Search results

Organization renewal through innovation represents a difficult managerial challenge in family firms. This paper aims to reveal a framework for sustaining innovation capabilities through a perspective of value and process principles.

The author examined the findings from consulting projects in high performing family firms and literature from the areas of family firm strategy and leadership.

The author describes how combining patterns of innovative organizations with patterns of high-performing family firms can help leaders to sustain innovation. This study indicates that a value- and process-driven perspective is important for effective innovation. In particular, the four value principles are continuity-, community-, connection- and command-related factors (4C’s). The four process principles, in turn, are profession-, project-, product- and purchase-related factors (4P’s).

This paper is a part of a wider study of innovative German family firms initiated in 2012. The 4C’s and 4P’s framework suggests a practical means to better implement innovation by reconciling the firm’s innovation strategy, leadership behavior and organizational learning.

When studying innovation in family firms, several contradictions appear, as the family and the firm represent different social systems that follow different rules and expectations. This paper aims to argue that a deeper understanding and effective management of those paradoxes is crucial for the family firm’s innovation performance.

Using theory-building principles, this paper has an abductive character; new research propositions are offered to provide insights into the apparently paradoxical aspects of successfully managing a family firm’s innovation strategy.

Three contradictions are presented and discussed: first, the family can be a hazard and source for the firm; second, family members acting as shareholder and investor; and third, established practice and innovation issues may compete against each other in the quest to sustainably rejuvenate the organization. Inferences are drawn from these apparent contradictions concerning family firm management, providing a basis to form propositions that effectively support innovation.

This paper provides a paradoxical perspective on the innovation phenomenon in family firms and offers practical implications to help leaders better shape their organization’s innovation strategy.

While the relationship between non-family CEOs and corporate innovation in China has been widely studied, the results remain inconclusive. This study explores the relationship between non-family CEOs and corporate innovation in the context of intergenerational succession. It considers the background and background characteristics of non-family CEOs in an attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for human resource management and innovative strategic management that can be applied in the transformation of family companies.

The authors develop, then test, a series of hypotheses using an econometric analysis of a large sample of Chinese listed family firms. To control for endogeneity problems, such as missing variables in the model and the selectivity bias of the sample, propensity score matching (PSM) model is applied to analyze the panel data of 452 listed family firms from 2009–2019.

This study first validates the mechanism by which non-family CEO background characteristics affect innovation performance in family firms. It then reveals the varying moderating effects of two stages of intergenerational succession (i.e. later-generation participation in management and later-generation take-over management) that influence the relationship between non-family CEOs and corporate innovation.

The study's findings based on upper echelon and imprinting theory complement and extend existing research by revealing the impact of non-family CEOs from different backgrounds, and also identifying the role of intergenerational succession in the relationship between non-family CEO background characteristics and innovation performance.

To extend family business research, this article proposes and tests a curvilinear relationship between social ties and family firm innovation, with the firm's market orientation and transgenerational intent as moderators.

Representatives from a sample of 150 family firms in the United Arab Emirates completed self-administered questionnaires. Regression analyses on the collected data test the conceptual model and proposed hypotheses.

The empirical study reveals an inverted U-shaped relationship, such that a high market orientation mitigates the diminishing returns of social ties on enhancing family firm innovation. Similarly, at high levels of transgenerational intent, family firm innovation increases due to social ties, instead of exhibiting diminishing returns.

These results help explain contradictory outcomes previously attributed to social ties and offer clear guidelines for how family firms can leverage these ties more effectively to enhance their own innovation.

This study examines the propensity to innovate in automation of family firms (FFs) based on the socio-emotional wealth (SEW) perspective.

