			Home About us Contact

Core Dimensions (core + dimension)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting	50%

Selected Abstracts

Agency Relations within the Family Business System: an exploratory approach

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, Issue 3 2003
L.A.A. Van den Berghe
Researchers use various definitions to describe the family firm. The characteristics of family firms that are stressed in each of these definitions are somehow related to family control. All characteristics together reflect a spectrum of family firm types along one core dimension: family involvement in the firm. However, it is more helpful to distinguish among family firms by using their precise type. Each particular family firm type is characterised by a set of agency relations within and between the family system, ownership system and the business system. This paper is a first attempt to apply the insights from agency theory on a highly simplified (reference) family firm situation where the father is full owner and the daughter manager of the family firm. Agency theory establishes the foundation for the optimal contract conditions between father and daughter. While real life is often characterised by bounded rationality and incomplete information, future research should help identify the "optimal contract" be-tween the family/shareholders and management in various family firm types under these circumstances. [source]

Neighbourhood Europeanization through ENP: The Case of Ukraine

JCMS: JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES, Issue 5 2010
ANDREA GAWRICH
This article contributes to the integration of Neighbourhood Europeanization in the literature on Europeanization. Based on insights from Membership and Enlargement Europeanization, we reveal important inconsistencies of Neighbourhood Europeanization through ENP as well as a lack of robust empirical support for its effectiveness. We define core dimensions and determinants of Neighbourhood Europeanization and implement this analytical framework for the case of Ukraine. The analysis clearly demonstrates substantial asymmetries in ENP policy across the three dimensions we chose , democracy promotion, economic co-operation and JHA, which clearly reflect the inconsistency of the ENP concept: top-down formulation of EU interests combined with weak conditionality. ENP inconsistencies could however be overcome through widening linkages and improving financial support to mobilize and strengthen positive local support of EU demands and rewards. [source]

Contrasting Burns and Bass: Does the transactional-transformational paradigm live up to Burns' philosophy of transforming leadership?

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Issue 3 2007
Dmitry Khanin
Both proponents and critics view the transactional-transformational paradigm (Bass, 1997, 1998) as the brainchild of Burns' (1978) philosophy of transforming leadership. However, Burns (2003) has criticized the paradigm's narrow managerialist orientation and the claim that it is uniformly applicable to any culture and organization. In this article, I first summarize and articulate Burns' (1978, 2003) and Bass' (1985, 1998) approaches toward leadership, then compare them by using a new four-dimensional framework. Extending previous research (Yukl, 2006), the framework represents a useful tool for detecting the commonalities and differences between leadership theories with respect to the core dimensions, categories, and aspects of leadership. My inspection indicates that Burns' and Bass' conceptions stem from disparate contexts and differ in their applicability. Thus, Burns' (1978) ideas stem from political movements ideally characterized by mutual quest for shared meaning and active collaboration between leaders and followers. Conversely, Bass' (1985) approach springs from military training in which leaders transfer existing knowledge to followers and stimulate their activity by using a variety of tools from inspirational motivation to individualized consideration. This study has important practical implications as it delineates the boundary conditions of the transactional-transformational paradigm and warns against its uncritical adoption in incongruent leadership contexts. [source]

Research Review: ,Ain't misbehavin': Towards a developmentally-specified nosology for preschool disruptive behavior

THE JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY AND ALLIED DISCIPLINES, Issue 1 2010
Lauren S. Wakschlag
There is increasing consensus that disruptive behavior disorders and syndromes (DBDs) are identifiable in preschool children. There is also concomitant recognition of the limitations of the current DBD nosology for distinguishing disruptive behavior symptoms from the normative misbehavior of early childhood. In particular, there appears to be substantial insensitivity to heterotypic manifestations of this developmental period and problems in identifying meaningful heterogeneity. As a result, the developmental basis for much of the current nosology may be called into question. To address these and other critical issues, this paper reviews the foundational elements of clinical and developmental science pertinent to developmental differentiation of disruptive behavior in the preschool period as paradigmatic for developmental specification across the lifespan and generates an agenda for future research. We begin by reviewing evidence of the validity of DBDs in preschool children. This is followed by an outline of key developmental concepts and a review of the corollary evidence from developmental science. These provide a basis for conceptualizing disruptive behavior in reference to developmental deviation in four core dimensions hypothesized to mark the core features of disruptive behavior syndromes. Finally, we propose a program of research to establish an empirical basis for determining the incremental utility of a developmentally specified nosology. Central to this approach is a contention that the benefits of developmental specification are extensive and outweigh any disadvantages. This is because a developmentally specified approach holds substantial promise for increasing sensitivity and specificity for differentiating disruptive behavior from normative misbehavior and from other related syndromes as well as for improving prediction. Further, more precisely defined, developmentally based phenotypes are likely to elucidate distinct mechanisms within translational studies and to serve as a catalyst for the generation of novel treatments. [source]