Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify different types of resource and capability configurations among Hungarian family and nonfamily firms and explore which compositions can be considered competitive. In a rivalrous, dynamic world, understanding which sets of resources and capabilities lead to a higher level of competitiveness is vital.

This paper is based on a quantitative competitiveness survey carried out between November 2018 and July 2019 in Hungary. The authors used the Firm Competitiveness Index (FCI) to measure competitiveness and the resource-based view (RBV) approach to understand which configurations of resources and capabilities are responsible for a higher level of competitiveness based on 32 variables. An exploratory factor and cluster analysis were conducted to analyze the ownership's effect on firm competitiveness. The final sample size contained 111 companies, of which 53 were identified as family and 58 as nonfamily firms.

Factor analysis reveals five factors determining resources and capabilities: “operational,” “leadership,” “knowledge management,” “transformation” and “networking.” Based on these factors, the cluster analysis identified five groups in terms of types of family and nonfamily firms: “Lagging capabilities,” “Knowledge-based leadership,” “Innovativeness and transformation-oriented management,” “Relationship-oriented management” and “Business operation-oriented management.” Results show that nonfamily businesses focus on operational and leadership capabilities, reaching a higher FCI than family businesses, which are likely to invest more in their networking, transformation and knowledge management capabilities.

By defining the different configurations family and nonfamily firms rely on to reach competitiveness, the paper applies an essential element to the Hungarian and Middle Eastern European contexts of family business research. The findings contribute to developing family business literature and point out specific resources and capabilities family firms should focus on to shift toward reaching a higher level of professionalization and competitiveness. The characterization of different types of competitiveness comparing family and nonfamily firms enables the firms to assess customized implications.

The role of family business staffing practices in their ultimate success remains largely unknown. The purpose of this paper is to test the notion that firms with greater family essence manifest their commitment by leveraging referrals as a recruitment source, which in turn is associated with higher performance. The hypothesized model posits that reduced agency costs from hiring through owner referral utilization (ORU) provide high-family essence firms with stronger performance.

The study draws upon a sample of 194 small and medium-sized family business owners.

Findings from OLS regression and the PROCESS model in SPSS support the hypothesis that recruiting nonfamily employees from referrals helps lessen agency conflicts and serves as an intervening mechanism in the relationship between family firm essence and firm performance.

This study draws on agency theory to shed light on how family firms successfully bring nonfamily employees into the fold despite their human resource limitations. The results extend theory on family businesses by demonstrating that those with higher degrees of family essence are more likely to attract applicants via ORU. Leveraging this recruiting practice allows family businesses to hire nonfamily employees who share the values and goals of the family firm, thus lowering agency costs and fostering higher performance. More broadly, the findings offer insight into the role of staffing practices in family firm success.

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.

This study investigates the influence of inclusion of nonfamily employees in family firms on their intellectual, social and affective engagement at the workplace. Furthermore, the framework proposed in the study considers the possible moderating influence of procedural justice in the above relationships.

A conceptual framework is developed with the support of the self-determination theory (SDT) and the social exchange theory. The study tests a set of hypotheses using survey data from 654 nonfamily employees working in private family firms in Malaysia.

The results reveal that inclusion has a positive and significant relationship with intellectual, social and affective engagement. While procedural justice moderates the association between inclusion and intellectual and affective engagement, it does not moderate the relationship between inclusion and social engagement.

The outcome of this study presents a nuanced understanding on how perceptions of inclusion of nonfamily employees by the dominant work group (DWG) (i.e. employees related to the firm owners) lead to positive firm-centric behavior among nonfamily employees.

The study provides clues to family firm managers for creating a work environment where nonfamily employees perceive a sense of belongingness while their uniqueness is appreciated in order to be more engaged at the workplace.

Little is known about how diversity created within family firms by inclusion of nonfamily employees impacts organizations. The outcome of this study may reinforce the positive effects of inclusiveness in any social context.

