Pub Date : 2019-11-25DOI: 10.1177/0894486519889402
Keith H. Brigham, G. Tyge Payne
Over the past decade and a half, there has been tremendous growth in the family business field of study. One of the most important developments during this time period is the concept of socioemotional wealth (SEW), which is primarily founded on the seminal work of Gomez-Mejia, Haynes, Nuñez-Nickel, Jacobson, and Moyano-Fuentes in 2007. In fact, the number of articles that reference SEW has risen from 3 in 2007 to 147 in 2018 within the Web of Science categories of Business, Management, and Economics. For Family Business Review, the 2012 article by Berrone, Cruz, and Gomez-Mejia has had over 1,200 Google Scholar citations, as of October of 2019, and continues to be one of the most accessed articles year to year. Throughout this expanding literature, SEW—also known as affective endowments—is generally referred to as the noneconomic utilities derived by principals (i.e., the family) from a business. Based on prospect and behavioral agency theories, SEW is argued to serve as the main frame of reference for the management of the family business (Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011). As such, family businesses are motivated by the desire to preserve or enhance SEW when making major strategic decisions (Berrone et al., 2012). While the very basic tenets of SEW are well established and widely utilized, the promise of SEW as a construct—that is, a postulated concept or attribute intended for study (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)—has yet to be realized. For while progress continues to be made, there are numerous concerns—both conceptual and empirical—that have been expressed regarding SEW and how it has been applied in family business research (e.g., Chua, Chrisman, & De Massis, 2015; Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2012; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2014; Schulze & Kellermanns, 2015). Fundamentally, these concerns point toward a general lack of clarity regarding the validity of SEW as a construct, where validity refers to the extent to which a measure accurately represents a concept. The purpose of this editorial is to outline several problematic areas regarding SEW as a construct and make an explicit call for more theoretical and empirical development in this important and fast-growing area of research. For as AC/DC laments, it is a long way to the top if you want to rock ‘n’ roll.
在过去的15年里，家族企业研究领域有了巨大的发展。这一时期最重要的发展之一是社会情感财富(SEW)的概念，该概念主要建立在Gomez-Mejia, Haynes, Nuñez-Nickel, Jacobson和Moyano-Fuentes在2007年的开创性工作之上。事实上，在Web of Science的商业、管理和经济类别中，引用SEW的文章数量已从2007年的3篇增加到2018年的147篇。截至2019年10月，Berrone、Cruz和Gomez-Mejia在《家族企业评论》(Family Business Review)上发表的这篇文章被学者引用了1200多万次，并且每年都是访问量最大的文章之一。在这个不断扩大的文献中，sew——也被称为情感禀赋——通常被称为由委托人(即家庭)从企业中获得的非经济效用。基于前景和行为代理理论，SEW被认为是家族企业管理的主要参考框架(Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone， & De Castro, 2011)。因此，在做出重大战略决策时，家族企业的动机是希望保留或加强SEW (Berrone等人，2012)。虽然SEW的基本原则已经得到了很好的确立和广泛的应用，但SEW作为一个结构的承诺——也就是说，一个用于研究的假设概念或属性(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)——尚未实现。尽管在继续取得进展的同时，关于SEW及其如何应用于家族企业研究，已经表达了许多担忧——概念上的和经验上的(例如，Chua, Chrisman， & De Massis, 2015;凯勒曼斯、埃德尔斯顿和齐薇格，2012;Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2014;Schulze & kellermann, 2015)。从根本上说，这些问题指向了普遍缺乏关于SEW作为一个结构的有效性的明确性，其中有效性指的是一个测量准确地表示一个概念的程度。这篇社论的目的是概述关于SEW作为一个结构的几个有问题的领域，并明确呼吁在这一重要和快速增长的研究领域进行更多的理论和实证发展。正如AC/DC所哀叹的那样，如果你想要摇滚，通往顶峰还有很长的路要走。
{"title":"Socioemotional Wealth (SEW): Questions on Construct Validity","authors":"Keith H. Brigham, G. Tyge Payne","doi":"10.1177/0894486519889402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519889402","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade and a half, there has been tremendous growth in the family business field of study. One of the most important developments during this time period is the concept of socioemotional wealth (SEW), which is primarily founded on the seminal work of Gomez-Mejia, Haynes, Nuñez-Nickel, Jacobson, and Moyano-Fuentes in 2007. In fact, the number of articles that reference SEW has risen from 3 in 2007 to 147 in 2018 within the Web of Science categories of Business, Management, and Economics. For Family Business Review, the 2012 article by Berrone, Cruz, and Gomez-Mejia has had over 1,200 Google Scholar citations, as of October of 2019, and continues to be one of the most accessed articles year to year. Throughout this expanding literature, SEW—also known as affective endowments—is generally referred to as the noneconomic utilities derived by principals (i.e., the family) from