Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms

Abstract

Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial orientation, Family firm, Firm survival, L21, L25, L26,

Tweaking the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in family firms: the effect of control mechanisms and family-related goals

“…In comparison to nonfamily firms, studies demonstrate that family firms show similar attitudes for other EO dimensions and their positive effect on financial performance, with regards to Innovativeness (Kellermanns et al 2012a;Bergfeld and Weber 2011;Kraus et al 2012b), Proactiveness (De Massis et al 2014;Zellweger and Sieger 2012;Nordqvist et al 2008) and Autonomy (Gómez-Mejía et al 2007;Habbershon and Pistrui 2002). However, research findings also indicate that EO dimensions in family firms might have to be refined, to external and internal components of Innovativeness and Autonomy (Nordqvist et al 2008;Zellweger and Sieger 2012), to different components or definitions of Risk-Taking (Gómez-Mejía et al 2007;Zellweger and Sieger 2012;Zahra 2005), with regards to the applicability of Competitive Aggressiveness (Nordqvist and Melin 2010;Lumpkin et al 2010;Kallmuenzer and Peters 2017) or depending on the age/generational context for Proactiveness (De Massis et al 2014;Martin and Lumpkin 2003).…”

“…Literature on the five dimensions Innovativeness, Proactiveness, Risk-Taking, Autonomy and Competitive Aggressiveness of the multidimensional EO construct in family firms shows divergent results for their effects on financial performance (Zellweger and Sieger 2012). Authors predominantly argue that Innovativeness is an important driver also for financial performance of family firms, especially when the family is strongly involved (Bergfeld and Weber 2011; Kellermanns et al 2012a).…”

“…Findings on Risk-Taking diverge with regards to its presence in family firms (Hiebl 2013) and the effect on performance (Zahra 2005;Naldi et al 2007). Autonomy positively influences financial performance in family firms (Habbershon and Pistrui 2002), especially the independence from stakeholders is considered important (Zellweger and Sieger 2012). Competitive Aggressiveness is divergently discussed: While family firms aim at a positive reputation and image in society (Jaskiewicz et al 2015) and therefore compete less aggressively, they strongly defend their family business when being threatened (Gómez-Mejía et al 2007).…”

“…This attitude is often considered to be less prevailing with family firms (Lumpkin et al 2010;Nordqvist and Melin 2010;Short et al 2009;Nordqvist et al 2008) as safety thinking (performance hazard risk) and keeping the firm control within the family (control risk) are assumed to be superior goals (Zellweger and Sieger 2012;Gómez-Mejía et al 2007;Hiebl 2013). However, undiversified wealth of the managers' own capital (ownership risk) habitually is invested in the company, leading to a risk-bearing and risk-sharing attitude (Zahra 2003) and indicating a relatively high level of Risk-Taking (Xiao et al 2001;Zellweger and Sieger 2012;Bianco et al 2013). Previous literature disagrees on the amplitude of entrepreneurial Risk-Taking of family firms.…”

“…Lumpkin et al 2009;De Massis et al 2014;Naldi et al 2007;Bouncken et al 2016), by focusing on growth as the performance measure , by investigating effects of management composition (Sciascia et al 2013), or by investigating the moderating effect of Socio-Emotional Wealth (SEW) on the unidimensional EOperformance relationship (Schepers et al 2014). Despite the importance to understand how entrepreneurial attitudes take effect in family firms, there is not yet a concordant opinion on the transmission of the multidimensional EO construct on family firm performance (Zellweger and Sieger 2012;Kallmuenzer 2015).…”