This study’s analysis is based on three aspects. First, the authors consider three main non-economic goals and priorities of FFs: the family’s relationship with employees (read as to care for their satisfaction and well-being); the inner pride of building and maintaining the family and firm image and reputation; and the inner feeling to be socially responsible. Second, the authors consider how these goals and priorities vary among FFs according to four dimensions: family ownership, the presence of family members on the board of directors, the involvement of young successors, and the presence of founding and later generations. Finally, the consequences of automation are considered: lower firm employment, lower employees’ satisfaction and well-being, and higher firm productivity. The analysis is based on a sample of 4,150 Italian firms.

The analysis revealed that FFs are less prone to innovate in automation than non-FFs. Specifically, family ownership, the presence of family members on the board of directors, and the presence of founding generation are negatively associated with innovation in automation. Instead, the involvement of young successors and the presence of later generation are positively associated with innovation in automation.

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first investigation that, based on SEW, examines how FFs act on the decision to innovate in automation, thereby providing empirical evidence.

This paper examines the innovation behavior of family-owned firms versus non-family-owned firms. The role of internal family governance and the influence of external stimuli (competition) on innovation are also considered.

The data of 20,995 family and non-family firms across 38 countries are derived from the World Bank Enterprise Survey during the period 2019–2020. Probit models are used to examine the impact of family ownership, family governance, and competition on innovation outcomes.

Family firms are more likely to make R&D investments, acquire external knowledge, engage in product innovation (including innovations that are new to the market) and process innovation, relative to non-family firms. However, a high propensity of family member involvement in top management positions can reduce innovation. Competition has a negative impact on innovation outcomes for both family and non-family firms, but it has a positive moderating effect on the innovation activities of family firms where a higher level of family member involvement in management is present.

This paper provides novel insights into family firm innovation dynamics by identifying family firms as more innovative than non-family firms for all types of indicators, debunking the idea that family firms are conservative, reluctant to change, and averse to the risks in innovation activities. However, too much family involvement in decision making may stifle some innovation activities in family firms, except in cases where the operating environment is highly competitive; this provides new insights into the ownership-management dynamic of family firms.

Based on data collected using the purposive sampling technique extracted from a secondary data source, this paper aims to examine the relationship between female directors and firm innovation. The paper also examines the impact of leverage ratios and corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure on the association between female directors and firms’ innovation.

The feasible general least regression technique was applied to overcome potential endogeneity issues associated with female directors and corporate innovation spending.

With subsequent control of individual and firm variables, the first findings of this study indicate that female directors significantly decrease firms’ innovation spending. The second outcomes of this study show that the leverage ratio considerably improves corporate innovation spending. The third findings show that the leverage ratio positively moderates the association between female directors and corporate innovation spending. The fourth findings show that CSR expenditure significantly improves firm innovation spending but does not moderate the association between female directors and corporate innovation spending.

Based on dependency theory, robust and reliable conclusions suggest that female directors’ engagement on the Indian board needs more than biological sex, that is, the required expertise. The paper also provides policy implications for female expertise in minority engagement on the board of listed firms in India, especially when the firm desires to increase its corporate innovation spending.

This study is among the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to comment on mandatory CSR expenditure as an independent variable on innovation or a moderating variable between female directors and corporate innovation. Similarly, the family-controlled management perspective in this study deepens the debate on gender diversity and corporate innovation.

The Brittelstand are innovative, family-owned firms that offer national and international opportunities in the United Kingdom (UK). These fast-growing businesses are customer-oriented and proud of family ownership and embeddedness of the businesses within communities. While Brittelstand firms are as likely to deploy open innovation models as non-Brittelstand firms, these firms' engagement with customers in regional and national markets and the ability to benefit from this collaboration contrasts with these firms' willingness to engage in open innovation.

Using longitudinal data and regression analysis on 13,876 firms with 24,286 observations over 2004–2020, the authors develop and test a theoretical framework of open innovation in the Brittelstand. The authors' model explains the willingness and ability of the Brittelstand firms to engage in open innovation and benefit from it.

