Chapter PDF Bachelor

Innovation in Family Business

Figures

Content may be field of study to copyright.

Join for free

Content may be bailiwick to copyright.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

786

The 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences

Innovative models to revive the global economy

Oct fifteen-sixteen, 2020

Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania

Innovation in Family Business concern

Adriana CIOCA1*, Kassam WEHBE2,

Delia POPESCU3, Constanț a POPESCU4

DOI: 10.2478/9788366675162-078

Abstract

Innovation is ane of the pillars of any successful business. Family businesses are

portrayed as having a bourgeois behaviour when it comes to innovation, as this concept

comes from the risk taken that can alter the history and the reputation of companies and

the market place trust of their products and services. Family studies have focused so far on the

financial elements that gradually shaped family business cease operation. Only the internal

family unit insights, especially from the psychological and social perspective, which are pushing

towards a successful innovation, haven't been explored at length. The aim of this commodity

highlights the relation between family business organisation behavioural insights and successful

innovation process, analysed in the context of their dissimilar sectors where family businesses

are coming from. To bridge the chief key drivers behind families and empirical gap to

innovation, the Authors have conducted a quantitative study based on a descriptive and

statistical interpretation while presenting their findings. The traditions and values of family

business, as well as family involvement in the southtrategic decisions over multiple business plans

and family member expertise inside their concern roles, play important roles for constant

innovative success.

Keywords: Innovation, family concern, dynamic, development, strategy.

JEL Classification: O3

1. Introduction

Family companies are known equally having an touch on on the worldwide economies,

with strong contribution regarding economical growth and stability, seen as the about

organizational "phenomena". They account for approximately 75% from the global

economies (Conto et afifty., 2014; Llach and Nordqvist, 2016; Astrachan and Schanker,

2003; Mandl, 2008; Lindow, 2013; Zellweger, 2017). Still, innovation remains the

1 Valahia Academy, Tâ rgoviș te, Romania, adriana.cioka@gmail.com.

* Corresponding author.

2 Valahia University, Tâ rgoviș te, Romania, Kassam.wehbe@gmail.com.

3 Valahia University, Tâ rgoviș te, Romania, deliapopescu@yahoo.com.

4 Valahia Academy, Tâ rgoviș te, Romania, tanta.pop@yahoo.com.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

787

commuter strength for economic development, characterized by the commitment of the

family businesses to innovate, forced by a dynamic environment according to their

industry. Innovation represents the entrepreneurial expression of a inquiry and

design action performed by a company. Innovation embraces gany forms, from

organizational procedure implementation (Schaper and Volery, 2004), like new

technologies and concepts, united nationstil extraordinary tangible avails. According to Miller

and Friesen, (1983), an entrepreneurial house is the ane which undertakes some risks

in its innovative business venture, showing a proactive innovation attitude and

condign finally the leader in its field. There are companies willing to introduce,

keeping premium position on the markets and targeting large profits. (Hatak et al.,

2016; Kraiczy, 2013; Thousandraiczy and Hacone thousand, 2017). There are advantageous condition

positions for the pioneer companies, recognized and accepted by the public, but in

the aforementioned time, there are numerous catastrophic ends for the unsuccessful companies

with costly unhappy products, rejected by the public. Although, in the global

business competition, as a primary tool, continuous innovation is perceived as a cadre

challenge for the company success. (Llach et al., 2012) and in spite of their

successful running operations, family firms are portrayed as conservative leaders

(Morris, 1998; Habbershon et al., 2003) when information technology comes to their innovative behaviour,

they behave rather reluctant than with aggressive innovative initiative, as compared

to their counterparts, not-family businesses (Economist, 2009; Kraus et al., 2012;

Duran et al., 2016). Scholarly enquiry indicated and described the family business

as difficult to change in the newest business environs (Lubatkin et al., 2007;

Carney, 2005), but in spite this motion-picture show, family companies areast very successful

worldwide, and they do innovate. The aim of this Article is to focus on the influence

of family over the procedure of innovation, by analysing the behavioural insights of the

family business.

2. Trouble statement

Innovation represents the strategic orientation, the result of an activeness and not a

coincidence; its scope is to bring on the market a change in the business concern routine, as

well as economic benefits through acknowledgment, novelty, qualitative originality,

(Male monarch and Andreson, 2002; Leenen, 2005; Kraus et al., two012) and to contribute to

the survival of the family businesses, which are unique and take their own traditions,

values, patterns, transferred by the family over the business. From the psychological

and social signal of view, in relation to innovation, researchers revealed three

mutual direction types which lead to conservative behaviour regarding family unit

businesses: (one) family culture influences innovation process (2) conflicts within the

family cake innovation process (3) involvement of the family is pushing innovation.

