Search results

The past decade of empirical research has established a body of knowledge about family business. A summary of this body of knowledge can be a guide for the content of family business instruction. One such summary now exists. A recent study compiled and assembled the dependent variables used in family business research (Yu, Lumpkin, Brigham, & Sorenson, 2009). This paper summarizes the findings of that study, discusses the extent to which course content in family business matches the current state of the field, and comments about possibilities going forward for courses in family business. Two textbooks are used to illustrate current course content: Family Business by Poza (2007) and Strategic Planning for the Family Business by Carlock and Ward (2001).

Family is a variable rarely included in organizational research (Dyer, 2003). Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma (1999) argued that one way researchers could bring clarity to the concept of family business would be to distinguish between operational and theoretical definitions. In this paper, we provide a theoretical definition for family business that is based on social capital theory (Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Lesser, 2000; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 1993). A family business is one in which the social structure of the family overlaps with the social structure of the business. The result is that the social structure in the business takes on some of the characteristics of the family, especially in small businesses. In addition, and importantly, the social structure of the family takes on some characteristics of the business. In this paper, we focus on how the social structure that exists between marriage partners may influence the social structure in family firms.

The concept of fit is central to theories in both the fields of strategic management and organizational behavior. It is our contention that many key questions in the field of entrepreneurship might also be successfully addressed through a fit approach. For instance, why do entrepreneurs often make poor managers? And why must founders often be replaced by professional managers as their firms grow? The idea of misfit is implicit in both of these questions. A fit perspective may also be beneficial in better understanding specific entrepreneurial behaviors. For example, why does one entrepreneur start and grow multiple businesses over his or her career (serial) while another might be content with starting only one business (novice)? or Why does one entrepreneur continually strive to grow his or her firm while another is content to arrest development (lifestyle) at a certain level? All of these questions, and obviously many more, can be viewed and examined as questions of fit.

Claims that the consumer behaviour field, during the last two decades, has become both multinational and multidisciplinary. States that marketing with its consumer behaviour, has become the most import sub‐field, while significant contributions to its understanding have been made by economists, psychologists, sociologists and political scientists. Attempts to prove that integrating the field into comprehensive models has not been very successful thus far, by using a different track. Organizes into 9 sections and addresses, finally, the further development of consumer theory and research. Posits that the majority of studies on consumer behaviour have approached the subject matter at the individual, rather than the group, level. Summarizes that the ‘gospel’ preached is that of individual, proactive, foresightful choice ‐ which is compatible with rationalistic culture, stressing volition and personal responsibility by broadening the field of consumer behaviour

The purpose of this paper is to develop and empirically test a conceptualization of competitive aggressiveness (CA), a dimension of entrepreneurial orientation.

Structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression are employed on responses from 182 banks in the southwestern US Performance data on the banks are drawn from the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) Call reports.

The results indicate awareness, motivation and capability are antecedents of CA, which itself is positively related to increased market share and, in more dense markets, profitability.

Aggressive firms exhibit certain routines that can lead to competitive actions, which assists performance in some contexts. Managers who wish to increase (or decrease) their firms' overall competitive posture can encourage (or discourage) employees from performing competitive routines such as monitoring their rivals or talking about their rivals' strategies.

By developing CA' conceptualization, the study advances the understanding of the antecedents of competitive behavior and makes it easier to study competition in smaller firms.

C. Herman Pritchett saw politics in law without losing the sense that law was not simply politics. This synthesis from the 1940s was lost in the last half of the 20th century and it deserves to be brought back. While denial that politics matters is a staple of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, this position is no longer credible. In constitutional law in particular, politics has pushed law aside in the minds of scholars, journalists, and many Americans. This makes it hard to find a place for law in the study of the Supreme Court. This chapter advocates a return to the balance that was in place over 50 years ago when we were first taught that Supreme Court decisions were political.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.