Search results

This paper examines how differences in the family involvement in a family business can influence its level of indebtedness. Assuming the influence of family is not the same for all family firms, we consider each company as a combination of the family involvement in three dimensions of the business: ownership, management and governance structure.

Using the partial least squares technique allows us to address the heterogeneity of family firms through an integral concept of family involvement in business that jointly considers the level of family participation in the ownership, management and governance structure of each firm.

Our results demonstrate that the level of family involvement in a family firm, considering the heterogeneity existing within the family business group, directly influences its level of indebtedness. In addition, we find that family involvement in ownership and governance structures individually considered are positively related to the level of indebtedness of the family business.

Our findings prove that some indebtedness patterns, which previous literature has described as common to all Spanish family businesses, may actually be valid only for specific family firms with a particular level of family involvement. In addition, the way of measuring family business heterogeneity through our integral concept of family involvement can be replicated by other authors because of the manageability of the items, thus contributing to an increased understanding of the effects of family involvement in firms' development.

The aim of this study is to explore and understand corporate governance patterns in family firms across Latin America. This is in response to several calls in the academic literature urging for more empirical studies in corporate governance in developing regions.

Following a configurative perspective, a hierarchical cluster analysis is applied to a sample of the 155 largest Latin American family firms.

The authors identify three main corporate governance configurations across Latin American countries. First, the exported governance model resembles many characteristics of Anglo-American and Continental Europe governance patterns of public listed control, having independence from the board of directors, and mainly hiring non-family management. Second, the super-familial governance model describes private ownership where one or multiple families control both the board of directors and the top-management team. Finally, the hybrid governance model is the largest cluster identified in the sample and combines governance characteristics of both of the foregoing configurations. This configuration exhibits ownership structured through public offerings of shares combined with leadership of the board of directors by a family member as well as moderate family influence on the board and management.

This is the first study to investigate corporate governance in the largest listed and privately-owned family firms in Latin America. The article extends the conversation on family firm heterogeneity and contributes to the configurative approach in the family business field by offering a cross-country perspective and identifying meaningful taxonomies that are applicable beyond national boundaries.

In family business studies, inconsistent findings exist regarding the relationship between family involvement and firm innovation. The purpose of this paper is to understand the heterogeneity of family firm innovation.

The authors draw on governance literature and the socioemotional wealth (SEW) perspective to examine how the extent of family governance and the type of SEW objectives jointly influence innovation strategies in family firms.

The authors develop a typology of family firm innovation strategies, positing that the family firm’s risk orientation, innovation goal, and knowledge diversity vary depending on the degree of family involvement in governance and the type of SEW objective. The authors propose that four family firm innovation strategies (e.g. Limited Innovators, Intended Innovators, Potential Innovators, and Active Innovators) emerge when family involvement in the dominant coalition (high or low) is contrasted with the SEW objective (restricted or extended) pursued by the family.

Understanding how governance and SEW goals work together to influence the firm’s innovation strategies is potentially valuable for managers of family firms. The authors offer practical suggestions for how to strategically reposition the firm to pursue innovation strategies more in line with those of the Active Innovator.

This study contributes to the family business literature by using a multi-dimensional approach to examine family firm heterogeneity. In addition, by articulating various family firm innovation strategies, the authors offer insight into the previously inconsistent findings concerning firm innovation behavior and outcomes in family business studies.

This paper investigates the role of the founder CEO and board independence in shaping the way in which Indian and Italian family firms (FFs) pursue international growth via two modes, that is exports and FDI. This article claims that country's context matters in determining the relationship between the presence of the founder CEO and FFs' extent of exports and extent of FDI. Further, this article examines the moderating role of board independence on the above-mentioned founder CEO–FF's international growth relationship.

Using a fixed-effect panel data method, this article tests the hypotheses on a sample of 1,275 Indian FF-year observations and 705 Italian FF-year observations over the period 2008–2015.

This article reveals that the presence of a founder CEO is positively associated with the extent of exports but negatively associated with the extent of FDI in Italian firms. However, in case of Indian firms, the presence of the founder CEO is negatively associated with the extent of exports as well as with the extent of FDI. This founder CEO's influence on the firm's international growth is mitigated by the presence of an independent board in Italian firms; however, this moderation is not significant in the case of Indian firms.

