997 resultados para Mostaert, Frans, 1534?-1560.


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"Catalogue de l'oeuvre de Frans Hals": p. 99-112.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Translation from French.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"Date of earliest known edition, after 1528; date of the original of this edition, c.1560-2; reproduced in facsimile, 1908."

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Thesis (doctoral)--Universita di Losanna.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

En las páginas siguientes se detalla el tratamiento de restauración aplicado por la autora a la obra referenciada en el título, que constituye el único ejemplar que consta en el Catalogo Colectivo del Patrimonio Bibliográfico Español y cuyo estado inicial hacía necesaria dicha intervención. El trabajo se realizó en el contexto de las prácticas curriculares de los estudios superiores de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, bajo convenio de colaboración entre la Biblioteca Histórica de la UCM y la Escuela Superior de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales de Madrid.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Many 16th century Spanish chroniclers and missionaries, arriving at what they interpreted as a New World, saw the Devil as a “hermeneutic wildcard” that allowed them to comprehend indigenous religions. Pedro Cieza de León, a soldier in the conquest of Peru, is a case in point. Cieza considers the Devil responsible for the most aberrant religious practices and customs of the Indians, although he views the natives in a positive light, as men susceptible to divine salvation. From a providentialist perspective of the history of the conquest, Cieza interprets that the evangelization and conversion of the Indians and the implantation of Christian civilization by the Spanish Crown, were able to defeat the Devil.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Research has suggested that corporate venturing is crucial to strategic renewal and firm performance, yet scholars still debate the appropriate organizational configurations to facilitate the creation of new businesses in existing organizations. Our study investigates the effectiveness of combining structural differentiation with formal and informal organizational as well as top management team integration mechanisms in establishing an appropriate context for venturing activities. Our findings suggest that structural differentiation has a positive effect on corporate venturing. In addition, our study indicates that a shared vision has a positive effect on venturing in a structurally differentiated context. Socially integrated senior teams and cross-functional interfaces, however, are ineffective integration mechanisms for establishing linkages across differentiated units and for successfully pursuing corporate venturing.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.