Entrepreneurship and family firms : growth and survival

Family businesses dominate in a majority of economies (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma, 2005; Morck and Yeung, 2004). As entrepreneurial activities have been shown to be central to economic growth it is essential that family businesses, irrespective of ownership patterns, not only survive but also grow thus growing the economy overall. While a great deal is known about entrepreneurial activities and a body of knowledge is being developed in relation to entrepreneurial processes in family firms, more needs to be understood in relation to the dynamics of entrepreneurial activities at the individual family firm level. One area of particular interest is the dynamics within the business and the family and how these dynamics impact upon entrepreneurial activities. Specifically how relationships between and among family members engaged in the business can interact with professional non-family member senior executives. The senior executives can actively use their positions in such ways that initiatives suggested by family members are less successful than they might be. This paper addresses how ‘family’ aspects of a business can assist or impede the entrepreneurial activities of individuals. It takes into account some of the unique features of family businesses – such as the importance of ‘familiness’ as a competitive advantage; the direct links between ownership and control of a business and the recognition (often implicit) that individuals in families do make a difference to how the business functions (Habbershon and Williams, 1999, Sharma, 2004; and Tokarczyk, Hansen Green, and Down, 2007). This emphasis on individuals in families fits well with the idea of entrepreneur as individual, as expressed by Schumpeter (1934), Baumol et al (2007). The theoretical approach that adopted to explore the dynamics of processes occurring within family firms is structuration theory combined with a theory of embeddeness (Dacin, Ventresca and Beal, 1999; Giddens, 1979, 1984, Jack and Anderson, 2002; and Sarason, Dean and Dillard, 2006).

Management of comorbidity

Comorbidity of substance use disorders and mental disorders is very common, and there is substantial heterogeneity within subgroups in terms of both their characteristics and the nature of causal relationships between the disorders. Assessment and management strategies need to deal with both the size of the problem across the community and its severe impact in some subgroups, including those with psychosis. At this stage, the research base from which we can derive recommendations is very narrow, but it does offer a foundation for preliminary conclusions. This chapter reviews the current evidence and makes some suggestions for assessment and for both psychological and pharmacological management.

A model for engaging and evaluating innovative cross-sectoral education reform : case studies from Queensland, Australia

This paper will explore how a general education can contribute successfully to vocational outcomes using both Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Program Theory methodology. The paper will focus on the development aspects of ‘marrying’ vocational and general education including engagement processes, student, teacher, institute and employer preparation and the pathway possibilities that emerge. Successful cases presented include the: Healthy Futures program (pathways into the Health and Allied industries); Accounting Pathways program (simultaneously studying a general Accounting subject and a Certificate III vocational qualification); and Sustainable Sciences initiative (development of a vocational qualification that focuses on the emerging renewable energy industry and is linked to school science programs). The case studies have been selected because they are unique in character and application and can be used as a basis for future program development in other settings or curriculum areas.

Don't sell social science short

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted ("Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences," 12 May, p. 829). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems.

A 'conceptual models' approach to organisational resilience

Gibson and Tarrant discuss the range of inter-dependant factors needed to manage organisational resilience. Over the last few years there has been considerable interest in the idea of resilience across all areas of society. Like any new area or field this has produced a vast array of definitions, processes, management systems and measurement tools which together have clouded the concept of resilience. Many of us have forgotten that ultimately resilience is not just about ‘bouncing back from adversity’ but is more broadly concerned with adaptive capacity and how we better understand and address uncertainty in our internal and external environments. The basis of organisational resilience is a fundamental understanding and treatment of risk, particularly non-routine or disruption related risk. This paper presents a number of conceptual models of organisational resilience that we have developed to demonstrate the range of inter-dependant factors that need to be considered in the management of such risk. These conceptual models illustrate that effective resilience is built upon a range of different strategies that enhance both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ organisational capabilities . They emphasise the concept that there is no quick fix, no single process, management system or software application that will create resilience.

The organisation : risk, resilience and governance

Tarrant argues that a solid risk management strategy is critical to building effective, transformational and adaptive organisations. Organisations are a fundamental part of our society and economic system whether they are private, public or not-for-profits. There are very few aspects of our society and economy that don’t rely wholly or in part on the performance of organisations. Disasters and crises are complex and very challenging environments for organisations. How can effective transformational and adaptive capacity become institutionalised and a core part of good governance of organisations? Effective risk management is a critical element in meeting organisational objectives in a turbulent and uncertain environment.