Search results

Demonstrates that the European Union (EU) has moved from a twin‐track to a triple‐track approach to the vetting of cross‐border competition concerns. The twin‐track approach is based on co‐operation at the multilateral and bilateral levels. The new third track, not based on co‐operation, is the legal right to unilaterally apply competition instruments extraterritorially. The EU has pushed to establish a multilateral approach through the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. Although there has been some support for this, the reservations from the USA and others make this track unfeasible for the foreseeable future. In the absence of any significant multilateral progress, the EU has concluded bilateral agreements with major partners, but the approach has its limitations – the EU can only deal with the countries with which it has such an agreement. The Commission’s third track unilaterally applies EU competition instruments extraterritorially using the effects doctrine.

In March 1998, the first major revision of the European Merger Control Regulation (MCR) came into effect with particular implications for the demarcation of authority for merger control between member states and European level competition authorities and for the treatment of joint ventures. The overall balance of the reform is mixed. Changes to the threshold test, for example, ensure that the MCR will capture proposed concentrations which have a Community dimension but which were missed by the original test. However, the cost of the revision is greater complexity and, with this, greater opacity. Both tests are form‐based and deal with aggregate turnover and are insufficiently sensitive to capture the competition effects of the merger in individual product markets. Article 9 implicitly recognises this flaw by providing a second decentralisation test. Again, the revision of Article 9 has added to the complexity of the operation of the MCR. An alternative would be to dispense with Article 9 altogether. The revisions improve the consistency of the MCR by introducing a “one stop shop” for the treatment of joint ventures, some of which were previously dealt with under Article 85. However, the codification of joint venture provisions creates a situation in which the Commission is required to investigate aspects of a joint venture which are national rather than European in nature.

The current study examined relationships between goal orientation dimensions and other individual difference constructs in order to clarify the conceptual definition of goal orientation. Results from a sample of university students (N = 228) revealed that learning goal orientation is related to constructs addressing competence (need for achievement, intrinsic motivation, and private self‐consciousness) and to constructs addressing control (locus of control and dominance). Additionally, results indicated that performance goal orientation is related to constructs addressing individuals' desire for favorable evaluations (social desirability and public self‐consciousness). Finally, we proposed that self‐esteem addresses issues relating to both competence and desire for favorable evaluations, and results revealed support for predicted relationships with learning and performance goal orientation dimensions. Our clarification of the goal orientation construct provides a framework to guide future research.

The purpose of this article is to address and gain a more complete understanding of the effects on performance attributable to the gender composition of teams.

The authors examined gender as a team composition variable that influences performance on a computer‐based task, and we investigated task framing (masculine/feminine) and competition (isolated/dyad) as explanatory factors in the gender composition‐performance relationship. Whereas previous research combines matched gender dyads in analyses, we distinguished male/male from female/female dyads to isolate the effects on performance and examine competition effects.

Distinguishing between male/male and female/female dyads revealed only male/male dyads had superior performance. Task framing was not supported as an explanation for the observed performance differences, but competition was. Contrasting the gender effect in competitive conditions relative to isolated conditions revealed a gender difference in performance between competitive conditions only.

Given competition's clear role in the gender composition‐performance relationship, a more rigorous examination and manipulation of competition is needed beyond the comparison of isolated and dyadic conditions.

Previous research suggests to organizations/practitioners that matching teams by gender will result in optimal performance. Based on our findings, such an implementation would be to the detriment of female teams in the organization, and associated legal issues could arise.

The authors found the superior performance of matched teams to be attributable to the matching of male/male teams and the associated competitive context, and not attributable to matched teams in general. The results should be considered as a caution for both the academic and applied domain alike.

The purpose of this article is to understand the role of individual and relational self‐concepts on various team processes and outcomes in a team context.

Participants (n=470) worked in dyads on a computer‐based truck dispatching task, deciding as a team which task activities to perform and in what order. The authors assessed differential relationships between individual and relational self‐concepts and various team processes (e.g. trust) and outcomes (satisfaction).

Subjective task complexity was influenced primarily by individual self‐concept, specifically their core self‐evaluations. Trust in others was influenced primarily by individuals' relational self‐concepts, specifically their teamwork predisposition. Intrinsic motivation and satisfaction were influenced by both individual and relational self‐concepts.

