Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Question/Issue: Do the presence and independence of nominating committees within boards of directors affect the extent of rewards and sanctions provided by the labor market to directors with a reputation for being active in monitoring management?c org_814 557..574 Research Findings/Insights: Results drawn from a longitudinal sample of directors sitting on the board of 200 public French firms suggest that the stronger a director's reputation for being active in increasing control over management, the larger the number of his or her subsequent appointments to (1) boards with a nominating committee; (2) to boards with a nominating committee that excludes the CEO; and (3) to boards with a nominating committee dominated by non-executive directors. In contrast, we found that a director's reputation of being active in increasing control over management does not impact the number of his or her subsequent appointments (1) to boards without a nominating committee; (2) to boards with a nominating committee that includes the CEO; and (3) to boards with a nominating committee dominated by executive directors. Theoretical/Academic Implications: This study shows that the outcome of the power struggle between the CEO and incumbent directors during the candidate selection process determines the profile of directors who will ultimately obtain the board appointment. On the one hand, independent nominating committees are likely to reduce the influence of CEOs over the process of a director's appointment, and therefore are likely to increase the recruitment of directors with reputations for being active in exercising control over managers. On the other hand, nonexistence of nominating committees or presence of weak nominating committees under the influence of the CEO decouple directors' reputations for being active in controlling management from the likelihood of obtaining new appointments. Practitioner/Policy Implications: This study offers insights to policy makers interested in increasing the efficiency of the labor market for directors. More specifically, it highlights the conditions under which directors with a reputation of being active in increasing control over management are likely to be rewarded by the labor market for directors. These conditions include (1) the creation of a nominating committee; (2) exclusion of the CEO from this committee; and (3) domination of this committee by outside directors.

The globalization of entrepreneurship education requires instructors to understand, and adjust the curriculum for, cultural disparities. This study investigates the impact of cultural norms on the attitudes of university entrepreneurship students in France and the United States—regions with contrasting Hofstede and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor indices. It uses mind maps from students as culturally agnostic open‐ended measures of their attitudes. Two mind maps were collected from each student, one on the appeal of entrepreneurship and one on the apprehension toward entrepreneurship, for a total of 1,213 concepts that were then scored using the Moore–Bygrave staged model of entrepreneurship to measure student likes and dislikes toward innovation, the decision to launch a start‐up, new venture implementation, and venture growth. The Shannon entropy of a mind map was used as a measure of student fixation; lower entropy indicates the student is motivated or deterred by a subset of the curriculum, whereas higher entropy indicates that attitudinal components are more balanced across the curriculum. Participating students were enrolled in similar entrepreneurship courses, and exhibited attitudes with similar entropy. However, French students found the growth stage to be the most appealing and were most apprehensive about innovation, whereas U.S. students found innovation to be the most appealing stage and were most apprehensive about the growth stage, thus revealing different contextual drivers of learning and engagement with the educational materials. This research contributes to the advancement of entrepreneurship education in two ways. First, by using mind maps and differential model‐based semantic scoring, it distinguishes between motivation and deterrence, and accounts for both cognitive and affective components of attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Second, it presents a formative assessment technique with which educators can measure students' cultural disposition to the different topics of an entrepreneurship course, and can then tailor the syllabus to this disposition. This technique can potentially improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in multicultural settings, such as those involving educators, students, or course material from different regions and cultures.

No abstract