Diversity researchers have studied the influence of inclusion in areas related to sociology and psychology. However, there appears to be a dearth of studies in terms of how nonfamily employees would behave in family firms when they perceive a sense of inclusion in an organization dominated by employees who are related to the owners of the firm. Hence, this study appears to shed new light on how inclusion of nonfamily employees in family firms influences their behavior.

This study investigates whether broad-based employee ownership (BBEO), in isolation and in conjunction with cash profit sharing (CPS), can enhance labor productivity in family firms over nonfamily firms.

Hypothesis testing was conducted using cross-sectional time-series regression with a matched sample of 393 family and nonfamily firms listed on the US S&P 500 over a five-year timeframe.

Overall, the findings indicate that BBEO does not increase labor productivity more in family firms compared to nonfamily firms in the short term; however, BBEO does enable family firms to experience greater labor productivity relative to nonfamily firms beyond the short term. Moreover, when BBEO is combined with CPS, labor productivity improves more for family firms than nonfamily firms both in the short term and beyond.

While prior studies have relied largely on agency theory, this study contributes to the literature on family firms and employee incentives by being amongst the first to draw upon temporal motivation theory to distinguish between family and nonfamily firms regarding the incentive effect of BBEO on labor productivity.

Since non‐family employees form a large portion of employees in many family firms and they play an important role in the transgenerational survival of those firms, the purpose of this paper is to explore how family influence factors affect non‐family employees' organizational identification and then organizational attachment, which can consequently influence their turnover intentions.

In this conceptual paper, the paper attempts to answer two important research questions: What are the family firm‐specific determinants of nonfamily employees' organizational identification in family firms? How does nonfamily employees' organizational identification affect their tenure in family firms? Thereby, the paper develops a conceptual model linking family influence dimensions (i.e. power, experience, and culture), nonfamily employees' organizational identification, organizational attachment, and turnover intentions within the domain of the stewardship theory.

The model presented in this paper can help scholars and family business managers better understand the idiosyncratic family influence dimensions that can affect nonfamily employees' perceptions and intentions associated with their tenure in family firms. If family firms can limit the negative effects of family influence factors, make the best use of the positive effects, and integrate key nonfamily employees into the family firm through helping them satisfy their higher‐order needs, they can uninterruptedly move forward toward achieving long‐term competitive advantages and superior performance.

Aside from the antecedents of nonfamily employees' organizational identification that are pointed out in this paper, there may be other determinants that are beyond the scope of this paper. The governance structure and strategic orientations are some of the possibilities constituting avenues for future research.

Family firms with great employee care cannot only increase employees' loyalty to their firms, but also help them develop work‐life balance.

This paper is one of the only attempts to use social identity theory to explain non‐family employees' organizational identification and attachment in family firms that can affect their turnover intentions. Not only does this add to our knowledge of family firm human resources management and provide new directions for future research, but it also suggests the usefulness of social identity theory in family business research.

For family businesses, familiness constitutes a unique bundle of resources and capabilities resulting from family relationships and influences. The extant literature has shown that familiness impacts organizational outcomes such as performance and innovation. This paper investigates the role of familiness in relation to absorptive capacity (ACAP). It also explores the specificities of nonfamily members’ social capital when different knowledge management (KM) approaches are adopted.

An exploratory comparative case study design is adopted. Data from three family firms based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) provide the empirical setting for this study. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews, available documents, observations and company websites.

Our results reveal that the role of familiness in relation to ACAP varies according to the adopted KM approach. Familiness targets the potential ACAP when an explicit KM approach is adopted, the realized ACAP when a tacit KM approach is adopted, and both potential and realized ACAPs when a strategic KM approach is adopted. Our results also show that family firms invest in KM processes that support knowledge exploration and/or exploitation.

This paper provides further evidence for the role of familiness. It moves beyond the study of familiness from a resource-based view and adopts a knowledge-based perspective to develop a better understanding of the role of familiness in relation to ACAP. It also improves our understanding of nonfamily members’ social capital in family firms.

This paper aims to investigate the financial performance of listed firms on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) over two sample periods (1998-2007 and 2008-2010) before and during the global financial crisis periods.

