Search

Civil courage refers to the behavior where people actively intervene to protect a victim in a concrete situation of injustice despite the risk of becoming a victim themselves. To act with civil courage, one requires competencies that relate to prosocial values as well as the physical and social ability to act. In this context, this brief reports the opinions of 2,046 respondents--representatives of Germany with respect to age, gender, and region--on what, according to them, are the best contexts for learning civil courage. "At home and/or from family" as well as "through volunteering" are considered the most suitable contexts to learn civil courage. In contrast, television, social media, and the internet are considered the least supportive contexts.

Building on transparency literature, we theorize that information characteristics such as accessibility of raw data and data source provision influence citizens' trust in public performance information. Next to the question of whether providing a data source matters, we argue that information provision from a non‐government actor can compensate for the information asymmetry between citizens and public sector organizations due to a stronger symmetric data exchange relationship. Integrating and elaborating these theoretical assumptions of principal‐agent theory with bureaucratic reputation theory, the organization's reputation, rather than the stakeholder group the information provider is belonging to, may explain varying trust. We conduct eight online experiments in large‐N data collections in Austria and Germany and find that data accessibility and source provision increase trust in performance information. Whereas citizens have more trust in government‐provided data compared to data provided by other citizens, source reputation matters dominantly for building trust in performance information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To assess hospital performance, quality perceptions of various stakeholders are increasingly taken into account. However, because of substantial background differences, various stakeholder groups might have different and even contrasting quality perceptions. Purpose: We test the hypothesis that an overall perception gap exists between employees and patients with respect to perceived hospital quality. We additionally elaborate on how various employee groups differ from each other and from patients. Methodology: We use primary survey data on perceived hospital quality from 9,979 patients and 4,306 employees from 11 German hospitals. With a multilevel regression and variance analysis, we test the impact of respondent type (employee or patient) on quality perception scores and test the interaction with hospital size. We additionally contrast different employee groups and test differences for various quality dimensions. Results and Conclusion: Hospital employees score hospital quality consistently lower than patients and are also more heterogeneous in their assessments. This makes it from a managerial point of view relevant to subdivide employees in more homogeneous subgroups. Hospital size has no clear effect on the perception gap. Doctors compared to patients and other employee groups have substantially different perceptions on hospital quality. Practice Implications: Our findings fuel the practical and ethical debate on the extent that perception gaps could and should be allowed in the context of high-quality and transparent hospital performance. Furthermore, we recommend that the quality perception gap is a substantial part of the overall hospital evaluation for ethical reasons but also to enable managers to better understand the (mis)match between employees' priorities and patients' preferences. However, we do warn practitioners that perceptions are only to a limited extent related to the organizational level (in contrast to the individual level), and only minimal improvements can thus be reached by differentiating from other hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]