a business. Based on prospect and behavioral agency theories, SEW is argued to serve as the main frame of reference for the management of the family business (Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011). As such, family businesses are motivated by the desire to preserve or enhance SEW when making major strategic decisions (Berrone et al., 2012). While the very basic tenets of SEW are well established and widely utilized, the promise of SEW as a construct—that is, a postulated concept or attribute intended for study (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)—has yet to be realized. For while progress continues to be made, there are numerous concerns—both conceptual and empirical—that have been expressed regarding SEW and how it has been applied in family business research (e.g., Chua, Chrisman, & De Massis, 2015; Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2012; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2014; Schulze & Kellermanns, 2015). Fundamentally, these concerns point toward a general lack of clarity regarding the validity of SEW as a construct, where validity refers to the extent to which a measure accurately represents a concept. The purpose of this editorial is to outline several problematic areas regarding SEW as a construct and make an explicit call for more theoretical and empirical development in this important and fast-growing area of research. For as AC/DC laments, it is a long way to the top if you want to rock ‘n’ roll.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"326 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519889402","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41795199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-21DOI: 10.1177/0894486519888397
Benjamin D. McLarty, Daniel T. Holt
Examining socioemotional wealth’s influence at the individual level, an interactionist approach was used to test its moderation effect on the dark personality traits–job performance relationship, using supervisor-employee dyads in family firms. Termed the Dark Triad, dark personality traits include narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Results showed that when supervisors in family firms prioritize socioemotional wealth, the expected relationships between the Dark Triad and employee job performance outcomes (task, citizenship, and counterproductive behaviors) is ameliorated. These findings demonstrate that family firms can create an environment that improves the otherwise negative impact that dark personality has on job performance.
{"title":"A Bright Side to Family Firms: How Socioemotional Wealth Importance Affects Dark Traits–Job Performance Relationships","authors":"Benjamin D. McLarty, Daniel T. Holt","doi":"10.1177/0894486519888397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519888397","url":null,"abstract":"Examining socioemotional wealth’s influence at the individual level, an interactionist approach was used to test its moderation effect on the dark personality traits–job performance relationship, using supervisor-employee dyads in family firms. Termed the Dark Triad, dark personality traits include narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Results showed that when supervisors in family firms prioritize socioemotional wealth, the expected relationships between the Dark Triad and employee job performance outcomes (task, citizenship, and counterproductive behaviors) is ameliorated. These findings demonstrate that family firms can create an environment that improves the otherwise negative impact that dark personality has on job performance.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"378 - 395"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519888397","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45212052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-05DOI: 10.1177/0894486519885544
K. Hussinger, Abdul-Basit Issah
This study elucidates the mixed gamble confronting family firms when considering a related firm acquisition. The socioemotional and financial wealth trade-off associated with related firm acquisitions as well as their long-term horizon turns family firms more likely to undertake a related acquisition than nonfamily firms, especially when they are performing above their aspiration level. Postmerger performance pattern confirms that family firms are able to create long-term value through these acquisitions, and by doing so, they surpass nonfamily firms. These findings stand in contrast to commonly used behavioral agency predictions but can be reconciled with theory through a mixed gamble lens.
