Unknown

"Do zavřených úst nevletí moucha."

"Dobré jméno, nejlepší dědictví."

"Dobrá vůle stojí za skutek."

"Dáš-li prst, vezme hrst."

"Dvakrát měř, jednou řež."

"Dlouhý jazyk, krátké ruce."

"Čiň čertu dobře, peklem se ti odmění."

"Častá krůpěj kameny proráží."

"Čas jsou peníze."

"Co oči nevidí, srdce nebolí."

"Co si naseješ, to žáti budeš."

"Co se doma uvaří, má se doma sníst."

"Co můžeš udělat dnes, neodkládej na zítřek."

"Co máme, rádi dáme."

"Co je napsáno, to nesmyješ."

"Chudoba cti netratí."

"Byl v Říme a papeže neviděl."

"Bůh dá den, Bůh dá pokrm."

"Bude-li v holubníku krm, holubi se sletí."

"Bez práce nejsou koláče."

"Igor: Welcome to the Velvet Room. ( Yōkoso waga Berubetto Rūmu e)"

"Peer relationships, also referred to as “equivalent status” relationships (Sias, Krone, & Jablin, 2002), are relationships between co-workers with no formal authority over one another. These relationships represent the bulk of workplace relationships, as employees typically have only one supervisor but several peer co-workers. Peer relationships perform a variety of important functions in the workplace. Peer co-workers are the most likely, and most important, source of emotional and instrumental support for employees, primarily because co-workers possess knowledge and understanding about the workplace experience that external sources do not (Ray, 1987). Moreover, peers act as a second “set of eyes and ears” for one another, sharing important organizational information and gossip that may otherwise be unobtainable (Rawlins, 1994). Kirby and Krone (2002) note the powerful influence peer co-workers have on one another with respect to workplace attitudes and behavior. Thus, peer relationships are of great consequence to organizational functioning. Peer relationships, like supervisor–subordinate relationships, vary with respect to quality. Kirby and Krone (2002), for instance, noted the ways in which peer co-workers cluster into sub-groups based upon the employees’ family status (e.g., married/unmarried; children/childless). They found that interaction among these groups of employees differed and had significant impact on the employees’ attitudes toward, and use of, the organization’s work–family policies. Sias and Cahill (1998) examined the ways employees form different types of relationships with their co-workers ranging from acquaintance, to friend, to very close or best friend. Interaction among these various relationship types differed in fundamental ways. Specifically, friends engaged in much more frequent, intimate, and open communication than did acquaintances. In addition, communication between co-workers became increasingly broad and intimate as their friendships grew closer."

"The most widely-accepted theory regarding supervisor–subordinate relationship quality is Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory (Graen & Scandura, 1987). According to LMX theory, supervisors form different types of relationships with their various employees and these relationships vary with respect to quality (Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972; Graen & Schiemann, 1978). In general, higher quality supervisor–subordinate relationships (also known as “in-group” relationships) are characterized by higher levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation among the relationship partners. In such relationships, leaders and members learn they can count on one another for support and encouragement. As a result, higher quality relationships function more as “partnerships” where “members move beyond their own self-interests to focus on larger mutual interests” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leader–member relationship quality is associated with a variety of important individual and organizational outcomes. For example, employees in higher quality relationships report higher levels of job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp 1982) and commitment to the organization (Nystrom, 1990) than do employees in lower quality relationships. In addition, research indicates leader–member relationship quality is negatively related to employee turnover (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982). Focusing largely on such outcomes, LMX research has given only limited attention to the communication that occurs between leaders and members (e.g., Fairhurst, 1993). This work provides some direction for speculation regarding how leader–member relationship quality might be associated with employee information experiences. High quality LMX relationships tend to be characterized by high levels of trust and self-disclosure (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986). As a consequence, supervisors and subordinates may communicate more openly (i.e., more frequently and about more 378 P. M. Sias issues) in high quality relationships than in low quality relationships. Thus, employees in high quality relationships likely receive more information from their supervisors, than those in low quality relationships"

"Evidence of the destructiveness of unrealistic expectations can be found in the literature on cognition and marriage. For example, people who feel that their relationship standards (e.g., how alike they believe they should be, the degree to which they should engage in acts of caring and concern for each other) are unmet are more inclined to report more negative cognitive and affective reactions to marital problems (Baucom et al., 1996). Further, research on relationship beliefs indicates that idealistic and unrealistic beliefs, like “mind reading is expected” (partners who truly care about and know one another should be able to sense each other’s needs and preferences without overt communication), “sexual perfectionism” (one must be a “perfect” sexual partner) and “disagreement is destructive” (disagreements in marriage are a sign of impending doom) are positively associated with marital distress (eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981) and negatively associated with the desire to maintain the relationship (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982)."

