Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare what criteria novice and habitual entrepreneurs use while adding members to the founding team.

This paper uses conjoint analysis (CA) to provide the order of preference for the “choice attributes.” The logic of CA is that even if two or more attributes influence the choice, it is unlikely that those attributes will have equal importance for founders with different entrepreneurial experiences.

This paper found a significant difference in the ranking of the attributes by novice and habitual entrepreneurs. In novice entrepreneurs, the effect of direct ties in the form of kinship ties has the highest preference, followed by prior social contact and prior work relations. However, personal friendships and resource dependency received lesser importance than interpersonal attraction because of the similarity in vision, beliefs and values. Habitual entrepreneurs, however, valued resource dependency and prior work relations more than kinship ties. Also, unlike novice entrepreneurs, habitual entrepreneurs sought cofounders from their indirect ties.

There has been an explosion of interest and funding for programs that help entrepreneurs establish a cofounding team. The authors inform these programs related to the decision concerning assisting novice and habitual entrepreneurs.

While prior studies examined a single attribute at a time, the strength of this study lies in simultaneously tapping all attributes, along with multiple indicators for each attribute. Additionally, this study distinguishes the selection criteria of cofounders based on the entrepreneurial expertise of the lead founder.

The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the existing literature on entrepreneurial teams (ET) by taking a multi-disciplinary viewpoint and provide a future research agenda based on the identified themes and trends.

A systematic literature review (SLR) was undertaken using “business source complete”. Further scrutiny and application of exclusion criteria led to a final sample consisting of 139 papers from 27 different journals belonging to not just entrepreneurship and strategic management but also other disciplines like OB, finance, sociology, psychology, etc. Using qualitative thematic analysis, the authors identified 11 major themes.

The paper reviews both the eleven themes and the linkages between the themes. Thereby identifying areas that have been understudied and those that have received comparatively more attention. The review revealed that the research stream possesses certain conceptual and methodological concerns apart from its cross-sectional and primarily bivariate nature. Five such main concerns have been identified and discussed in detail. Other elements of the resulting research agenda include calls for more clinical process-oriented research, further attention to context, shifting the level of analysis, and a need to integrate across disciplines.

This paper incorporates a broad insight of ET across academic disciplines to show how future contributions could benefit by incorporating research from other fields. In doing so, provides a starting point for more nuanced discussions around the interrelationships between the different conversations that are taking place in the ET literature.

THOUGH rockets have aroused a good deal of public interest during the last few years and a great number of very interesting books and articles have been published about the theoretical side of this new science, little is generally known about the experimental progress that has been made, especially in Germany and the U.S.A. In describing this science—the Americans call it “rocketry”—as “new,” it is to be understood that this term applies only to the mathematics of it. The ordinary powder or “sky” rocket is by no means new, but has a long and very involved history, going back to Hassan Alrammah, called “nedshm‐eddin” (The Faithful) in A.D. 1280, who designed the first rocket‐driven torpedo. But though rockets in general (i.e. the powder rocket, which alone existed previous to 1929) have a history of almost a millennium and have even been of historical importance (Sir William Congreve's war‐rockets), the manufacturers of powder rockets knew nothing about their mathematics. When, for example, in 1928 the German Verein für Raumschiffahrt discussed the problem of exhaust velocities and impulses, its president, Johannes Winkler, asked the largest rocket factories about this information and received the answer that they did not know it and had no way of determining it. Winkler was therefore obliged to take the thrust‐diagram of a powder rocket himself (Fig. 1). This diagram revealed that the thrust of a sky‐rocket lasts for only two‐tenths of a second; this result was really amazing and the most amazed were the manufacturers of these rockets.

Die Behandlung des Themas läßt es zweckmäßig erscheinen, eine doppelte Vorbemerkung vorauszuschicken: Einmal, warum ist eine “Industriepolitik” in einer Marktwirtschaft notwendig? zum anderen, ist eine Industriepolitik mit dem Konzept der sozialen Marktwirtschaft vereinbar?

Although tourism is based on growing mobility, traffic currently represents the biggest problem for many tourist resorts. The high volume of traffic in holiday resorts is steadily undermining their attractiveness for tourists. People are becoming increasingly aware of this issue, and various efforts are being made to get local traffic problems under control. The technical aspects are widely known, but the measures taken and the implementation procedures used lack consistency and the success achieved varies considerably. This research project has focused on concrete implementation processes for traffic measures and their impact on the environment. In particular, questions about the acceptance of measures and how these relate to the implementation process have been of great interest.

