Search results

Investigation of family firm radical innovation is burgeoning but far less prevalent than studies of family firm innovation in general. Concurrently, studies repeatedly report that family firms exhibit mostly conservative and incremental innovation rather than more radical ones. This is unfortunate because without radical innovation, family firms risk a competency trap in which long-term competitiveness is lost to more innovative rivals. This situation has led to urgent calls among scholars to explicitly acknowledge the heterogeneity of family firm innovation and to understand the conditions for family firm radical innovation.

A systematic review of 51 papers categorized into four scholarly conversations build the foundation for a critical discussion of each line of inquiry.

The authors analyze 51 leading articles and identify four persistent theoretical positions: (1) RBV and capabilities, (2) agency and stewardship, (3) behavioral agency and socioemotional wealth, and (4) the ability and willingness paradox. The authors identify key research problems and research questions needing urgent scholarly and present a framework that captures their complementary and competing assumptions to enable rigorous future research.

To galvanize and spearhead future research efforts, this paper provides a critical analysis of our understanding of family firm radical innovation with a specific emphasis on the theoretical assumptions at the core of existing investigations and the eight most important research questions in need of answers.

There is a paucity of studies on the complex longitudinal dynamics of innovation incorporation within family‐based small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) in response to market and technological change. Attempts at innovation implementation are likely to be influenced by the dynamic effects of critical incidents or crisis points in small family‐based firms. The aim of this EU‐funded study is to explore the effects of critical incidents on innovation implementation within a regional cluster of family‐based SMEs over a two‐year period.

The research methodology involves the longitudinal study of a regional cluster of five family‐based businesses in relation to innovation implementation at firm level. A participant observation and critical action learning methodology was used to study the firms over the two‐year period of the study.

The findings, as summarised using a conceptual model, show that the critical incidents acted interactively with the firm's lifecycle stage and its approach to family versus business, to either act as a catalyst for developing more radical innovation or in maintaining the status quo or continuous improvement.

The findings can act as a guide for how family‐based firms can evaluate and maximise their responses to critical incidents and leverage them to encourage more radical approaches to innovation implementation.

There is a paucity of longitudinal studies on the effect of critical incidents on approaches to innovation implementation in family businesses.

Family firms that simultaneously engage in multiple levels of innovation – incremental and radical – are likely to enjoy performance advantages across generations. The purpose of this paper is to research under which management conditions (i.e. top management team (TMT) diversity in terms of generational or non-family involvement) family firms are more likely to achieve innovation ambidexterity. Also, the paper addresses the mediating role of open innovation (OI) breadth in this relationship.

A large cross-sectional sample of 335 small- and medium-sized family firms is used. The hypotheses were tested in a mediation model. The relationship between TMT diversity and ambidexterity is measured using a binominal regression analysis, the one between TMT diversity and OI breadth using a Tobit model.

Drawing on the family firm upper echelon perspective, the results indicate that TMT diversity induced through external managers and multiple generations is positively related to innovation ambidexterity. As the mediation analysis reveals, the relationship can be explained by the higher propensity of diverse TMTs to get involved in OI breadth. The findings add to the discussion on family firm heterogeneity and its influence on different kinds of innovation.

So far, few studies have been concerned with ambidextrous family firms. Contrary to their reputation, this study identifies family firms as radical as well as open innovators. As such, this research takes account not only of the heterogeneity of family firms, but also of the heterogeneity of family firm innovation.

Digitalisation is perceived as a new process that may add value to firms. Current theoretical understanding assumes it should be part of a firm's strategy to respond to multiple pressures in the business environment. This paper explores the occurrence of digitalisation in a rare context, that of the English agricultural industry in the United Kingdom, a place disproportionality filled with family firms. The general understanding of digitalisation in family firm settings remains embryonic. The authors' explorations make theoretical contributions to research at the intersection of rural entrepreneurship, family business and innovation.

Utilising a purposive, qualitative approach, primary data was collected from multiple interviews with 28 UK family farms, and secondary data from another 164. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo, along with secondary data from reports, observations and websites.

The authors present empirical evidence illustrating how digitalisation manifests incrementally and radically in different types of family farms. The authors present a model that shows the areas of farming that have, and continue to be, digitalised. This increases analytical precision when identifying digitalisation activities that differ depending on the strategy to either scale or diversify. The authors propose that incremental digitalising occurs to a great extent during a scaling strategy, and that radical digitalising occurs to a smaller extent during diversification strategies in family farms.

This research uses a sample of family-run farms from the UK agricultural sector to explore nuanced elements of digitalisation. It should therefore be explored in other types of family firms located in different sectors and geographies.

This research is important because family farms are under increasing pressure and have limited financial resources to deal with the digitalisation agenda. Therefore, empirical evidence helps other farms in similar situations. The authors found digitalisation investments, that tend to be capital intensive, only matter for scalers and less so for diversifiers. Family farms can use the model presented as a tool to evaluate their farm. The tool helps them define what to do, and ideate the potential activities that might be digitalised, to feed into their wider strategy.

Family firms, in particular farms, are critical to many economies. The general consenses currently assumes all family firms should digitalise, yet the authors' evidence suggests that this is not the case. It is important to create policies that are sensitive to the needs of different types of businesses, in this case between family firm scalers and diversifiers, instead of simply incentivising digitalisation using a blanket approach usually by offering financial aid. Understanding how digitisation can support (or not) family firm resilience and growth in an effective and efficient manner can have significant benefit to individual firms, and across industries.

