The Experts below are selected from a list of 141465 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Reiko Kishida - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does the family Business interaction factor represent a resource or a cost
Family Business Review, 2004Co-Authors: Ernesto J Poza, Susan Hanlon, Reiko KishidaAbstract:The authors investigate the interaction between families and their Businesses and the impact of this interaction on management and governance practices used. Family Businesses participating in the family Business programs at three U.S. universities completed questionnaires pertaining to family and Business Culture and practices. The research draws on the agency cost theory, governance, systems theory, and the resource-based view of organizations literature in the consideration of family firm attributes and the relationship between family members, nonfamily managers, and the firm. Chief executive officers generally perceive management practices, succession processes, and family environment more favorably than do either other family members or nonfamily managers. There are no significant differences in perceptions between active and inactive family members on the family scales. The difference in perceptions of the family firm between nonfamily managers and family managers is discussed as a challenge to the ...
-
does the family Business interaction factor represent a resource or a cost
2004Co-Authors: Ernesto J Poza, Susan Hanlon, Reiko KishidaAbstract:The authors investigate the interaction between families and their Businesses and the impact of this interaction on management and governance practices used. Family Businesses participating in the family Business programs at three U.S. universities completed questionnaires pertaining to family and Business Culture and practices. The research draws on the agency cost theory, governance, systems theory, and the resource-based view of organizations literature in the consideration of family firm attributes and the relationship between family members, nonfamily managers, and the firm. Chief executive officers generally perceive management practices, succession processes, and family environment more favorably than do either other family members or nonfamily managers. There are no significant differences in perceptions between active and inactive family members on the family scales. The difference in perceptions of the family firm between nonfamily managers and family managers is discussed as a challenge to the full utilization of professional management capabilities by family firms. Finally, owning family unity, the perception of Business opportunity, and how positive the relation between firm and family is influences managerial and governance practices and therefore represents a resource for competitive advantage and sustained Business performance.
Reinier Kraakman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the end of history for corporate law
Social Science Research Network, 2004Co-Authors: Henry Hansmann, Reinier KraakmanAbstract:Introduction Recent scholarship has emphasized institutional differences in governance, share ownership, capital markets, and Business Culture among European, American, and Japanese companies. Despite this apparent divergence, however, the basic law of corporate governance – indeed, most of corporate law – has achieved a high degree of uniformity across these jurisdictions, and continuing convergence toward a single standard model is likely. The core legal features of the corporate form were already well established in advanced jurisdictions one hundred years ago, at the turn of the twentieth century. Although there remained considerable room for variation in governance practices and in the fine structure of corporate law throughout the twentieth century, the pressures for further convergence are now rapidly growing. Chief among these pressures is the recent dominance of a shareholder-centered ideology of corporate law among the Business, government, and legal elites in key commercial jurisdictions. There is no longer any serious competitor to the view that corporate law should principally strive to increase long-term shareholder value. This emergent consensus has already profoundly affected corporate governance practices throughout the world. It is only a matter of time before its influence is felt in the reform of corporate law as well. Convergence past: the rise of the corporate form We must begin with the recognition that the law of Business corporations had already achieved a remarkable degree of worldwide convergence at the end of the nineteenth century.
-
the end of history for corporate law
2000Co-Authors: Henry Hansmann, Reinier KraakmanAbstract:Despite the apparent divergence in institutions of governance, share ownership, capital markets, and Business Culture across developed economies, the basic law of the corporate form has already achieved a high degree of uniformity, and continued convergence is likely. A principal reason for convergence is a widespread normative consensus that corporate managers should act exclusively in the economic interests of shareholders, including noncontrolling shareholders. This consensus on a shareholder-oriented model of the corporation results in part from the failure of alternative models of the corporation, including the manager-oriented model that evolved in the U.S. in the 1950's and 60's, the labor-oriented model that reached its apogee in German co-determination, and the state-oriented model that until recently was dominant in France and much of Asia. Other reasons for the new consensus include the competitive success of contemporary British and American firms, the growing influence worldwide of the academic disciplines of economics and finance, the diffusion of share ownership in developed countries, and the emergence of active shareholder representatives and interest groups in major jurisdictions. Since the dominant corporate ideology of shareholder primacy is unlikely to be undone, its success represents the "end of history" for corporate law. The ideology of shareholder primacy is likely to press all major jurisdictions toward similar rules of corporate law and practice. Although some differences may persist as a result of institutional or historical contingencies, the bulk of
Sylvie Laforet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of organisational Culture on organisational innovation performance in family firms
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2016Co-Authors: Sylvie LaforetAbstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of organisational Culture (OC) on organisational innovation performance (OIP) in family small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It seeks to establish the type of Culture that lead to high innovation performance in family firms. Design/methodology/approach – A postal survey of family SMEs across sectors in the UK is conducted. The study employs multiple regression analyses to test which family Business Culture has an effect on OIP. Among the family Business Cultures tested are: an external cultural orientation, a flexible and open OC as well as an organisational climate based on open communication and trust, the founder Culture, and a long-term cultural orientation. Findings – The findings show that a paternalistic and founder Culture type do not have a positive effect on family firm innovation performance, but an entrepreneurial-like Culture does, i.e. one that is externally oriented, flexible, proactive (refer to an open Culture) and long-term oriented. Similarly, an inward focus Culture such as, the founder Culture impedes innovation; while an outward focus Culture such as, an external orientation Culture has a positive effect on family firm innovation performance. Originality/value – This study makes valuable contributions to the understanding of theory and practices of innovation in family Businesses. It provides future research directions.