It is important to capture heterogeneity within family firms and across institutional contexts while studying family firms' international growth. Further, it is important for international business scholars to theorize for different modes of international growth because challenges faced in expansion via exports are different from the challenges faced in expansion via FDI (foreign subsidiaries). Therefore, family firms leadership might prefer a certain mode of international growth.

The findings of the study imply that national culture and institutional context could play an important role in determining (a) Founder CEO's inclination towards FF's extent of exports and FDI as well as (b) the effectiveness of an independent board in mitigating founder CEO's influence on FF's international growth.

This work is one of the very few studies that examines the impact of FF's heterogeneity and country heterogeneity on two modes of international growth, namely exports and FDI, in the Indian and Italian contexts. Further, this work provides empirical evidence on the independent board's role in mitigating founder CEO's influence in decision making in the case of Italian firms. Extant literature expects an independent board to encourage FFs' international growth both via exports and FDI; this study shows that independent boards could reduce the founder CEO's inclination towards exports and mitigate founder CEO's influence on the decision making; however, this mitigation effect is highly context dependent.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether and how inter-firm cooperation and firm age moderate the relationship between family ownership and productivity.

We first estimate the total factor productivity (TFP) of a large sample of Italian firms observed over the period 2010–2018 and then apply a Poisson random effects model.

TFP is, on average, higher for non-family firms (non-FFs) than for FF. Furthermore, inter-organizational cooperation and firm age mitigate the negative effect of family ownership. In detail, it is found that belonging to a network acts as a moderator in different ways according to firm age. Indeed, young FFs underperform non-FF peers, although the TFP gap decreases with age. In contrast, the benefits of a formal network are high for older FFs, suggesting that an age-related learning process is at work.

The study provides evidence that FFs can outperform non-FFs when they move away from Socio-Emotional Wealth-centered reference points and exploit knowledge flows arising from high levels of social capital. In the case of mature FFs, networking is a driver of TFP, allowing them to acquire external resources. Since FFs often do not have sufficient in-house knowledge and resources, they must be aware of the value of business cooperation. While preserving the familiar identity of small companies, networks grant FFs the competitive and scale advantages of being large.

Despite the wide but ambiguous body of research on the performance gap between FFs and non-FFs, little is known about the role of FFs’ heterogeneity. This study has proven successful in detecting age as a factor in heterogeneity, specifically to explain the network effect on the link between ownership and TFP. Based on a representative sample, the study provides a solid framework for FFs, policymakers and academic research on family-owned companies.

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.

This study aims to examine the relationship between family firm characteristics and audit fees. It also examines the extent to which the family name is considered a red flag during the risk assessment of these firm characteristics.

Using an external panel data set that includes 1,252 firm-year observations of 204 private German firms with a time series from 2010–2016, regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses.

This study’s results indicate that family involvement in management and the supervisory board are negatively related to audit fees, suggesting less demand and supply of audit effort due to lower Type I agency conflicts. Family ownership is found to be positively associated with audit fees due to higher Type II agency conflicts. Moreover, the negative effect of family involvement in management on audit fees becomes weaker if the firm name contains the family name, indicating that it is considered a red flag by auditors during their risk assessment.

Prior studies that examined audit fees in family firms mainly compared family firms to non-family firms. However, auditors are not likely to look at firms in a dichotomous way during their risk assessment, especially as there are numerous definitions of family firms. Instead, they will assess the underlying characteristics regarding management, ownership and governance, although a firm name containing the family name may influence this assessment. This study contributes to the literature by accounting for the heterogeneity of family firms and examining how auditors will assess this heterogeneity.

This study analyzes antecedents explaining the lack of resilience in family-owned firms. Our model suggests that family-owned firms’ strategic behaviors and heterogeneity explain a particular crisis outcome: a lack of recovery.

Our evidence is based on a sample of 842 European family-owned firms. We complement regression analysis results with fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA).

Our results show that lack of resilience is relevant. In fact, in our sample, 60% of family firms (FFs) failed to recover their sales. This evidence supports the role played by exploitation and exploration behavior as well as family heterogeneity in explaining the lack of recovery.

Our results may offer guidance to practitioners and policymakers on the pathways that explain the lack of resilience.