{"title":"Firm Acquisitions by Family Firms: A Mixed Gamble Approach","authors":"K. Hussinger, Abdul-Basit Issah","doi":"10.1177/0894486519885544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519885544","url":null,"abstract":"This study elucidates the mixed gamble confronting family firms when considering a related firm acquisition. The socioemotional and financial wealth trade-off associated with related firm acquisitions as well as their long-term horizon turns family firms more likely to undertake a related acquisition than nonfamily firms, especially when they are performing above their aspiration level. Postmerger performance pattern confirms that family firms are able to create long-term value through these acquisitions, and by doing so, they surpass nonfamily firms. These findings stand in contrast to commonly used behavioral agency predictions but can be reconciled with theory through a mixed gamble lens.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"354 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519885544","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42067839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-02DOI: 10.1177/0894486519864724
Nadine H. Kammerlander, N. Breugst
Over the past few years, scholars have increasingly called for a shift of focus in family business research from a macro view to one that studies micro foundations (e.g., De Massis & Foss, 2018), which investigate individual-level constructs such as emotions (e.g., Shepherd, 2016), identity (e.g., Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), or attitudes (e.g., Ramos, Man, Mustafa, & Ng, 2014). In particular, there is much potential for integrating theoretical and empirical insights from psychology to further advance our knowledge on family businesses by better understanding the decision making of family members and specifically owner-managers of family firms. In this regard, a recent systematic review on family firm advisors (Strike, Michel, & Kammerlander, 2017) has revealed that family firm research focusing on the individual level has developed largely independently of research in the field of psychology and, as such, has forgone important opportunities to integrate psychological perspectives into family firm research. Moreover, the specific setting of the family firm in which professional and family lives are closely intertwined has the potential to inform other fields and challenge traditional perspectives, such as work in organizational psychology on work–family balance (e.g., Valcour, 2007), work on entrepreneurial role models (e.g., Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Praag, & Verheul, 2012), or work on managerial goal setting (e.g., Bateman, O’Neill, & KenworthyU’Ren, 2002). Consequently, it is not surprising that scholarly calls have aimed to encourage more interdisciplinary work to advance our knowledge on family firms. As a current example, de Massis, Piccolo, Picone, and Tang are editing a Family Business Review special issue on “Psychological Foundations of Management in Family Firms.” While recent studies represent commendable, early achievements, we suggest that understanding the cognitions of the people in (and supporting) family firms still represents a rather untapped potential to broaden our insights into interesting idiosyncrasies that stem from family owner-managers’ cognition. Specifically, these insights will shed light on drivers of heterogeneity in family firms, for example, in their goals or long-term orientation (Diaz-Moriana, Clinton, Kammerlander, Lumpkin, & Craig, 2018). This editorial emerged from a discussion of a family business scholar with a strategy background and an entrepreneurship scholar with a major in psychology sitting together and reflecting about the nature of family business and their idiosyncrasies. As an outcome of these inspiring, interdisciplinary discussions, we realized that family business owner-managers might perceive or construe their family business in a particular way and that such perception might explain both, differences between family versus nonfamily firms as well as heterogeneity among family businesses. The aim of this editorial is hence to briefly introduce a promising psychological theory to the resear
{"title":"Construals Matter: Painting the Big Picture or Drawing the Brushstrokes of the Family Firm","authors":"Nadine H. Kammerlander, N. Breugst","doi":"10.1177/0894486519864724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519864724","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past few years, scholars have increasingly called for a shift of focus in family business research from a macro view to one that studies micro foundations (e.g., De Massis & Foss, 2018), which investigate individual-level constructs such as emotions (e.g., Shepherd, 2016), identity (e.g., Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), or attitudes (e.g., Ramos, Man, Mustafa, & Ng, 2014). In particular, there is much potential for integrating theoretical and empirical insights from psychology to further advance our knowledge on family businesses by better understanding the decision making of family members and specifically owner-managers of family firms. In this regard, a recent systematic review on family firm advisors (Strike, Michel, & Kammerlander, 2017) has revealed that family firm research focusing on the individual level has developed largely independently of research in the field of psychology and, as such, has forgone important opportunities to integrate psychological perspectives into family firm research. Moreover, the specific setting of the family firm in which professional and family lives are closely intertwined has the potential to inform other fields and challenge traditional