Search results

In the Spring of last year Messrs. Cotton and Potter attended a corrosion conference in Moscow. They have put down on paper some of their impressions in this article, specially written for CORROSION TECHNOLOGY. As the authors say, the opinions expressed are their own, and not necessarily widely held. We are sure, however, that readers will find this balanced account of Russian corrosion research of extreme interest and we are fortunate in having this opportunity of publishing an article from two such well‐known British corrosion research workers. Mr. Cotton is in charge of corrosion research at the Metals Division of I.C.I. Ltd., and Dr. Potter is at the Boiler Corrosion Research Laboratory of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

The Central Electricity Research Laboratories (CERL) at Leatherhead is the largest and longest established of the research centres of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Its staff numbers about seven hundred, three hundred of whom are professional scientists, and their programmes cover research into generation of electricity by coal‐ and oil‐fired power stations, and into transmission and distribution. CERL's activities include those as diverse as magneto‐hydrodynamics and the microbiology of soils; the dispersion of plumes from high chimneys and the basic physics of brittle fracture in metals. Three quarters of its work and almost all the corrosion research relates to generating electricity, although it has some of the best facilities in the world for studying the transmission of electricity at very high voltages, and the first corrosion problem it tackled was on steel cored aluminium conductors.

Last month we published abstracts and summaries of some of the papers presented at the Congress, which was held at the Imperial College of Science and Technology from April 10–15 under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. In this issue we publish further abstracts and summaries together with illustrations of many of the corrosionists attending and photographs of some of the many visits which were arranged to works and laboratories. The Congress attracted over 800 delegates.

Entrepreneurship is a social role, suggesting that different communities and societies will hold different typical expectations for who the entrepreneur should be (i.e., personal characteristics) and how an entrepreneur acts (behaviors). In this chapter, we describe the results of two studies that elucidate the content of the entrepreneur’s role and assess its generalizability and cultural uniqueness in three cultures: the United States, China, and Taiwan. We do so by examining the prototypes, or culturally shared implicit theories or schema that individuals hold about the attributes and behaviors characterizing the entrepreneur’s role. We suggest that the entrepreneur prototype has overlapping content across these three cultures, and that they also reflect cultural uniqueness due to different political, economic, and social histories and conditions. First, we conducted an initial inductive study designed to elicit a comprehensive list of representative characteristics and behaviors that are commonly recognized in each society as typical of an “entrepreneur,” resulting in an inclusive list of 87 prototypical/anti-prototypical items. These items were subsequently used in a survey-based study to assess the specific content that each culture endorses as prototypical of an entrepreneur, the extent to which those prototypes varied across the three cultures, and relationships of prototype evaluation with individuals’ personal values and exposure to entrepreneurship. Results showed that prototypes were distinct in each culture, but with some overlap of attributes, especially between China and Taiwan. Results showed some support for the relationship between top-ranked prototypical attributes and individuals’ exposure to entrepreneurship as well as openness-to-change values and conservation values, but also interesting differences in these relationships in the three cultures. The findings highlight that role prototype formation processes across these cultures were etic, but that the content of the role may well be emic or culturally specific.

Business failure is often described as a Rites of Passage for entrepreneurs. But what does this actually mean? This chapter returns to the original Rites of Passage material, from cultural ethnographers in the early twentieth century. By doing so, the author re-conceptualizes contemporary business failure as the Rites of Business Failure comprising a three-stage transitional process of separation, transition, and incorporation, which has a more socialized and a better understood role in society. Taking a sensemaking perspective, the author portrays the need for greater support for entrepreneurs as they experience business failure and re-establish their life. The author proposes many of the challenges entrepreneurs face over the Rites of Business Failure can be addressed through tailor-made training programs, networks, mentors, and role models which can all be utilized to assist people after the setback of business failure. Theoretically, the chapter contributes to literature on sensemaking and business failure. Practically, it holds implications for policy makers and practicing entrepreneurs.

This chapter defines a learning culture and discusses the relationship between knowledge and learning. The authors explain why learning is essential to bringing knowledge to life and incentivizing knowledge flows and use. The chapter addresses the interplay between knowledge and learning cultures. A key point in the chapter is the value of mistakes as learning opportunities. The authors explain how mistakes are viewed in the industrial economy and how this perspective impedes critical organizational learning. Specifically, we define mistakes, explain the double cognitive bias of mistakes, explain the tendency and impact of hiding mistakes, the side effects of double mistake bias, learn to learn from mistakes, and take on the challenge of reconciling mistake acceptance and avoidance. Finally, the chapter addresses the importance of cultivating a learning climate to realize your learning culture.

This chapter summarizes the literature on mindfulness and its impact of postdisaster response. Although the use of mindfulness is still in its infancy in Southeast Asia (SEA), initial studies suggest it has potential as a means to address survivors’ posttrauma symptoms. Given cultural nuances such as a discomfort in emotional expression and shame, mindfulness is non-intrusive and encourages non-judgmental acceptance. Mindfulness has been used in group settings which is congruent with the region’s collectivist orientation. In addition, given the importance of spirituality, we suggest that mindfulness may be an inclusive approach that is familiar and acceptable to SEA survivors.

Given the uncertain and often disruptive business environment, understanding how employees, teams, and organizations can recover from stress, build long-lasting resilience, and exploit failures as learning opportunities is key for employees’ well-being and organizational success. The book has been organized in three sections, each representing a major domain of inquiry: recovery, resilience, and learning. The chapters within each section elaborate on these domains, and each provides novel ideas and insights. The goal of this chapter is to summarize and integrate some themes and insights offered by the chapters in this book. Based on this summary and integration, the author will illuminate some exciting paths opened up by these chapters, which might be worth exploring further by other scholars in the future. Specifically, future research could benefit from (1) stronger integration of research on recovery, resilience, and learning from failure, (2) better understanding of the role of setbacks, failure, and adversity for recovery, resilience, and learning, and (3) investigations of the role of context for recovery, resilience, and learning from failure.

The pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities is not always successful. On the one hand, entrepreneurial failure offers an invaluable opportunity for entrepreneurs to learn about their ventures and themselves. On the other hand, entrepreneurial failure is associated with substantial financial, psychological, and social costs. When entrepreneurs fail to learn from failure, the potential value of this experience is not fully utilized and these costs will have been incurred in vain. In this chapter, the authors investigate how the stigma of failure exacerbates the various costs of failure, thereby making learning from failure much more difficult. The authors combine an analysis of interviews of 20 entrepreneurs (who had, at the time of interview, experienced failure) with an examination of archival data reflecting the legal and cultural environment around their ventures. The authors find that stigma worsens the entrepreneurs’ experience of failure, hinders their transformation of failure experience, and eventually prevents them from utilizing the lessons learnt from failure in their future entrepreneurial activities. The authors discuss the implications of the findings for the entrepreneurship research and economic policies.