(Chrisman and Patel, 2012; Lee and Rogoff, 1996; Zahra, 2003; Romano et al., 2000;

Naldi et al., 2007). Nevertheless, behaviour of family business comes from their

organizational traditions, internal rules and by roots, or their vision on long-term

strategy and former running partnerships with the stakeholders; time decision in family

business organisation can be longer, every bit compared to that of not-family companies. (Cioca and

Popescu (2019); Lindow (2013); Zellweger (2017). However, family business organisationes are

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economic science and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. vii86-802

788

innovative and extremely competitive in their business fields, learning from best

practices. With respect to their innovative decisions, family unit concern proved to be

dedicated in terms of time study and long fiscal sacrifice (Lee, 2006; Glover and

Reay, 2015; Simon, 2009). By reviewing the literature, (Block, 2012; Matzler

et al., 2015; Roed, 2016; Suess-Reyes and Roed, 2018; Frank, 2019, the Authors

observed that the family concern perceive the innovation process for keeping

themselves competitive or 50eaders in their business niche. Many family businesses

perceive innovation equally function of their corporate strategy. (Kraus et al., 2012; Fuetsch

and Suess-Reyes, 2017). The Authors have summarised in Tabular array i, the most

of import behavioural insights of the family business:

Table 1. Main drivers regarding behavioural insights of the family business

Behavioural insights

of the family businesses

Internal

Factors;

Psychological

factors

Organizational direction

structure

Business Roles

definition

Experience of the

family members

reflected into

innovation process

Define needs of the family

business

Clear targets for

development

investment

Long-term

consumption for

analysis before

innovation

Short term targets

versus long term

targets

Internal conflicts between

family members

Expertise of each

member involved

New ideas versus

old ideas regarding

innovation

Mistakes and failures in

development

Family business concern

meeting evaluation

Responsibility

for innovation

Family unit tradition, values,

culture transfer from

generations

Each family unit business organization is

unique

Clear objectives

for innovation

External

Factors; Social

Factors

Reputation of the company

Successful

innovation through

quality and

efficiency

Economic situation of the

visitor

Evaluation of the

yearly the market

capitalization of the

visitor

Fiscal power for

R&D investments

Evaluation of the

business niche

Frequency of the

innovation process

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

789

two.1. Family unit behavioural insights regarding decisions innovation process

2.1.1. The interconnection betwixt family culture and innovation process

Due to their bourgeois arroyo and their traditions in having long-term

company strategy, family unit businesses analyse the external or the internal factors that

urge them to invest in innovation. Family businesses are very cautious in thoueeping

their traditions, design and their business succession to the next grandeneration, (Chen

and Hsu, 2009; Munari et al., 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2014; Patel and Chrisman,

2014). By and large, they involve well-known researchers in the innovation process who

describe their personalized innovative needs, such as Universities, scientists, reputable

inquiry and design companies. Practiceing so, family businesses are aware well-nigh the

consistent financial efforts' involvement. Despite this, they are keen to preserve

resources even for the next generation. Their pattern and emotional connection to the

past tin hamper innovation, (Broekaert et al., 2016). Nevertheless, surrounded by all

external and/or internal factors, the family business faces ane very difficult obstruction:

taking risky decisions regarding time to come innovation, (Kammerlander and Ganter,

2015). This could affect non only a current negative balance sheet, but also the future

avails threatening future beingness of the family business. Of interest, information technology does not

hateful that the family businesses are less innovative than other companies, but their

innovative boosters behaviour dictated by the influence of family business concern brings

advantages, on their long-term strategy. There are as well disadvantages related to less

risk-taking organizations, when it comes virtually new partnerships for new

developments, (Grundstroem et al., 2012; Calabro et al., 2018; Duran et al., 2016).

Even so, family businesses do not adopt internal partner's involvement with the

risk to affect family values and emotions, but employ external parties, such as

Universities, real well-known experts who will never be in the position to threaten

the family unit business values. Under threatening factors, studies take revealed (Llach

and Nordquist, ii010; Frank eastt al., 2019; Bergfeld and Weber, 2011) that family

businesses are afraid of losing company' control and the innovation feeling becomes

much more than expressed. Nevertheless, westwardhen it comes to the interconnection between

long term family business strategy and risk avoidance, the behaviour results are

translated into a sensible and cautious innovation, focused more on exploitative

innovation, (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Cassia et al., 2011; Gómez -Mejía et

al., 2014; Nieto et al., 2015).