perspectives, such as work in organizational psychology on work–family balance (e.g., Valcour, 2007), work on entrepreneurial role models (e.g., Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Praag, & Verheul, 2012), or work on managerial goal setting (e.g., Bateman, O’Neill, & KenworthyU’Ren, 2002). Consequently, it is not surprising that scholarly calls have aimed to encourage more interdisciplinary work to advance our knowledge on family firms. As a current example, de Massis, Piccolo, Picone, and Tang are editing a Family Business Review special issue on “Psychological Foundations of Management in Family Firms.” While recent studies represent commendable, early achievements, we suggest that understanding the cognitions of the people in (and supporting) family firms still represents a rather untapped potential to broaden our insights into interesting idiosyncrasies that stem from family owner-managers’ cognition. Specifically, these insights will shed light on drivers of heterogeneity in family firms, for example, in their goals or long-term orientation (Diaz-Moriana, Clinton, Kammerlander, Lumpkin, & Craig, 2018). This editorial emerged from a discussion of a family business scholar with a strategy background and an entrepreneurship scholar with a major in psychology sitting together and reflecting about the nature of family business and their idiosyncrasies. As an outcome of these inspiring, interdisciplinary discussions, we realized that family business owner-managers might perceive or construe their family business in a particular way and that such perception might explain both, differences between family versus nonfamily firms as well as heterogeneity among family businesses. The aim of this editorial is hence to briefly introduce a promising psychological theory to the resear","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"222 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519864724","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43354469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-06DOI: 10.1177/0894486519852449
Shigeru Asaba, T. Wada
This article addresses the following question: How do family firms investing less in research and development (R&D) than nonfamily firms compete in R&D intensive industries? Using Japanese pharmaceutical industry data, we found that family firms produce more patents per R&D than nonfamily firms but are not biased toward low-value innovations. Further analyses of the distribution over innovation value suggested that family firms adopt a “contact-hitting R&D strategy,” avoiding radical innovations and pursuing incremental innovations compatible with their signature moves: innovation through tradition and narrow and internal search and resulting in may low-value innovations and a few mid or high-value innovations.
{"title":"The Contact-Hitting R&D Strategy of Family Firms in the Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry","authors":"Shigeru Asaba, T. Wada","doi":"10.1177/0894486519852449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519852449","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the following question: How do family firms investing less in research and development (R&D) than nonfamily firms compete in R&D intensive industries? Using Japanese pharmaceutical industry data, we found that family firms produce more patents per R&D than nonfamily firms but are not biased toward low-value innovations. Further analyses of the distribution over innovation value suggested that family firms adopt a “contact-hitting R&D strategy,” avoiding radical innovations and pursuing incremental innovations compatible with their signature moves: innovation through tradition and narrow and internal search and resulting in may low-value innovations and a few mid or high-value innovations.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"277 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519852449","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43177465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-21DOI: 10.1177/0894486519848512
Donald O. Neubaum, Nadine H. Kammerlander, Keith H. Brigham
As the field of family business continues to mature, it is not surprising that there is a growing recognition of the degree of heterogeneity among family firms. While many earlier studies focused on differences between family and nonfamily firms, more and more research is centered on identifying the sources and types of variance among family firms. Given the increasing need to better understand differences among family firms, we propose that a configurational approach, which is often reflected in typologies (which are conceptually developed) or taxonomies (which are empirically derived), is a particularly useful perspective to examine within-group heterogeneity. Thus, the goal of this special issue on “Typologies and Taxonomies of Family Business” is to (1) highlight the utility of using typologies and taxonomies in advancing family business research and (2) promote the use of these approaches in fostering a better understanding of the heterogeneity that exists among family firms, and how this heterogeneity might be linked to important organizational outcomes. With these goals in mind, this commentary provides a review of articles in the extant family business literature that have used typologies or taxonomic classifications to describe family businesses. Our review lays the foundation for the subsequent presentation of a synopsis of each of the four articles contained within the special issue. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of suggestions for future research using typologies and taxonomies and their application to family firm heterogeneity. We start by discussing the most common approach used.