The generalized method of moments (GMM) has been used to examine the relationship between family ownership and a firm’s performance during the financial crisis period, reflecting on the higher risk exposure associated with capital markets.

Applying firm-based measures of financial performance (ROA and ROE), the empirical results show that family firms with ownership concentration performed better than nonfamily firms with dispersed ownership structures. The results also show that ownership concentration has a positive and significant impact on family- and nonfamily-owned firms during the crisis period. In addition, financial leverage had a positive and significant effect on the performance of Australian family-owned firms during both periods. However, if the impact of the crisis by sector is taking into account, the financial leverage only becomes significant for the nonmining family firms during the pre-crisis period. The results also reveal that family businesses are risk-averse business organizations. These findings are consistent with the underlying economic theories.

This paper contributes to the debate whether the ownership structure affects firms’ financial performance such as ROE and ROA during the global financial crisis by investigating family and nonfamily firms listed on the Australian capital market. It also identifies several influential drivers of financial performance in both normal and crisis periods. Given the paucity of studies in the area of family business, the empirical results of this research provide useful information for researchers, practitioners and investors, who are operating in capital markets for family and nonfamily businesses.

This chapter takes a socioemotional wealth (SEW) perspective to explain the adoption of human resource (HR) practices in family-controlled firms. Previous studies on human resource management (HRM) in family firms have focused only on a small range of HR practices and have rarely utilized strong conceptual frameworks. As a result, these studies have overlooked important factors that contribute to the distinctiveness of HRM in these organizations. Based on ample evidence that shows family businesses' preference for non-economically motivated objectives collectively labeled as SEW, we propose that the presence of SEW influences HR practices in family firms.

Consequently, we reexamine existing empirical evidence of the determinants of HRM in family-controlled firms under the SEW approach. We also reinterpret existing theoretical models of family-controlled firms and their implications for HRM under the SEW umbrella. Our final goal is to establish an integrated framework through a set of sound propositions on HRM in family businesses. By integrating the literature, we aim to fill theoretical gaps in our understanding of the determinants of HR practices in the family business context and direct future research in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to explore differences in the decision-making styles between family and nonfamily firms, while assessing how family participation relates to the use of decision-making styles within family firms.

The empirical evidence is provided by a sample of 155 firms, located in the Azores, Portugal, 82 family controlled and 73 nonfamily controlled firms. All firms included in the sample are small-sized privately owned enterprises. Business owners and managers responded to a decision-making styles questionnaire, followed, in the case of family firms, by the report of the number of family members actively involved in the business.

Results show that there are no differences in the use of rational decision making between family and nonfamily firms. However, nonfamily firms show higher levels of experiential decision making than family firms. Results also show that family participation plays a key role in guiding the decisional process, by promoting the use experiential decisions and inhibiting the adoption of a rational decision-making styles in family firms.

From a theoretical perspective, this study opens the door to new research on an under investigated topic in the family business literature. It contributes with initial notions that may help profile the decisional style within small family firms, while revealing how family participation affects it. Thus, creating a fertile ground of discussion that can be an impulse for more research in this area.

From an applied perspective, assessing the influence of family participation in the adoption of a decisional style is potentially valuable for practitioners as well as for owners and managers. Providing them with clues that may help them better understand the basis of their decisions which can benefit their relations with other family members, as with customers, partners and suppliers that play a key role in the firm’s growth, profitability and adaptability.

From a social point of view, showing that family firms tend to be rational in their decisions may help create a more reputable and credible image surrounding these firms that are sometimes perceived as less professional than nonfamily firms. Thus, a more solid reputability can help improve their relationship with important partner institutions (e.g. financial, governmental), becoming more attractive to private and public investment, which can translate into win-win situations.

This study responds to a gap in the literature, by exploring the use of experiential vs rational decision-making styles in small family and nonfamily firms. This study also contributes to the understanding of the decision making within family firms, by assessing the role of family participation in the adoption of a decisional style.