Abstract
First, please note the inclusion of a “Note to Instructors” and the omission of the “Note on Methodology” that often has appeared with our cases. The “Note to Instructors” will aid readers in positioning this case in their courses and will offer ideas on its effective use. It also tells in abbreviated form how the authors came to research and develop this case. Effective with this issue, we ask authors to submit such a note rather than the “Note on Methodology.” Through this change in policy, I am reorienting our objectives toward pedagogical support and away from the tutorial in case research that our authors provided over the past eight years. Now our attention turns to increasing the cases’ value to our readers, and Ray Bagby and I believe that enhancing their usability in the classroom is an important step in that direction.
Second, this issue's “Roustam Tariko (A)” is followed by “Roustam Tariko (B): The Measure of the Man.” The authors’“Note to Instructors” following the “(A)” case explains how the two cases may be used in conjunction. The first case's story of building a series of ventures in the post–Soviet economy is provocative in its own right but also serves as the context for the second case. “Roustam Tariko (B)” should appeal to scholars who are interested in psychological treatments of entrepreneurs. Some readers may believe that “(A)” and “(B)” are so closely linked that they should be a single case, and indeed the authors originally submitted them in that form. The reviewers and I believed that the full story was too much for one case and that many instructors would prefer to teach a relatively streamlined version that omitted the psychological portrait. The authors graciously assented to our request to produce two cases from their original manuscript. I thank them for their hard work.
Finally, I want readers to understand the prominent role of Manfred Kets de Vries in the narrative of “Roustam Tariko (B).” It's unusual for an author to appear as a character in his own case, but this is an unusual case. Professor Kets de Vries developed and applied the clinical paradigm that produced the psychological portrait around which the case revolves. At my request, the authors agreed to introduce him directly into the narrative as interlocutor and observer because the case includes observations and conclusions that could not be reported as established fact and should not be presented as anonymous opinion. The resultant narrative accurately represents the interaction between analyst and subject as well as the subject's reminiscence as elicited by the analyst.