Search results

Puts forward the view that the creative and innovative process with which wealth is created should also belong to the innovators, not just the financial investors. Innovation processes primarily arise from the hearts of the innovators, who over the years have not been adequately compensated in terms of share ownership, and only in recent years the influx of stock options to these generators of growth and wealth has been seen as one means of making up for that difference. In entrepreneurial firms this arrangement is well understood and the founder‐entrepreneur is compensated with stocks. As the organizations become larger, this innovative perspective begins to dissipate, to the extent that one forgets to pay attention and identify innovators in one’s organization, who have been innovating products to meet the demands of the market and, in turn, allow the organization to continue for another day. As a result, it has been forgotten that one key role of the board of directors should be the harnessing of the innovative energies in the workforce, such that wealth can continue to be created. Presents a perspective with regard to innovation and how, by rewarding and tightening the link between innovation and share ownership, one is in fact rewarding the creation of wealth, particularly in this ever‐changing knowledge economy.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the way in which agency theory has crowded out other approaches to understanding the governance of modern businesses. The paper rescues the meaning and context which informed the American corporate governance reform movement originally and demonstrates how the economically predicated agency approach became dominant in academic considerations of corporate governance.

Both primary and secondary sources were considered in a Foucauldian history of ideas approach.

Other approaches to corporate governance have been pushed out of the mainstream of corporate governance discourse by an economic model which excludes many of the key issues which informed the notion originally.

Dominant academic attitudes to corporate governance have occluded other ways in which the governance of corporations can be understood.

Previous accounts of corporate governance have ignored the alternative approaches represented before agency theory became dominant.

The average European businessman works too hard for his own — or his family's — good, according to the findings of a study undertaken by Fernando Bartolomé, assistant professor at the Insead management school.

The purpose of this paper is to resolve and remove from the governance arena in general and the project arena in particular, conflict which occurs when parties do not realise they have different meanings for common governance terms.

Review literature on definitional confusion in general and on governance in particular and develop a method for defining an internally consistent group of terms, then apply this to a group of terms in the governance arena.

Several important subjects commonly arranged under the governance banner do not actually constitute governance (strategy, behaviour, decision making).

Further work is necessary to remove similar confusion in other closely related areas, including power itself and authority as well as project and general management terms such as responsibility and accountability.

Projects and business alike can potentially achieve significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness through gaining consistency across current models, frameworks, policies and procedures thus reducing cross-boundary conflict.

Creation of a unifying feature within the project and management literature, shifting the understanding of the boundaries and limitations of governance. These definitions will help progress governance from complexity to simplicity, from an art to an understandable practice, from a concept that has been hijacked for partisan and political gain to a lean social tool which can be put to use for the benefit of organisations, whether public, charitable or private.

The value is clarity – resulting in the avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding together with their consequent waste of time, resources and money.

It was stated by a philosopher of very early days that the Gods sell their choicest goods in the cheapest market; and, it may be added, if it is necessary to impress such an obvious truism, that the greatest poverty may often be found in the midst of riches. The herring well illustrates the truths of the above paragraph.

The purpose of this paper is to, first, investigate the differences between generations in family businesses and, second, develop and verify the Family Business Success Model ability to improve the probability of business success measured by perceived profits, growth and meeting the owners’ expectations.

Data were collected through questionnaires and personal interviews. Overall, 98 usable questionnaires were collected for statistical analysis with a response rate of 82 percent.

One-way ANOVA hypotheses testing of the variables found four significant differences between generations. Regression analysis found the Family Business Success Model to be significant. Family business owners can improve the probability of success by utilizing a team-management decision-making approach, effectively handling conflict effectively, formulating specific succession plans, developing strategic plans, using sophisticated financial management methods, dealing effectively with the founder’s influence and if they seek to grow, they should consider going public.

This study provides family business owners, managers, educators and public policy makers with the means to help family businesses survive and grow effectively throughout generations by using the Family Business Success Model. In addition, this study can help consultants and advisors of family businesses to understand the differences between the first, second and third generation family businesses from a holistic perspective and help them implement the family business model.

This study contributes to the literature as one of the few studies in the Lebanese emerging market that examines how the first, second and third generations of family businesses differ. More importantly, it develops a Family Business Success Model that improves the probability of success.

Reports on corporate governance, suggesting there are some serious issues of concern. Examines the relationship between major economic problems and governance issues. Considers the recommendations of the Cadbury Committee. Concludes that improvements in the standards of corporate governance must continue, and this will contribute to improvement in the long‐term performance of United Kingdom companies.

Few regret the passing of an old year, with its darkening days and cold nights, its message fading as the voice weakens. A new year always looks more attractive with hopes of better things to come, but an occasional look back over one's shoulder, as it were, is seldom completely without profit, for experience can sometimes be more potent than hope. 1968 seemed to have more than its share of uncertainties, tragedies and disasters, in this country and in the world at large. An unsure economic state, to say nothing of monetary confusion, was reflected in every field of industry and public administration, but in the field of food quality and purity control, steady progress towards a comprehensive system of food standards, of hygiene and of food additive control was maintained. In fact, the year may be seen as not an entirely unfruitful one, with one or two events which may well prove to be landmarks.