Although it is unlikely that an external crisis such as COVID-19 will occur again to the same extent, other threatening events may occur and impact FFs. Understanding how FFs can avoid non-recovery is crucial: it can inform managers on how to deal with stressful events and provide guidance to economic authorities on how to help FFs around the world avoid non-recovery, which affects the economy.

First, the study contributes to FF research by offering a theoretical explanation for the different effects of FF attributes on non-recovery in the context of a global crisis. Second, it contributes to the literature on organizational resilience by examining explorative and exploitative behaviors as antecedents of FF non-recovery. Third, we show the usefulness of combining fsQCA and regression analysis to understand complex phenomena.

本研究擬分析家族企業缺乏復原力的原因。我們的模型暗示了家族企業的策略性行為和異質性是可闡明一個特殊的危機後果：企業未能成功恢復。

我們的證據是建基於一個涵蓋842間歐洲家族公司的樣本。我們以模糊集質性比較分析，去補充迴歸分析的結果。

研究結果顯示，缺乏復原力是有相關性的。事實上，在我們的樣本裡，有百分之六十的家族企業未能恢復其銷售量。研究結果提供了證據，確認了若要闡明缺乏復原力的原因，我們必須瞭解開發和探索行為、以及家族異質性所扮演的角色。

我們的研究結果，或許可為從業人員和政策制訂者提供引導，幫助他們找出缺乏復原力的原因。

雖然像2019冠狀病毒病的外部危機以同樣的程度發生的機會是很微的，但其它有威脅性的事件或會發生，並會影響家族企業; 因此，瞭解家族企業如何能避免缺乏復原力的弊端是非常重要的。這可讓經理瞭解如何處理令人憂慮的事件，亦可為經濟事務當局的高層人員提供引導，幫助他們瞭解如何協助世界各地的家族企業，去避免影響經濟的復原乏力。

首先，本研究在家族企業的探討上作出了貢獻。研究人員在一個全球危機的背景下提出了理論解釋，讓人們明白家族企業的屬性，如何會對復原乏力產生各種影響。其次，本研究在探討組織彈性的文獻方面作出了貢獻，因研究人員對作為引發家族企業復原乏力因素的探索和開發行為、進行了探討和研究。最後，研究人員展示了若要瞭解複雜的事物或現象，把模糊集質性比較分析和迴歸分析結合起來運用是有效的。

The purpose of this paper is to explain how the concept of socioemotional wealth can be combined with other important concepts in the family firm literature to develop a theory of the family firm.

This is a conceptual paper based on a review of the paper of Martin and Gómez-Mejía in this issue as well as the family business literature in general.

Martin and Gómez-Mejía (this issue) present a theoretical model and propositions on the relationship between socioemotional and financial wealth that advances understanding of family firm decision-making. That paper provides an initial step toward a theory of the family firm that can explain why firms select the family form of organization to conduct economic activities, what determines their scale and scope and why heterogeneity is observed among family firms. This commentary takes another step toward such a theory by discussing how the combined consideration of goals, governance and resources could be used to address the above three questions.

The precepts of a new theory of the family firm is presented that incorporates the concepts of goals (socioemotional wealth), governance (family ownership and control) and resources (familiness) of family firms to explain why family firms exist and potentially thrive as well as to explain the heterogeneity among family firms.

This study explores the impact of family ownership and management on exploitative and exploratory outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) in family businesses in emerging economies, as well as the moderating effects of intra-family successions and founder CEOs.

The authors empirically tested the hypotheses based on the data of Chinese listed manufacturing family enterprises from 2009 to 2018.

Family ownership does not significantly reduce exploitative OFDI but significantly increases exploratory OFDI. When family offspring have succession intentions, these relationships are strengthened. Additionally, family management is negatively associated with exploitative OFDI and positively associated with exploratory OFDI. Founder CEOs have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between family management and exploitative and exploratory OFDI.

This study is the first attempt to introduce exploitative and exploratory OFDI into the internationalization of family enterprises. The research goes beyond internationalization as a single concept and provides new evidence to solve the controversy about how family involvement affects family firms’ internationalization. On the other hand, the authors respond to the call to understand the impact of family heterogeneity on internationalization by systematically examining the influence of four important family heterogeneity characteristics on family firms’ OFDI choice.