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive association relation between family

business civilisation and innovation process

2.2. Open conflicts within family businesses can create blockage in

innovation process

The older and larger the family concern is, the more than mixed generations exist in

the visitor. There are many cases when conflicts occur between family unit members,

involved in management positions, because of old vs. new business ideas. These

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economic science and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

790

factors can correspond a threaten to their business reputation, survival or profits and

result from the bear on disharmonize between different family members', translated by the

non-acceptance of the thouanagement roles inside the company or not-acceptance of

family unit's decisions. In the demand of innovation, information technology could happen that unexperienced

family unit members concord strategic management positions, instead of specialists qualified

for this demand. However, the involvement and the common view and perspective of

the experienced family members in the business organisation have the office to strengthen the

innovation process, (Cassia et al., 2011; Chirico and Salvato, 2016). The results of

these conflicts have an influence over the management innovation, dictated by the

informal family members, instead of employing outside experts. The innovation

procedure takes place but in a weak manner. The studies worldwide indicated other

internal family conflicts; examples regarding the difference between family business

internal organizations as compared to other companies from the same industry or

having the same age, such as Canadian companies driven by hairs who had a less

active behaviour, (Morck et al., 2000). Or Tanewski et al. (2003) showed on

Australian market place that the family businesses are less innovative, but are having a

greater innovative strategy, which pushes them to be leaders in their fields. Some other

European study lunched in 11 countries pointed out the human function and internal key

factors for successful families businesses in terms of innovation, (Llach and

Nordqvist, 2010) or the Italian one with reference to the technological innovation as

compared with strategy innovation in family businesses, (Giacosa et al., 2016).

Family unit businesses take the right to set up their own research and design set of tools,

by acquiring external knowledge. In this way, the ability to alter is put information technology into

practice, from an internal innovation model to external innovation, (Alaenge et al.

1998; Teece, 1980; Kraus et al., 2012). Undoubtedly, management innovation could

refer to the product evolution innovation, present more in the organizations with

Research and Design departments. If the innovative product does not have a clear

bulletin for the end consumer, then, the wave will touch the organizational family unit

business past producing dubiety (Sapprasert, 2010). The organizational

management innovation involves new direction structures, managerial

innovative systems, and much more than capacity to innovate. The difference betwixt

internal choices approach causes family businesses better ascertain and understand their

internal social, cultural and political innovative processes, (Birkinshaw et al. 2008;

Wengel et al. (2000). The family fellow member'south conflicts lead to the recognition by the

family of external sources of innovation, both, in front of employees, if management

innovation creates uncertain furnishings, and for the family unit itself, past a lawfulness

implementation in their business organizational management. A considerable key

cistron represents the role of the family business new generation, which is keener

when it comes to innovation, being run a risk taking, than the second i, which is more

focused on prevention and run a risk avoidance. The studies have indicated the weakness

of the 2nd generation behaviour in innovation simply at the same time recommend the

creation of additional business to the main family unit business pillar (PWC Succession

Study, 2019).

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

791

Hypothesis 2: Open up conflicts and innovation procedure could be a negative

association relation betwixt family members

2.iii. Family interest determine successful innovative results

The family influence and control over thursdayeast business organisation represent a key factor for the

innovation decisions. In terms of innovation, the literature cannot mostly present

that some family unit businesses are much more competitive than others, just as a central

start driver it is highlighted that, each family is unique and hevery bit its own values. In

addition, for a successful innovative event, information technology is ideally for the family business organization to be

involved in both organizational and management innovation. (Goel and Jones,

2016). The degree of the family unit member's involvement, likewise as their mutual

capacity and expertise volition positively affect innovative decision, with a good

financial performance effect (Hiebl, 2015; Veider and Matzler, 2016). Alberti and

Pizzurno, (2013) referred to family business as performing a gradual innovation,

considering of their continuous exploration and exploitation of organizational activities,

an thought supported likewise by Nieto et al., (2015). Another fundamental factor of family business

success represents the innovation perceived as an "invisible" process (Zellweger and

Sieger, 2012) due to the continuous comeback of the innovation process. Thursdaydue east

advantages for the family business are shown in terms of cost efficiency, (Classen et

al., 2014), merely not when it comes to radical innovative change. By analysing the

relationship betwixt innovation and primal performance indicators, family concern

can benefit from corporate strategy translated through the family brand, which

consecrates them over years. (Duran et al., 2016; Kraiczy and Hack, 2017).

Hypothesis 3: Between family unit members involvement and innovation process

is a positive association relation

3. Research Questions/Aims of the research

The Authors have drawn upwards the main question of the Research around business

innovative behaviour of the family business:

Which are the family visitor's key drivers regarding the business organization innovation?