The authors' results show that Brittelstand firms are less willing than non-Brittelstand firms to collaborate with customers and universities, contrasting prior research on family firms, and distinguishing the innovation model of the Brittelstand from a family business model. The Brittelstand firms who are able to engage in collaboration with customers in domestic markets will outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts in innovation outputs.

In line with other studies, this study is associated with several limitations that open opportunities for further research that replicate and/or extends this study. First, this study is unbalanced panel data and the fact that some firms appear in the model only once from 2004–2020. The longitudinal study will allow to enforce causality of the relationship and examines the dynamics of open innovation in the Brittelstand. Second, the indicator on the extent and mechanisms of collaboration with customers could be better explained and measured, for example, using a scale indicator instead of a binary variable for knowledge collaboration across different types of partners and four geographical dimensions.

First, Brittelstand firms who are less likely to employ open innovation models nationally and with customers. However, those Brittelstand firms who decide to collaborate with customers nationally are more likely to increase the innovation sales compared to those firms that do not engage in such collaborations? This is an interesting and unexpected finding, which means that low willingness of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration for Brittelstand firms is not optimal and engagement in collaboration with customers in domestic markets is beneficial for innovation. Managers and policymakers may use this finding to design and re-design open innovation strategies managers and policymakers with customers within and across regions in the UK. Second, managers may benefit from the integrated view on the two drivers of firm innovation – collaboration with customers and the local embeddedness of such collaboration.

The authors' results show that Brittelstand firms outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts by adopting an open model of innovation with customers in domestic markets. This means that the most dynamic and fast growing Brittelstand firms are those who collaborate with customers for new ideas and innovation.

This study describes the phenomenon of the Brittelstand and investigates the link between open knowledge sourcing across different geographical proximities and partners and innovation outputs. First, the authors contribute to open innovation and resource-based view (RBV) literature in family firms by theorizing and empirically testing the open innovation model for the Brittelstand firms. The authors also debate that the Brittelstand firms should overcome this inertia of willingness to collaborate across heterogeneous external partners and convert regional/national embeddedness of the firms with customers into strengths for greater product innovation. Second, the authors contribute to family business literature by explaining how and why the Brittelstand firms can achieve greater innovation outputs. In doing so, the authors draw on the concept of familiness and local embeddedness.

This paper aims to explore the innovation performance of Serbian family firms, the differences in the innovation performance between family and non-family firms as well as different family firms, and the relationship between business process innovation and customer satisfaction among family firms.

The sample consists of 207 valid responses from young Serbian companies from various industries founded in 2015 that published their financial statements in 2017. The statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, and correlation analysis.

The study results indicate that family businesses in Serbia are innovation-oriented and that they introduced a number of innovations in business processes related to the production and distribution of goods or services and the development of products and business processes. The results also suggest that family and non-family firms are equally committed to introducing innovations in business processes. In addition, the study did not confirm significant differences in the performance of business process innovations among family firms in the manufacturing, trade, and service sectors. Finally, the results demonstrate that introducing business process innovations is positively associated with customer satisfaction and customer retention rate in Serbian family firms.

This paper presents the first comprehensive analysis of the innovation performance of Serbian family firms and can help policymakers assess the contribution of innovation to economic goals.

The phenomenon of defamilization of family firms is gradually increasing for the growth of family firms, that is, nonfamily executives are increasingly present in the executive teams of family firms. Although previous scholars have identified various determinants of family firms' defamilization, whether and when innovation underperformance affects the decision to defamilize family firms has not been explore. This study aims to fill the aforementioned research gaps.

This study empirically tests the theoretical view based on the data of Chinese A-share family listed companies from 2009 to 2017.

The authors found that innovation underperformance drives family companies to increase the percentage of nonfamily executives in their executive teams. Further, the authors found that family firms are less willing to hire nonfamily executives with an increase in socioemotional wealth, particularly when founders of such businesses serve as directors or are major shareholders, even when they are not directors.

This study shows that innovation underperformance and socioemotional wealth are important predictors of family firms’ defamilization decisions.