Transition economies are often characterized by underdeveloped formal institutions, often resulting in an unstable environment and creating a void usually filled by informal ones. Entrepreneurs in transition environments thus face more uncertainty and risk than those in more developed economies. This article examines the relationship of institutions and entrepreneurship in Russia and China in the context of institutional theory by analyzing private property as a formal institution, as well as trust and blat/guanxi as informal institutions. This article thus contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship and institutional theory by focusing on these topics in transition economies, and by emphasizing how their relationship differs from that in developed economies. We conclude that full convergence toward entrepreneurs' reliance on formal institutions may not readily occur in countries like Russia and China due to the embeddedness of informal institutions. Instead, such countries and their entrepreneurs may develop unique balances between informal and formal institutions that better fit their circumstances. Implications for the theory and practice of entrepreneurship in such environments are also offered. Russian and Chinese Entrepreneurship in an Institutional ContextEntrepreneurship is critical for the economic development of Russia and China as they transition from central planning and large state-owned enterprises, although China continues to support many of those favored enterprises, as does Russia in strategic sectors like energy. This article analyzes how the void of formal institutions in transition economies affects the relationship between entrepreneurship and institutions, and how the relationship differs from that in developed economies. It focuses on the environmental context and the void of formal institutions, like the security of private property rights, and explains how traditions and informal institutions, specifically trust and blat/guanxi, have filled that void. Such a contrast can make a significant contribution to the literature by examining the specific context of transition economies, since entrepreneurship is recognized as "a context-dependent social process through which individuals and teams create wealth by Please send correspondence to: Sheila

No abstract

In this study I identified two types of nontask behavior, prosocial and noncompliant, and tested some of their antecedents as well as their relation to work outcomes. Prosocial behavior represented nontask behaviors that benefited the organization, and noncompliant behavior represented nontask behaviors that were dysfunctional to the organization, as rated by supervisors. Need for achievement, satisfaction with material rewards, and low perceived peer competition were related to prosocial behavior. Low need for achievement and low confidence in management were related to noncompliant behavior. Noncompliant behavior was negatively associated with performance, but prosocial behavior was nonsignificant when noncompliant behavior was controlled. A dual-factor theory (Herzberg, 1966)of nontask behavior is proposed.An implicit assumption in the study of work performance has been that performance outcomes are dependent on role behavior associated with specific tasks and are governed by organizational appraisal and reward systems (see laffaldano &Muchinsky, 1985, andSchneider, 1985, for examples and reviews). Yet, a work role encompasses a diversity of behavior. Focal tasks are the most clearly specified and most readily measured by productivity standards of quantity and quality (e.g., number of units produced). No less important to organizations are nontask behaviors that are relevant to the work context but not directly related to focal tasks. Nontask behaviors that have positive implications for organizations (e. g., volunteering to help a new employee) are referred to as prosocial behavior. Nontask behaviors that have negative organizational implications (e. g.. those that present a negative image of the organization) are referred to as noncompliant behaviors. Whether nontasks are formalized in job descriptions and performance appraisals is not as significant as the fact that nontask behaviors are more difficult to control, reward, and motivate than are focal task behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Nontask behaviors may stem from different motivational bases (Katz, 1964) and situational contingencies than do focal task behaviors in that performing them is more at the discretion of the incumbent. It is conceivable that an individual whose focal task performance was highly valued would be retained in spite of not performing desired This article is based on my doctoral dissertation at prosocial activities. Similarly, a top performer might be retained in spite of noncompliant behavior.This article examines nontask behaviore in two ways. First, it tests whether prosocial and noncompliant behavior have different relations to three constructs-achievement and autonomy motives, personal security, and reciprocity. Second, it explores the relation that prosocial and noncompliant behavior have with work performance, which denotes outcomes produced in a job from task and nontask behaviors. A related issue is the extent to which independent variables are correlated with work performance, with prosocial and noncompliant behavior ...

No abstract

No abstract