The Aim of the research is to analyse the family central drivers behind the innovation

decisions. In terms of innovation, many primal factors accept been analysed, showing the

differences between family business and northwardon-family business organisation, with more than or less

innovative management or the level of contribution of the shares' owner over the

business, just definitely, these were not the key drivers for a particular innovative

behaviour of a family company. (Fuetsch, 2018). Other qualitative researches

(Callabro et al., 2018) suggested as an example the innovative "best practice / good

practice", adopted past family business, described every bit the outset learning rule in terms of

successful long-term innovative behaviour. Expansion of the knowledge over the

"rules of the successful innovative game" with the role of contribution to the

Literature, are nowadays in both, theoretical and practical models (Frank et al., 2019).

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

792

The Authors accept summarised the family business behavioural insights in

Tabular array 1. Main drivers regarding behavioural insights of the family business.

4. Inquiry Methods

4.1. Empirical study on the family unit business organisation behavioural insights

The Authors have drafted a detailed questionnaire on the internal and external

family unit behavioural insights contributor with Table one, "Primary Drivers regarding

behavioural insights of the family concern". The questionnaire was sent to a sample

of 50 companies, at the level of Europe, with 25%-50% shares ownership, with 45

years+ experience on the market place, meaning after the ane st generation, medium to large

companies, where the family/members of the family unit areast involved in the business and

where the family unit business innovate for their core business.

The questionnaire was addressed to the family companies coming from 4

unlike industries westith the target to show the differences in family unit key drivers

regarding innovative business organisation behaviour. The post-obit industries where the family

companies come up from are: (1) Consumer industry (2) Serial production industry (3)

Real Estate/Construction (4) Farming industry. Out of 50 family companies, only 42

confirmed participation to the questionnaire. The research period was November

2018 – September 2019. The persons involved in the inquiry had a detailed

understanding almost the family company, the research has been addressed mainly to

the owners or family members involved in the business organization daily running and helped to

emphasize the behavioural innovative role of the family business concern. The analysis had

as well some limitations related to the financial crisis, which could take brought a break

into the dynamic innovative action of the family business in the last couple of years

or a strong financial recovery, affecting the financial wellness of the family business organization.

Too, another limitation addressed the low no. of industries limited to four, merely which

involve dissimilar family behaviour insights. The Authors nowadays the Questionnaire

of the enquiry written report in Table two.

Tabular array 2. Questionnaire to the Assay of the family behavioural insights

i. From which industry your company makes role?

2. On a calibration from 1-v wchapeau is your visitor position in your national market place

share?

three. On a calibration from 1-5 does your company innovate based on a culture, traditions

from the past?

4. Does your visitor innovate due to the dynamic industry where it belongs?

5. Is the Family involved in the daily business?

6. How many members of the family are involved in the business roles?

vii. On a scale from 1-5 does your company have a long-term strategy for x years+?

8. On a calibration to 1-5 does your visitor have a short-term strategy for v years?

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. vii86-802

793

9. Does your visitor have an internal R&D department?

10. Are the family members involved in R&D decisions?

eleven. On a scale from 1-five are your young family unit members involved in the innovation

process?

12. On a calibration from ane-five is there a yearly neutral evaluation of the family members

involved in the business roles?

13. On a calibration from ane-5 are at that place the family unit members on the correct business organization position

within the visitor according to their expertise?

14. On a calibration from 1-v are there any conflicts between the owners and young family unit

members when it comes to innovation ideas?

15. Please signal what is the disharmonize reason?

16. On a calibration from 1-v are the family unit open conflicts a blockage delaying/ stopping

the innovation procedure?

17. Please select the boilerplate no. of days consumed for solving the conflicts? 7 days

/ 14 days/ more 14 days

xviii. What is the family % ownership over the shares?

19. On a scale from 1-five does the company make yearly reserves for future

innovation?

20. On a scale from 1 to 5 what is the % of the annual turnover reinvested in R&D?

21. Does your visitor collaborate with external R&D?

22. On a scale from 1-v how often does your company innovate at every 3 years?

23. On a calibration from 1-5 how important is innovation for your visitor?

24. How many times per calendar month innovation meetings accept identify?

25. On a scale from 1 to v how fast the decision regarding innovation is to be taken?

26. On a scale from 1-5 does your company analyse the "lessons learned" later on wrong

decisions regarding innovation procedure?

27. On a scale from 1-5 does your company measure out innovation regarding efficiency

of the innovative process?

28. On a scale from 1 to 5 does your company learn from other like companies,

from the same business niche. (skilful practice model)?

29. On a scale from 1-5 how much did your visitor suffer in the menstruation

2008-2012?