Internet user privacy risks have been a topical subject with respect to consumers, corporations and governments. In line with the recent privacy scandals linked to social media, the aim of this study is to explore users’ privacy protection behaviors (PPB) on Facebook through the actions they take to protect their privacy, their underlying motives and the values behind these protective actions. Moreover, this study aims to address an unintended consequence of Facebook usage. Despite Facebook’s positive and uplifting goal of connecting people, consumers are forced to resort to specific behaviors to protect their privacy and well-being.

This study adopts an exploratory research approach by using a well-established qualitative technique: structured laddering interviews. In total, 20 in-depth personal interviews were conducted with the Millennials.

Results show that the process of privacy protection is initiated by experiences, uncertainty and literacy, rather than threats, which leads to concerns that trigger PPBs. The most common PPBs include: “Reflection,” “Avoidance,” “Intervention,” “Restriction,” “Control,” and “Restraint.” The underlying motives for the adoption of these strategies include: “Success,” “Security,” “Social Recognition,” “A World of Peace,” “Exclusivity of Self,” “Being in Control,” “Meaning” and “True Friendship”.

The present research adopts a transdisciplinary framework to help fill the gap regarding the interplay of PPBs on Facebook, the triggers of those behaviors and their underlying motives. It contributes to the service literature and practice as it provides insights into a growing area of interest, whereas more social media channels are being created and more services are using social media strategies to engage and interact with their customers. Finally, it addresses the growing need to consider the impact of technological services, including internet and social media, on consumers’ and societies’ well-being.

Simply put, this is an important book – for many reasons. Daring to stand in the middle of multiple communities who usually hate one another, Deirdre McCloskey seeks to reconcile them, pointing out to each their actual compatibilities, and in the process, demolishing their fiercely defended disciplinary boundaries, as well as exposing some of their more unpleasant hypocrisies.

While working on the final draft of Das Kapital Volume I, Marx discovered that the assumption that he had previously held: as it circulated capital extended its sphere of operation and at the same time absorbed earlier forms of economic organization was not supported by empirical evidence. From 1869 he began to study how in fact capital began to circulate in Russia, a country which had begun to create a capitalist economy after the liberation of the peasantry in 1861. Marx was aided in this project by Nikolai Danielson, who sent him materials on the Russian economy and who himself made a study of contemporary trends in Russian economic development. Marx contributed to the article Danielson published in 1880 on this subject. One of the works Marx acquired was the book by Vorontsov, who concurred with Danielson that only some features of capitalism were present in the Russian economy and that peasants were dispossessed without being re-deployed in capitalist enterprises. Marx died without incorporating his Russian material into the second volume of Das Kapital. Engels failed to see any problem with the circulation of capital and published the manuscripts as he found them, dispersing Marx’s Russian materials. Unlike Danielson, Engels was convinced that Russia’s economic development did not differ in any way from that of Western Europe, a conviction shared by Plekhanov and Lenin, who classed Danielson and Vorontsov as “narodniki.” Lenin’s book The Development of Capitalism in Russia is a polemic against Danielson and Vorontsov, but does not directly address the points they made.

After some introductory words about the preeminence of German accounting research during the first half of the 20th century, the paper offers a survey of the most important theories of accounts classes that still prevailed during the first two decades or longer. Following World War I, the issue of hyperinflation in Austria and Germany stimulated a considerable amount of original accounting research. After the inflationary period, a series of competing Bilanztheorien, discussed in the text, dominated the scene. Two figures emerged supremely from this struggle. The first was Eugen Schmalenbach, with his “dynamic accounting”, a series of further important contributions to inflation accounting, to the master chart of accounts, to cost accounting, and to other areas of business economics. The other scholar was Fritz Schmidt, with his organic accounting theory that promoted replacement values and his emphasis on the profit and loss account, no less than the balance sheet. The gamut of further eminent personalities, listed in chronological order, contains the following names: Schär, Penndorf, Leitner, Gomberg, Nicklisch, Rieger, Prion, Osbahr, Passow, Dörfel, Sganzini, Walb, Calmes, Kalveram, Meithner, Lion, Töndury, Mahlberg, le Coutre, Geldmacher, Max Lehmann, Leopold Mayer, Karl Seidel, Alfred Isaac, Mellerowicz, Seyffert, Beste, Gutenberg, Käfer, Seischab, Kosiol, Münstermann, and others. Separate Sections or Sub‐Sections are devoted to charts and master charts of accounts in German accounting theory, as well as to cost accounting and the writing of accounting history.