"... many of us will have managed to drink alcohol, even drink too much alcohol, for much of our lives without waking up in a police cell or becoming suicidal. And although we may, occasionally, have made idiots of ourselves, there may have been more positive consequences, too: who knows what proportion of long-term relationships in Britain began under the influence of booze? I’d guess a majority."

"Freedom lovers must learn to tune in to the underlying truth of the power of personal relationships. But we must do so with intentions of goodwill when reaching out to others who don’t share our views. And we must express our true beliefs without the self-censorship that political correctness demands. …So be a real friend to others, not an “influencer” who seeks to exploit people under the guise of friendship to push for a collectivist agenda. Keep your eyes peeled for signs of “changemakers” who pretend to come to “depolarize,” but are really seeking to colonize your town and your mind."

"Individuals primarily seek social relationships to fulfill their need for belonging (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Lee and Robbins 1998). Human beings are social animals and because ‘no man (woman) is an island’ (Donne 1975), people are naturally inclined to make social connections to satisfy their need for belonging (Maslow 1954; Brewer 2005). Baumeister and Leary (1995) described belonging, the need to form and maintain interpersonal bonds, as one of the fundamental motivations behind human behavior. Most research indicates a common definition of what loneliness is – it is an aversive psychological state due to a person’s perception of lacking satisfactory social relationships. Quantity of social relationship is a contributing factor to lonely feeling: people will feel ‘lonely’ when there are too few people around them (Russell, Peplau and Cutrona 1980), as opposed to the ‘crowded’ feeling when individuals are surrounded by too many people. However, quality may be more important than quantity at times. As the sufficient number of relationships varies among individuals (Jones 1982), loneliness has also been understood as the perception that one’s existing interpersonal relationships do not meet one’s expectations (Weiss 1973; Gordon 1976; Peplau and Caldwell 1978; 4266 L.W. Lam and D.C. Lau Downloaded by [University of Macau Library] at 00:54 22 September 2012 Newcomb 1990; Green, Richardson, Lago and Schatten-Jones 2001). Other scholars describe loneliness as painful feelings and emotional distress due to insufficient or unsatisfactory social connections or relationships (Rook 1984; Cacioppo et al. 2006; Cacioppo and Patrick 2008; Rotenberg et al. 2010)."

"Every relationship is fundamentally a power struggle, and the individual in power is whoever likes the other person less."

"In a relational culture of cynicism and despair, churches can provide hope and help in living the vocations of marriage and family life that most of us are called to. The best dating app can only start relationships. Churches can nurture and sustain them."

"Innsidh na geòidh as t-fhoghar e."

"Èist ri gaoth nam beann gus an traogh na h-uisgeachan."

"Tuig thus’ an t-eathar, 's tuigidh an t-eathar thu."

"Tha fios aig an luch nach 'eil an cat a's tigh."

"Sheideadh e na h-adharcan de ghobhar."

"S ionnan tosd is aideachadh."

"Nuair a thig air duine thig air uile."

"Mu tha thu airson a bhith buan, na teid eadar an té ruadh agus a' chreag."

"Is minig a bha droch bhròg air mnaoi griasaiche."

"Is leigheas air gach tinneas creamh is ìm a’ Mhàigh; òl am fochair siud bainne ghobhar bàn."

"Is fheàrr Gàidhlig bhriste na Gàidhlig sa chiste."

"Is da thrian tionnsgnadh."

"Que bien aime, tard oublie."

"Je crains l'homme d'un seul livre."

"Jamais paresseux n'eut grande écuelle."

"Jamais deux sans trois."

"Il ya anguille sous rouche."

"Il y a péril en la demeure."

"Il y a serpent caché sous des fleurs."

"Il vaut mieux qu'on dise "il court-là", qu'"il gît ici"."

"Il vaut mieux plier que rompre."