1. How do you define humor in the workplace? (10 words min)
2. How does humor in the workplace help the team or organization achieve its overall goals? (20 words min)
3. How does your immediate leader (direct manager) use humor in the workplace? (20 words min)
4. Provide an example of how your immediate leader used humor, and why do you think they used it? (35 words min)
5. What effect does your leader’s use of humor have on your job satisfaction? (405 words min).
(Job Satisfaction definition: Job satisfaction is the extent to which an employee is satisfied with his/her job; the extent to which the job helps the employee to fulfill his/her personal goals).
Include some of these key words in the written “conversational narrative” response: achievement, amusement, comfort, content, delight, enjoyment, fulfillment, gratification, happiness, joy, peace of mind, pleasure, pride, relief, well-being, bliss, cheerfulness, ease, reward
6. What effect does your leader’s use of humor have on your job engagement? (405 words min).
Job Engagement definition: An “engaged employee” is defined as one who is fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work and takes positive action to further the organization’s reputation and interests. An engaged employee has a positive attitude towards the organization and its values. Job engagement is the extent to which an employee is involved with his/her job; this includes not only being willing to perform the job’s duties but also, being aware of and invested in its purpose and goal
7. What effect does your leader’s use of humor have on your on-the-job morale? (405 words min).
(On-the-job Morale definition: Description of the emotions, attitude, satisfaction, and overall outlook of employees during their time in a workplace environment).
8. Please describe your experiences with your leader’s use of humor in the workplace. (35 words min)
9. What is your opinion regarding whether the use of humor by leaders is appropriate? (35 words min)
In his understanding of illumination, Mendelssohn focuses at opportunity of still, small voice; this flexibility is firmly associated with individuals’ religious confidence. As indicated by Mendelssohn, a state ought not impact religious confidence of individuals; it is this specific flexibility of decision that constitutes the center of Mendelssohn’s meaning of edification. Basically breaking down Jewish religious authoritative opinions through the possibility of edification, Mendelssohn figures out how to defeat the current religious inclinations and unite Christian and Jewish religions (Beiser 92-93). For Moses Mendelssohn, such changes constitute genuine edification, restoring humanism and liberality. Albeit both Mendelssohn and Kant apply to religious angles in their understandings of illumination, they use diverse perspectives. Kant talks about the issue of illumination through religion, since he considers that the current religious foundations are excessively unsafe for individuals; in this way it is pivotal to lessen their impact on people, using motivation to challenge church experts. Kant looks at that as a man should dismiss the pervasive religious generalizations and create new gauges for himself/herself as per reason and through and through freedom. Not at all like Kant, Mendelssohn focuses at the way that the procedure of edification is religious in its quintessence; that is the reason the thinker makes an endeavor to mollify religious issues with sanity of philosophical reasoning (Sorkin 35-42). Notwithstanding the way that Mendelssohn sees Judaism as religion that has the most abnormal amount of reason, he by and by condemns a few parts of this religion, decimating customary comprehension of Judaism (Altmann 13-19). Mendelssohn considers that illumination can furnish individuals with the intelligent elucidation of certain religious issues. The savant feels that straightforward confidence in God can’t demonstrate the presence of God, at the same time, applying to reason, individuals can discover answers to all dubious religious viewpoints. As Arkush calls attention to, in his meaning of illumination Mendelssohn uncovers that “reason could show the major certainties of common religion; that is, the presence of God, provision, and everlasting status” (xiii). Kant communicates the comparative idea, guaranteeing that reason can both demonstrate and dislike the presence of God; as it were, reason rouses the two individuals’ convictions and questions. In any case, just investigating two sides of the issue with the assistance of reason, an edified individual can understand the embodiment of the universe and his/her own reality. In such manner, Kant uncovers even the taking a stab at edification calms individuals of their reliance and furnishes them with opportunity. Then again, differentiating such parts of edification as reason and opportunity with youthfulness and reliance, Kant restricts Mendelssohn’s energy about Judaism. For Kant, Judaism significantly relies upon a realist world; it is a religion that uses individuals for its own advantages, denying them of opportunity and illumination. The contrasts amongst Kant and Mendelssohn are strengthened considerably more when the scholars examine the unfolding of the time of edification. As indicated by Moses Mendelssohn, the period of edification would barely come, in light of the fact that all through their history individuals have moved ahead and in reverse, averting further advancement of mankind. Moses looks at that as a distinctive individual can secure a specific level of edification; in any case, whole mankind makes consistent constraints