Future research should examine these effects in teams larger than dyads, with other types of tasks, over longer time periods, and with non‐college student samples.

Depending on the task type, a practitioner might cue different self‐concepts to increase individuals' focus on team performance, individual performance, or both. For example, if the team task is highly interdependent and reciprocal in nature, then the team can be trained together or provided information to cue relational self‐concept.

This paper focuses on the construct of individual and relational self‐concepts and their effects on individual functioning in a team context. The results support and extend prior research by demonstrating that outcomes in a team context can be identified and examined in relation to individual conceptions of the self, relational conceptions of the self, or by both.

The purpose of this exploratory research was to investigate whether: entrepreneurship in the higher education context can be distinguished by disciplined‐based needs; and curricula can be developed around these needs.

The authors reviewed the literature related to the development of professions in order to establish a sound theoretical base to distinguish disciplines that require stringent criteria, and which potentially would challenge the introduction of a more flexible curriculum that includes contemporary concepts such as entrepreneurship. The research then focused on two other groups of disciplines which lead to entrepreneurial opportunities with distinct needs in (principally) people management and intellectual property law. This discussion was couched in the occupational motivation literature. Semi‐structured interviews (n=31) were conducted with individuals randomly selected from three groups associated with an American Land Grant Research University. Additional survey data were collected from 58 respondents.

The research found support for the categorization of disciplines into the framework of profession‐, industry‐, or invention‐based entrepreneurial ventures.

Although this is an exploratory investigation, the framework sets out clear pathways through the entrepreneurial processes and has crucial implications for a variety of stakeholders. For example: curriculum designers will be better able to understand and address the demands and vagaries of multiple disciplines; critical assumptions (that often plague those involved with technology transfer) will be able to be addressed prior to or in the early stage of the commercialization process because inventors will be better informed and prepared; equity stakeholder negotiations (particularly those that involve government‐operated institutions) will be more realistic as both parties, over time, become increasingly “market‐savvy”; and students (tomorrow's entrepreneurs) will be better able to plan for an entrepreneurially‐focused career.

Examines the pioneering work of the European Commission, with the support of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of First Instance (ECFI), to apply the merger control of regulation (MCR) to situations of collective as well as to single dominance. Reveals that the Commission first applied the notion of collective dominance in the Nestlé Perrier merger in 1992 but that the legality of this practice was questionable, given that the express wording of the MCR does not mention the notion. The legal challenge arose from the takeover of Mitteldeutsche Kali AG by Kali und Salz with the landmark judgment favouring the stance of the Commission – the MCR does encompass situations of collective dominance. Examines why the court reached this decision, particularly given that the Advocate General’s opinion was exactly the opposite.

The purpose of this research was to investigate using the seminal writings of Schumpeter and Kirzner as a guide – individuals who are potentially involved in entrepreneurship can be identified as being innovators or opportunity‐alert. Specifically, this exploratory project attempts to answer the following question: “Are some individuals better at being innovators, while others are better able to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities and, if so, does academic‐career training matter?”

The study relied on purposive sampling and received survey responses from postgraduate students in business and engineering. The 26‐item survey was made up of demographic indices and questions from the Schumpeter and Kirzner literature. A total of 242 business and 525 engineering students received the e‐mail from academic advisors. Usable responses were received from 36 business students (15 percent response rate) and 67 engineering students (13 percent response rate).

The research found evidence that individuals with engineering training were not as proficient at recognizing opportunities as their business‐trained contemporaries.

This is an exploratory research project which acknowledges the associated limitations. As well as contributing to a deeper understanding of two core entrepreneurship topics these findings have pedagogical and practitioner implications. From a pedagogy vantage point, instructors will be better equipped to frame courses in entrepreneurship if they better understand the propensity of their audience. The results indicate that this is particularly relevant to engineering schools. In practitioner terms, funding groups and various supporters of entrepreneurs (business angels, family financiers, and the like) will be better able to understand and work with individuals if they are aware that they are not, for example, alert to new opportunities.

This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of innovation and opportunity alertness.