{"title":"Capturing Family Firm Heterogeneity: How Taxonomies and Typologies Can Help the Field Move Forward","authors":"Donald O. Neubaum, Nadine H. Kammerlander, Keith H. Brigham","doi":"10.1177/0894486519848512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519848512","url":null,"abstract":"As the field of family business continues to mature, it is not surprising that there is a growing recognition of the degree of heterogeneity among family firms. While many earlier studies focused on differences between family and nonfamily firms, more and more research is centered on identifying the sources and types of variance among family firms. Given the increasing need to better understand differences among family firms, we propose that a configurational approach, which is often reflected in typologies (which are conceptually developed) or taxonomies (which are empirically derived), is a particularly useful perspective to examine within-group heterogeneity. Thus, the goal of this special issue on “Typologies and Taxonomies of Family Business” is to (1) highlight the utility of using typologies and taxonomies in advancing family business research and (2) promote the use of these approaches in fostering a better understanding of the heterogeneity that exists among family firms, and how this heterogeneity might be linked to important organizational outcomes. With these goals in mind, this commentary provides a review of articles in the extant family business literature that have used typologies or taxonomic classifications to describe family businesses. Our review lays the foundation for the subsequent presentation of a synopsis of each of the four articles contained within the special issue. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of suggestions for future research using typologies and taxonomies and their application to family firm heterogeneity. We start by discussing the most common approach used.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"106 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519848512","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46929914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-21DOI: 10.1177/0894486519846670
Sabine B. Rau, Viktoria Schneider-Siebke, Christina Günther
Family firm heterogeneity results in reduced predictability of firm behavior as well as inconsistent results regarding research on family firm behavior. We argue that family firm heterogeneity is based, among other factors, on values heterogeneity. In order to lay the ground for future research, we develop a taxonomy of family firms based on values. Using values theory, we identify six value categories, resulting in five family firm types with five distinct value profiles. Second, we posit family firm values profiles are distinct to the group of family firms as nonfamily firms do not display similar value profiles.
{"title":"Family Firm Values Explaining Family Firm Heterogeneity","authors":"Sabine B. Rau, Viktoria Schneider-Siebke, Christina Günther","doi":"10.1177/0894486519846670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519846670","url":null,"abstract":"Family firm heterogeneity results in reduced predictability of firm behavior as well as inconsistent results regarding research on family firm behavior. We argue that family firm heterogeneity is based, among other factors, on values heterogeneity. In order to lay the ground for future research, we develop a taxonomy of family firms based on values. Using values theory, we identify six value categories, resulting in five family firm types with five distinct value profiles. Second, we posit family firm values profiles are distinct to the group of family firms as nonfamily firms do not display similar value profiles.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"195 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519846670","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48787090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-12DOI: 10.1177/0894486519840248
Jean S. K. Lee, Guozhen Zhao, Feifei Lu
Drawing from social exchange theory, this article explores the founder–successor relationship quality as a mediated pathway in examining the effects of founder–successor value congruence on successor’s willingness to take over the business. Based on survey data from 102 founder–successor dyads, polynomial regression analysis shows that when both a founder and a successor have high value congruence in family prosperity, the relationship quality will be enhanced, which leads to higher successor’s willingness. When there is value incongruence between a founder and a successor, the successor’s family prosperity value has a more important impact on the founder–successor relationship and successor’s willingness.