and laws, either religious or state, which thwart the procedure of illumination. In his examination of edification Kant communicates an alternate perspective; specifically, he guarantees that mankind dependably advances in its improvement. In spite of the fact that the logician recognizes the presence of a few confinements and obstructions, he focuses at the way that these cutoff points may just back off the procedure of edification, however they can never totally crush it. As Kant views edification as a constant advance, he understands that individuals, using reason and gaining some learning, will keep on striving for illumination. What’s more, it is this yearning for significant learning and comprehension of human presence that Kant translates as edification. In such manner, Kant imagines that it is extremely imperative to draw a parallel amongst over a wide span of time ages, breaking down different phases of their improvement. Then again, Kant uncovers a conspicuous obstruction to the advance of illumination; as individuals more often than not break down just separate parts of the universe, they neglect to join these components into a total picture. Because of this failure, individuals may think that its hard to impact each other and completely incorporate into the procedure of illumination. In any case, notwithstanding these undeniable contrasts, both Kant and Mendelssohn in their translation of illumination make endeavors to keep up the thoughts of realism without an open dismissal of the presence of God. This is particularly valid with respect to Moses Mendelssohn who does not challenge the presence of God, but rather contradicts the current religious laws that make the constant truth for adherents, denying them of the likelihood to accomplish illumination. Along these lines, both Mendelssohn and Kant characterize illumination through the investigation of the down to earth approaches to accomplish edification; be that as it may, not at all like Mendelssohn, Kant constructs his definition in light of specific invalidations, for example, ‘reliance’, ‘youthfulness’, ‘deficiency of boldness’. In this specific situation, Kant exhibits that the initial phase in getting illumination is the end of everything that denies individuals of reason and opportunity; just defeating the principal phase of disposal, a man can continue to the second phase of securing. Dissecting the meanings of the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant and Moses Mendelssohn, the article has uncovered that Kant’s elucidation of edification depends on the idea of flexibility and chiefly manages a man’s capacity to conquer youthfulness and internal feelings of dread. Examining illumination, particularly through religious angles, Kant gives two noteworthy ideas that constitute his vision – ‘private’ and ‘open’ utilization of reason. Mendelssohn’s elucidation of illumination mirrors a nearby association amongst edification and culture, however the savant’s qualification of ‘common illumination’ and ‘human illumination’ shows the contrast between a man as a national and a man as a person. Albeit both Kant and Mendelssohn hold fast to open and private perspectives in their comprehension of edification, their translations significantly contrast. Specifically, Kant considers that the general population use of reason ought to be kept free, while the private utilization ought to be presented to specific confinements; not at all like Kant, Mendelssohn feels that now and again the general population use ought to be limited, or else it might create some negative results for society. In such manner, Kant’s definition concerns a down to earth side of the issue, in spite of the fact that it depends on the standards of ‘escape’, for example, escape from inward feelings of dread toward development. Despite what might be expected, Mendelssohn’s definition is made on a hypothetical premise and deciphers illumination through the standards of ‘accomplishment’. Nonetheless, both Immanuel Kant and Moses Mendelssohn point at the need of flexibility in the Enlightenment, notwithstanding the way that Kant has a tendency to keep up the possibility of opportunity from religion, while Mendelssohn bolsters the possibility of flexibility inside religion. Works Cited Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn, A Biographical Study. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1973. Arkush, Allan. Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. Beiser, Frederick. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1987. Belas, L. “Kant and the Enlightenment.” Filozofia. 54 (2000): 457-463. Kant, Immanuel. What is Enlightenment. Establishments of the Metaphysics of Morals and What is Illumination. By Immanuel Kant. New York: Macmillan, 1990. 83-90. Lassman, Peter. “Illumination, Cultural Crisis, and Politics. The Role of Intellectuals from Kant to Habermas.” The European Legacy. 5 (2000): 815-828. Mendelssohn, Moses. On the Question: What does “To Enlighten” Mean? Philosophical Writings. By Moses Mendelssohn. Trans. what’s more, ed. Daniel O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 1997. 313-317. Meyer, Michael. The Origins of the Modern Jew. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967. Schmidt, James, ed. What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-Century Questions and Twentieth-Century Answers. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1996. Shmueli, Efraim. Seven Jewish Cultures: A Reinterpretation of Jewish History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Sorkin, David. Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.>