, the statement is intended to be a starting point for an Edge Reality Club conversation. It is proposed as a first draft of a partial description of the state of the art, submitted to the research community for commentary and editing.
In addition, a forthcoming set of individual statements will highlight areas of disagreement among this statements signatories.

Signed by:

Roy Baumeister, Florida State University

Paul Bloom, Yale University

Joshua Greene, Harvard University

Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia

Sam Harris, Project Reason

Joshua Knobe, Yale University

David Pizarro, Cornell University

THE REALITY CLUB: Liane Young, Robert Kurzban, Jonathan Baron, Linda J. Skitka, Kees van den Bos, Daniel R. Kelly, Peter Ditto, Alison Gopnik, Randolph Nesse, M.D.


CONSENSUS STATEMENT


1) Morality is a natural phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon

Like language, sexuality, or music, morality emerges from the interaction of multiple psychological building blocks within each person, and from the interactions of many people within a society. These building blocks are the products of evolution, with natural selection playing a critical role. They are assembled into coherent moralities as individuals mature within a cultural context. The scientific study of morality therefore requires the combined efforts of the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.



2) Many of the psychological building blocks of morality are innate

The word "innate," as we use it in the context of moral cognition, does not mean immutable, operational at birth, or visible in every known culture. It means "organized in advance of experience," although experience can revise that organization to produce variation within and across cultures.



Many of the building blocks of morality can be found, in some form, in other primates, including sympathy, friendship, hierarchical relationships, and coalition-building. Many of the building blocks of morality are visible in all human culture, including sympathy, friendship, reciprocity, and the ability to represent others' beliefs and intentions.



Some of the building blocks of morality become operational quite early in childhood, such as the capacity to respond with empathy to human suffering, to act altruistically, and to punish those who harm others.



3) Moral judgments are often made intuitively, with little deliberation or conscious weighing of evidence and alternatives

Like judgments about the grammaticality of sentences, moral judgments are often experienced as occurring rapidly, effortlessly, and automatically. They occur even when a person cannot articulate reasons for them.



4) Conscious moral reasoning plays multiple roles in our moral lives

People often apply moral principles and engage in moral reasoning. For example, people use reasoning to detect moral inconsistencies in others and in themselves, or when moral intuitions conflict, or are absent. Moral reasoning often serves an argumentative function; it is often a preparation for social interaction and persuasion, rather than an open-minded search for the truth. In line with its persuasive function, moral reasoning can have important causal effects interpersonally. Reasons and arguments can establish new principles (e.g., racial equality, animal rights) and produce moral change in a society.



5) Moral judgments and values are often at odds with actual behavior

People often fail to live up to their consciously-endorsed values. One of the many reasons for the disconnect is that moral action often depends on self-control, which is a fluctuating and limited resource. Doing what is morally right, especially when contrary to selfish desires, often depends on an effortful inner struggle with an uncertain outcome.



6) Many areas of the brain are recruited for moral cognition, yet there is no "moral center" in the brain

Moral judgments depend on the operation of multiple neural systems that are distinct but that interact with one another, sometimes in a competitive fashion. Many of these systems play comparable roles in non-moral contexts. For example, there are systems that support the implementation of cognitive control, the representation of mental states, and the affective representation of value in both moral and non-moral contexts.



7) Morality varies across individuals and cultures

People within each culture vary in their moral judgments and behaviors. Some of this variation is due to heritable differences in temperament (for example, agreeableness or conscientiousness) or in morally-relevant capacities (such as one’s ability to take the perspective of others). Some of this difference is due to variations in childhood experiences; some is due to the roles and contexts influencing a person at the moment of judgment or action.



Morality varies across cultures in many ways, including the overall moral domain (what kinds of things get regulated), as well as specific moral norms, practices, values, and institutions. Moral virtues and values are strongly influenced by local and historical circumstances, such as the nature of economic activity, form of government, frequency of warfare, and strength of institutions for dispute resolution.



8) Moral systems support human flourishing, to varying degrees

The emergence of morality allowed much larger groups of people to live together and reap the benefits of trust, trade, shared security, long term planning, and a variety of other non-zero-sum interactions. Some moral systems do this better than others, and therefore it is possible to make some comparative judgments.



The existence of moral diversity as an empirical fact does not support an "anything-goes" version of moral relativism in which all moral systems must be judged to be equally good. We note, however, that moral evaluations across cultures must be made cautiously because there are multiple justifiable visions of flourishing and wellbeing, even within Western societies. Furthermore, because of the power of moral intuitions to influence reasoning, social scientists studying morality are at risk of being biased by their own culturally shaped values and desires.



Signed by:

Roy Baumeister, Florida State University

Paul Bloom, Yale University

Joshua Greene, Harvard University

Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia

Sam Harris, Project Reason

Joshua Knobe, Yale University

David Pizarro, Cornell University



Arquivo do blogue