{"title":"The Effect of Value Congruence Between Founder and Successor on Successor’s Willingness: The Mediating Role of the Founder–Successor Relationship","authors":"Jean S. K. Lee, Guozhen Zhao, Feifei Lu","doi":"10.1177/0894486519840248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519840248","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing from social exchange theory, this article explores the founder–successor relationship quality as a mediated pathway in examining the effects of founder–successor value congruence on successor’s willingness to take over the business. Based on survey data from 102 founder–successor dyads, polynomial regression analysis shows that when both a founder and a successor have high value congruence in family prosperity, the relationship quality will be enhanced, which leads to higher successor’s willingness. When there is value incongruence between a founder and a successor, the successor’s family prosperity value has a more important impact on the founder–successor relationship and successor’s willingness.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"259 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519840248","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42085348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-29DOI: 10.1177/0894486519838120
L. Stanley, Remedios Hernández-Linares, M. López-Fernández, F. Kellermanns
Drawing on family firm heterogeneity research, we develop a typology of family firms using differences in family influence and firm life cycle. We offer hypotheses regarding the relationships between the different firm types and two important outcomes: Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and performance. Applying latent profile analysis to a sample of 684 Spanish and Portuguese family firms using variables related to family influence (i.e., ownership, family CEO) and firm life cycle (i.e., generational management, size, and presence of board of directors), we find four family firm types, which differentially affect EO and performance. Implications of our findings for EO, family firm performance, and the development of family firm typologies are discussed.
{"title":"A Typology of Family Firms: An Investigation of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance","authors":"L. Stanley, Remedios Hernández-Linares, M. López-Fernández, F. Kellermanns","doi":"10.1177/0894486519838120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519838120","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on family firm heterogeneity research, we develop a typology of family firms using differences in family influence and firm life cycle. We offer hypotheses regarding the relationships between the different firm types and two important outcomes: Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and performance. Applying latent profile analysis to a sample of 684 Spanish and Portuguese family firms using variables related to family influence (i.e., ownership, family CEO) and firm life cycle (i.e., generational management, size, and presence of board of directors), we find four family firm types, which differentially affect EO and performance. Implications of our findings for EO, family firm performance, and the development of family firm typologies are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"174 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519838120","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49514525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-27DOI: 10.1177/0894486519836833
Paul Sanchez-Ruiz, J. Daspit, Daniel T. Holt, Matthew W. Rutherford
The unique form of social capital among family involved in the business, or family social capital (FSC), has both positive and negative effects on the family firm. To better understand how FSC exists across family firms and advance related theory, we develop a taxonomy of FSC. Using configuration analyses on two samples of family firms, we find that three clusters of family firms exist, which include firms with Instrumental, Identifiable, and Indistinguishable FSC. The specific configurations of each cluster are noted, and effects on economic and noneconomic outcomes are identified to advance understanding of the heterogeneous nature of family firms.
{"title":"Family Social Capital in the Family Firm: A Taxonomic Classification, Relationships With Outcomes, and Directions for Advancement","authors":"Paul Sanchez-Ruiz, J. Daspit, Daniel T. Holt, Matthew W. Rutherford","doi":"10.1177/0894486519836833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519836833","url":null,"abstract":"The unique form of social capital among family involved in the business, or family social capital (FSC), has both positive and negative effects on the family firm. To better understand how FSC exists across family firms and advance related theory, we develop a taxonomy of FSC. Using configuration analyses on two samples of family firms, we find that three clusters of family firms exist, which include firms with Instrumental, Identifiable, and Indistinguishable FSC. The specific configurations of each cluster are noted, and effects on economic and noneconomic outcomes are identified to advance understanding of the heterogeneous nature of family firms.","PeriodicalId":51365,"journal":{"name":"Family Business Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"131 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0894486519836833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49652370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：