Search

Little is known about the impact of family ownership and management on corporate social performance. Some scholars have suggested that family firms are not likely to act in a socially [...]

Parallel streams of theory and research regarding entrepreneurship and careers has led to a dearth of comprehensive theories regarding the careers of entrepreneurs. This article describes four core dimensions of [...]

From the early writings of Joseph Schumpeter until the present day, much of the research on entrepreneurship has focused on answering two questions: Who is an entrepreneur? and What does [...]

Although universities have been the primary source of human resource talent for organizations, there is some question whether current university programs will be able to prepare human resource professionals for the expanded role that is needed in the future. The scope of the field of human resource management has changed dramatically in recent years. Rather than playing what has historically been a perfunctory administrative role to select, train, evaluate, and reward employees, leaders in the field of human resources have come to realize that the role of the human resource professional must be expanded to truly add value to organizations. Given this new set of skills to be developed by human resource professionals in the future, one must wonder who will train these future HR professionals. Masters programs in human resources and industrial relations, such as those at Minnesota and Cornell, train their students superbly in the technical aspects of HR and industrial relations but neglect the field of organization development.

In this article the authors discuss an article published in a pervious issue that presented an approach to building better theory through the use of case studies. The authors suggest that the paper does not do enough to support the claim that the methods used surpass pervious methods for conducting case studies. They compare the author's approach with various case studies and discuss the limitations of the author's work. Their main concerns fall into three areas; the in-depth study of a single case, deep vs. surface description and the telling of good stories vs. the creation of good constructs. They assert that by not conducting the in-depth research applied in a traditional case study the author is depriving the research of the insight one receives from that depth of study.

Existing theories of culture change in organizations generally fail to take the nature of the culture to be changed into account. his suggested here that different cultures may change through different processes. Factors that influence the persistence of culture and the impact that organizational history has on culture change are discussed. Implications for future research are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extending the dialogue on corporate social performance (CSP) as descriptive stakeholder management (Clarkson, Acad Manage Rev 20:92, ), we examine differences in CSP activity between family and nonfamily firms. We argue that CSP activity can be explained by the firm's identity orientation toward stakeholders (Brickson, Admin Sci Quart 50:576, ; Acad Manage Rev 32:864, ). Specifically, individualistic, relational, or collectivistic identity orientations can describe a firm's level of CSP activity toward certain stakeholders. Family firms, we suggest, adopt a more relational orientation toward their stakeholders than nonfamily firms, and thus engage in higher levels of CSP. Further, we invoke collectivistic identity orientation to argue that the higher the level of family or founder involvement within a family firm, the greater the level of CSP toward specific stakeholders. Using social performance rating data from 1991 to 2005, we find that family and nonfamily firms demonstrate notable differences in terms of social initiatives and social concerns. We also find that the level of family and founder involvement is related to the type and frequency of a family firm's social initiatives and social concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the recent research on family businesses has focused on how the family affects business performance. This commentary suggests that researchers should also consider how certain variables affect both the business and the family. Suggestions for how to do such research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to provide an explanation for the contradictory evidence in the literature regarding the performance of family-owned firms. The article suggests that most of the research fails to clearly describe the “family effect” on organizational performance. The “family effect,” based on agency theory and the resource-based view of the firm, is described and propositions are generated that examine the relationship between families and organizational performance. Implications for theory and research are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares the survival strategies used by the founders of family and nonfamily businesses in the hostile economic environment of Lithuania. In this exploratory study, six firms were studied in depth: three family firms and three nonfamily firms. These firms were in that sector of the Lithuanian economy designated as “light industry.” The major strategies used by founders to keep their firms viable include (1) developing social capital to gain favor with local authorities and important customers and suppliers and (2) using family networks to gain access to human and financial capital. The family businesses appeared to be more successful than the nonfamily enterprises. Moreover, the ability to draw on family resources seemed to be the predominant reason for their modest success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suggests an alternative framework for diagnosis and intervention in entrepreneurial organizations. Theory and conceptual framework; Methodology for diagnosis; Managing change in the entrepreneurial firm; Conclusions.

Bien que les entreprises commerciales aient ete reconnues comme une element crucial de l'economie des Etats-Unis, peu survivent a leur fondateur. Le probleme de la "liberation" par les fondateurs de leur pouvoir et position de direction est evident pour les enqueteurs. Cette etude se concentre sur le besoin de puissance des entrepreneurs comme facteur contribuant & compliquer le developpement et la mise en oeuvre de projets de succession. La volonte de l'entrepreneur d'engager des demarches de succession est positivement liee au degre de besoin de puissance sociale, et negativement liee au degre de besoin de puissance individuelle qui l'animent. L'instinct de puissance des entrepreneurs peut influencer le developpement du processus de succession. Ceux qu'inspire l'idee de "pouvoir social" sont susceptibles de ressentir moins de difficultes a renoncer a leurs prerogatives que ceux qu'inspirent le besoin de "pouvoir personnel." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]