The proposed model extends theoretical understanding linking strategy, digitalisation activity and innovation in family farms. It shows that digitalisation is a key building block of scaling strategies, maximising digitalisation to increase efficiency. Yet, diversifying family farms minimise digitalisation, whereby they only digitalise a small amount of the farming activity. This empirical evidence contrasts with the wider narrative that farmers are slower at using new technology. This research found that some are slower because it does not align with their strategy. However, sometimes digitalisation aligns with their strategy during external changes, in which case the diversifiers are quick to act.

The purpose of the study has been to fill the gap detected in the literature and to analyze whether the application of management of R&D in accordance with UNE 166002:2021 allows companies to obtain higher product innovation and better performance, specifically incremental and radical product innovations.

The population used in this study included Spanish manufacturing organizations that were active, had more than 50 employees according to the SABI. The information was collected through a structured questionnaire previously tested using a company specializing in the sector under the supervision of the authors. A total of 1,154 companies were randomly contacted in order to reach an acceptable number of 225 valid questionnaires. The data analysis has been carried out with structural equation methodology.

The results obtained with a sample of 225 companies show that the application of this standard for innovation management promotes the development of new products with incremental and radical changes, and improves business performance. It has also been found that incremental and radical product innovations mediate the relationship between this standard and performance.

Firstly, the survey is only addressed to the company's operations manager. Secondly, the sample used is cross-sectional, whereas innovation management implies a broad implementation process.

Managers must know that radical and incremental product innovation can improve the company's operational performance. And the most direct implication of this work is that, those companies that are committed to the development of innovations should seriously consider the application of the principles incorporated in Standard 166,002, as an instrument that improves the results of innovation in the organization. Since this SIMS promotes both types of innovations, it improves results directly and indirectly through these product innovations.

The existing literature indicates that no empirical study has focused on the benefits of this SIMSs for innovation and BP. This paper fills this gap detected in the literature and analyzes the results of the implementation of this standard on incremental and radical product innovations and business performance.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The increasingly competitive manufacturing sector has made innovation crucial for the continued survival of family-owned SMEs. However, family firm owners are highly heterogenous and their diverse characteristics influence their approach to innovation. The purpose of this paper is to provide solutions to two heterogeneity related innovation problems: first, the failure of generic innovation policy advice to address the specific types of family firm owners; and second, the difficulty for owners in understanding how their innovation approach compares to their competitors. The solution is to create a taxonomy of family firm owner-innovators which creates innovator types. This taxonomy addresses these two problems: first, the taxonomy enables policy advice to be tailored to a particular innovator types; and second, the taxonomy allows owners to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach to innovation.

The approach is to develop a taxonomy through exploratory factor analysis (n=1,284) and firm owner interviews (n=27) in a mixed methods study. Socio-emotional wealth theory interprets the findings.

The findings present a taxonomy of family firm innovators which contains five types: the spontaneous radical, the statist altruist, the patient opportunist, the curious traveller and the insular denier.

There are two major limitations: first, a taxonomy is static and does not include the temporal dimension of innovation which can change according to the firm lifecycle stage and, by implication, the changing preferences of a maturing firm owner; and second, the mixed methods approach of using two data sets which themselves used differing definitions of “family firm” has introduced the possibility that the constructs developed from the quantitative study may not have the precision or clarity of a study that uses a single data set with a single definition.

The practitioner implications from the research stem from the diagnostic potential of the taxonomy. SME family firm owners can establish their innovation approach by using the taxonomy to decide which type of innovator they are and by adopting an innovation approach that counterbalances the weaknesses of their type.

The social implications are to improve the innovation potential of the family firm community by offering practical support to their innovation activities.

The originality of the research is in its contribution to knowledge on the role of ownership type in directing the innovation approach of SME family firms. The value of the research is in offering a theoretically informed original taxonomy that is of both academic and practical value.

The purpose of this paper is to study women’s entrepreneurship from the family-firm context and radical subjectivist (RS) economics. While women’s entrepreneurship is a long-standing topic of research interest, there have been calls for more theory-oriented research and research which takes context factors in women’s entrepreneurship seriously. The paper responds to this by using an RS’s view of economics as a theoretical lens to consider women’s entrepreneurship in family firms.

The paper briefly reviews the potential of the family-firm context for examining women’s entrepreneurship in a non-reductive fashion, then outlines radical subjectivism (RS). The three main elements of RS’s “entrepreneurial imagination” are explained, then linked with other theories of family-firm behaviour and applied to casework on women entrepreneurs in family firms.

Each element of the entrepreneurial imagination, empathy, modularity and self-organization, generates new research questions which contest previous apparently settled views about women entrepreneurs. Protocols for investigating the questions are suggested. The third element, self-organization, while more difficult to operationalize for empirical testing, suggests how women’s entrepreneurship might generate new industries.

While this is primarily a conceptual study, its case studies invite further exploration of both women entrepreneurs and family firms. The RS perspective could also increase understanding of shared leadership and innovation in family firms. Specific research questions and protocols for investigating them are offered.

Insights from the research have practical implications for entrepreneurship education, for understanding entrepreneurship at the level of society, the firm and the individual.

The importance of both family firms and women entrepreneurs to society makes it important to understand both of them better. The RS perspective can help.

The paper highlights the value of combining attention to entrepreneurial context (family firms) and theory (RS) to reinvigorate some old research questions about women entrepreneurs. The combination of family firms and RS is also novel.

Wonders whether companies actually have employees best interests at heart across physical, mental and spiritual spheres. Posits that most organizations ignore their workforce – not even, in many cases, describing workers as assets! Describes many studies to back up this claim in theis work based on the 2002 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference, in Cardiff, Wales.