Ernesto J Poza - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does the family Business interaction factor represent a resource or a cost
Family Business Review, 2004Co-Authors: Ernesto J Poza, Susan Hanlon, Reiko KishidaAbstract:The authors investigate the interaction between families and their Businesses and the impact of this interaction on management and governance practices used. Family Businesses participating in the family Business programs at three U.S. universities completed questionnaires pertaining to family and Business Culture and practices. The research draws on the agency cost theory, governance, systems theory, and the resource-based view of organizations literature in the consideration of family firm attributes and the relationship between family members, nonfamily managers, and the firm. Chief executive officers generally perceive management practices, succession processes, and family environment more favorably than do either other family members or nonfamily managers. There are no significant differences in perceptions between active and inactive family members on the family scales. The difference in perceptions of the family firm between nonfamily managers and family managers is discussed as a challenge to the ...
-
does the family Business interaction factor represent a resource or a cost
2004Co-Authors: Ernesto J Poza, Susan Hanlon, Reiko KishidaAbstract:The authors investigate the interaction between families and their Businesses and the impact of this interaction on management and governance practices used. Family Businesses participating in the family Business programs at three U.S. universities completed questionnaires pertaining to family and Business Culture and practices. The research draws on the agency cost theory, governance, systems theory, and the resource-based view of organizations literature in the consideration of family firm attributes and the relationship between family members, nonfamily managers, and the firm. Chief executive officers generally perceive management practices, succession processes, and family environment more favorably than do either other family members or nonfamily managers. There are no significant differences in perceptions between active and inactive family members on the family scales. The difference in perceptions of the family firm between nonfamily managers and family managers is discussed as a challenge to the full utilization of professional management capabilities by family firms. Finally, owning family unity, the perception of Business opportunity, and how positive the relation between firm and family is influences managerial and governance practices and therefore represents a resource for competitive advantage and sustained Business performance.
Henry Hansmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the end of history for corporate law
Social Science Research Network, 2004Co-Authors: Henry Hansmann, Reinier KraakmanAbstract:Introduction Recent scholarship has emphasized institutional differences in governance, share ownership, capital markets, and Business Culture among European, American, and Japanese companies. Despite this apparent divergence, however, the basic law of corporate governance – indeed, most of corporate law – has achieved a high degree of uniformity across these jurisdictions, and continuing convergence toward a single standard model is likely. The core legal features of the corporate form were already well established in advanced jurisdictions one hundred years ago, at the turn of the twentieth century. Although there remained considerable room for variation in governance practices and in the fine structure of corporate law throughout the twentieth century, the pressures for further convergence are now rapidly growing. Chief among these pressures is the recent dominance of a shareholder-centered ideology of corporate law among the Business, government, and legal elites in key commercial jurisdictions. There is no longer any serious competitor to the view that corporate law should principally strive to increase long-term shareholder value. This emergent consensus has already profoundly affected corporate governance practices throughout the world. It is only a matter of time before its influence is felt in the reform of corporate law as well. Convergence past: the rise of the corporate form We must begin with the recognition that the law of Business corporations had already achieved a remarkable degree of worldwide convergence at the end of the nineteenth century.
-
the end of history for corporate law
2000Co-Authors: Henry Hansmann, Reinier KraakmanAbstract:Despite the apparent divergence in institutions of governance, share ownership, capital markets, and Business Culture across developed economies, the basic law of the corporate form has already achieved a high degree of uniformity, and continued convergence is likely. A principal reason for convergence is a widespread normative consensus that corporate managers should act exclusively in the economic interests of shareholders, including noncontrolling shareholders. This consensus on a shareholder-oriented model of the corporation results in part from the failure of alternative models of the corporation, including the manager-oriented model that evolved in the U.S. in the 1950's and 60's, the labor-oriented model that reached its apogee in German co-determination, and the state-oriented model that until recently was dominant in France and much of Asia. Other reasons for the new consensus include the competitive success of contemporary British and American firms, the growing influence worldwide of the academic disciplines of economics and finance, the diffusion of share ownership in developed countries, and the emergence of active shareholder representatives and interest groups in major jurisdictions. Since the dominant corporate ideology of shareholder primacy is unlikely to be undone, its success represents the "end of history" for corporate law. The ideology of shareholder primacy is likely to press all major jurisdictions toward similar rules of corporate law and practice. Although some differences may persist as a result of institutional or historical contingencies, the bulk of
