The development of the private equity industry since the 2008 financial crisis

The private equity industry was experiencing a phenomenal boom at the turn of the century but collapsed abruptly in 2008 with the onset of the financial crisis. Considered one of the worst crises since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it had sent ripples around the world threatening the collapse of financial institutions and provoking a liquidity crunch followed by a huge downturn in economic activity and recession. Furthermore, the physiognomy of the financial landscape had considerably altered with banks retracting from the lending space, accompanied by a hardening of financial regulation that sought to better contain systemic risk. Given the new set of changes and challenges that had arisen from this period of financial turmoil, private equity found itself having to question current practices and methods of operation in order to adjust to the harsh realities of a new post-apocalyptic world. Consequently, this paper goes on to explore how the private equity business, management and operation model has evolved since the credit crunch with a specific focus on mature markets such as the United States and Europe. More specifically, this paper will aim to gather insights on the development of the industry since the crisis in Western Europe through a case study approach using as a base interviews with professionals working in the industry and those external to the sector but who have/have had considerable interaction with PE players from 2007 to the present.

As distintas percepções sobre o empreendedorismo social

This dissertation is a literature review with exploratory and descriptive purposes, which aims to compile the different perceptions of the term Social Entrepreneurship, but not propon-being of an epistemological analysis on the topic. The main objectives of this research were: 1) to identify the convergences and divergences in the various perceptions of the Social Entrepre-neurship, from the perspectives: American, European and Brazilian; 2) identify whether Social Entrepreneurship can be considered as a new theoretical trend, or can be understood as a sub-category of an existing theory; 3) identify whether Social Entrepreneurship can be considered as practice of Social Management; 4) identify whether the "Social Business", proposed by Yunus (2010), can be considered as a completely new type of organization, as the author says. For this research were studied literary works available in the physical environment and elec-tronic database. The main concepts studied in this research were: Entrepreneurship; Social Management; Third Sector; Business Management and Social Entrepreneurship. The conclu-sions reached by this study were: 1-a) the main theoretical convergence is the Social Entrepre-neur ability to apply methods and process typically used in for-profit companies, in business that aimed social value creation; 1-b) the main difference is the different perceptions that the United States, Europe and Brazil have about what is Social Entrepreneurship. In the American perspective, these are private sector organizations operating according to market logic and that somehow generates social value. In the European perspective, closer to the social economy, emphasizes the activities of civil society organizations with public functions. In Brazil empha-sizes market initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and transform the social conditions of mar-ginalized or excluded individuals; 2) Social Entrepreneurship is an activity that incorporates much all the practices, methods and processes of commercial entrepreneurship and, as such, should not be considered as a new theoretical trend, but a subcategory of Entrepreneurship theory. 3) Social Entrepreneurship cannot be considered as a practice of Social Management, being much closer to the commercial entrepreneurship practices; 4) the "Social Business" pro-posed by Yunus (2010), closely resembled in its modus operandi with the Social Enterprises in Western Europe, thus, not supporting the author's claim.

The art of being together: a social constructionist perspective on dialogic methods in the organizational context

The purpose of this project is to understand, under a social constructionist approach, what are the meanings that external facilitators and organizational members (sponsors) working with dialogic methods place on themselves and their work. Dialogic methods, with the objective of engaging groups in flows of conversations to envisage and co-create their own future, are growing fast within organizations as a means to achieve collective change. Sharing constructionist ideas about the possibility of multiple realities and language as constitutive of such realities, dialogue has turned into a promising way for transformation, especially in a macro context of constant change and increasing complexity, where traditional structures, relationships and forms of work are questioned. Research on the topic has mostly focused on specific methods or applications, with few attempts to study it in a broader sense. Also, despite the fact that dialogic methods work on the assumption that realities are socially constructed, few studies approach the topic from a social constructionist perspective, as a research methodology per se. Thus, while most existing research aims at explaining whether or how particular methods meet particular results, my intention is to explore the meanings sustaining these new forms of organizational practice. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 25 people working with dialogic methods: 11 facilitators and 14 sponsors, from 8 different organizations in Brazil. Firstly, the research findings indicate several contextual elements that seem to sustain the choices for dialogic methods. Within this context, there does not seem to be a clear or specific demand for dialogic methods, but a set of different motivations, objectives and focuses, bringing about several contrasts in the way participants name, describe and explain their experiences with such methods, including tensions on power relations, knowledge creation, identity and communication. Secondly, some central ideas or images were identified within such contrasts, pointing at both directions: dialogic methods as opportunities for the creation of new organizational realities (with images of a ‘door’ or a ‘flow’, for instance, which suggest that dialogic methods may open up the access to other perspectives and the creation of new realities); and dialogic methods as new instrumental mechanisms that seem to reproduce the traditional and non-dialogical forms of work and relationship. The individualistic tradition and its tendency for rational schematism - pointed out by social constructionist scholars as strong traditions in our Western Culture - could be observed in some participants’ accounts with the image of dialogic methods as a ‘gym’, for instance, in which dialogical – and idealized –‘abilities’ could be taught and trained, turning dialogue into a tool, rather than a means for transformation. As a conclusion, I discuss what the implications of such taken-for-granted assumptions may be, and offer some insights into dialogue (and dialogic methods) as ‘the art of being together’.