Search results

Scholars have studied how entrepreneurs acquire resources but have not examined how resources may be bundled with constraints, which can threaten entrepreneurial autonomy. Organizational sponsors, such as incubators and accelerators, provide entrepreneurs with resources, but how do entrepreneurs sustain autonomy while seeking resources and support? We studied five entrepreneurial firms in a business incubator over a six-month period. While benefitting from incubator resources, entrepreneurs also experienced unexpected constraints, including mentor role conflict, gatekeeper control, and affiliation dissonance. By showing how entrepreneurs unbundled the incubator’s resources from constraints, we explain how entrepreneurs manage the tension between acquiring resources and preserving autonomy.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.

Business schools offer a unique window into the making of corporate morals since they bring together future executives at formative moments in their professional lives. This paper relies on an analysis of faculty’s teaching tasks at the Harvard Business School to better understand the making of corporate morals. More specifically, it builds on a coding of teaching notes used by faculty members to highlight the importance of silence in promoting a form of moral relativism. This moral relativism constitutes, I argue, a powerful ideology – one that primes business leaders not to vilify any moral stand. In such a context, almost anything can be labeled “moral” and few behaviors can be deemed “immoral.”

The figure of the “Kafkaesque” in law serves often as a stand-in for something like “perverted justice” and ranks prominently among the legal profession as a whole. But we should not soothe ourselves with such obvious clichés surrounding the “Kafkaesque,” rather we must continue to pursue the disturbing challenge Kafka poses for the analysis of the law. It is clear that Kafka’s texts hit a certain nerve of modern law that reaches well beyond these familiar punchlines. It is the task of this article to uncover some of the reasons why Kafka strikes such a strong cord with both legal scholars and people outside of academia alike.

This paper analyses “luxemburgian” political and economic thought and tries to associate its importance with Luxemburg’s role as a socialist and as an activist in the women’s liberation movement. Luxemburg’s “feminism,” Marxism, anti-authoritarianism and independent thinking make her a figure of continuing importance within both Marxism and feminism. At the same time, she was part of a changing political and social reality and not only passed on an important legacy to economics, but also through her political activism alerted us to the dangers of anti-democratic behaviour. Similarly, her defence of internationalism and denunciation of economically motivated imperialist wars was equally original. Summing up, it is Luxemburg who originated new ways of thinking, which go beyond simple representational thought.