Source: Authors

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

794

iv.two. Findings of the Questionnaire:

From the sent-out questionnaire, 84%, 42 companies from the family companies

accept answered with the following splitting: 38% family companies from consumer

industry, 23.3% from serial product, twoeight% from Real Estate and 9.v% from

Agronomics, as shown in Figure ane.

Figure 1. Industries types in the Questionnaire

Source: The Authors

Hypothesis ane: At that place is a positive association relation between family

business culture (for the innovative companies) and innovation process

68% from the answers of the family business admitted that their company civilization

and traditions are key drivers for innovation as shown in Figure 2). 13% of the

answers indicated that keeping up with competition is mainly given by the

dynamic environment of thdue east industry, where the family business organisation activates. The rest

of xix% of the answers indicated a high importance of the internal R&D as

well as the external collaboration with Experts who ensure continuous innovative

activities. Regarding the four industries analysed, 76% of the family business concernes

coming from consumer industries and 45% from the ones coming from serial

production ranked a high level of importance regarding innovation procedure, considering

equally compared to Real Estate and Agriculture industries, the consumer and serial

product imply much more processesouth in terms of innovative products for

Consumer industries and cost efficiency valid for series production. Based on the

statistical results, the Authors demonstrated hypothesis 1.

Proceedings of the iiird International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

795

Figure ii. Interconnection betwixt family culture and innovation process

Source: The Authors

Hypothesis 2: Open conflicts and innovation process could be a negative

association relation between family members

The answers of the family unit businesses indicate a high importance for the

innovation process regarding the solving of conflicts inside 14 days or more as

shown in Figure 3) 76% from the consumer industry answered that they solve

conflicts in more 14 days, which ways there is a blockage of the continuous

innovation process. Agriculture is a sector without too much contest rate, withal,

judging by the collected answers, the primary reason for possible open conflicts (88%)

confessed past the farming family concern are the agricultural machines purchases.

Serial product turned out to take a rate of 56%, namely more than fourteen days to

solve conflicts within the family. Real estate sector indicated a percentage of 42 in

terms of the terk longer than 14 days for solving the conflicts. The authors conclude

that hypothesis 2 is demonstrated, based on the high percentages calculated

regarding the negative bear upon on the long time until open conflicts are to be solved

and the innovation process deblocked.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economic science and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

796

Figure 3. Solving innovation conflicts in the family unit business in more than fourteen days

Source: The Authors

Hypothesis 3: There is a positive clan relation between family

involvement and innovation process

The Authors institute out that a successful innovation and theastward family interest

are the key factors backside family business. This was interpreted by the Authors in

the collected answers, especially in the consumer and series production industry

which answered in a percentage of more thursdayan viii0% that they considered family

involvement as the near important factor for positive innovation process. In the Existent

Estate business, the relation betwixt family unit involvement and innovation is less

of import because innovation is limited; still the rate calculated is 43 %, while in

agriculture business the involvement of the family unit was rated at a very high level,

92%, as shown in Effigy no 4. With these results, the Authors demonstrated

hypothesis 3.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

797

Figure 4. Importance of the family interest for the innovation procedure

Source: The Authors

5. Conclusions

Family businesses are driven by the following social and psychological factors:

past the fear of losing the business, or due to family traditions acting continuously for

innovation or the innovative ways in keeping the brand name, by corporate strategy,

or by the involvement of the family members in business concern management. Even though

financial efforts are considered, family businesses call often-external experts

regarding R&D for innovation (universities, experts, designers). Preservation of

practiced quality produced and offered on the market place will always exist existing in the family

business members thinking. Depending on the industry they come from, innovation

of their internal processes can bring a better efficiency and cost savings at the level

of the company. Through a successful corporate strategy itself, the family unit concern

is continuously innovating. The family values, traditions and patterns are part of their

corporate strategy, which for a family business segment it imposes continuous

products development. Secondly, the survival of the family business concern in their

industries could non be possible without a psychological understanding of the

industry requirements and continuous product development.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economic science and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. vii86-802

798

References

[1] Alaenge, S., Jacobsson, S., Jarnehammar, A. (1998). Some aspects of an belittling

framework for studying the diffusion of organizational innovations, Technol Anal Strateg

Manag, 10(1), pp. three-20.

[2] Alberti, F. G. and Pizzurno, E. (2013). Technology, innovation and operation in family

firms, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Management, 17(ane),

pp. 142-161.

[iii] Astrachan, J., Shanker, M. (2003). "Family Businesses" contribution to the US economy:

a closer wait", Family unit Bus Rev, sixteen(iii), pp. 211-219.

[4] Beck, S., and Kenning, P. (2015). The influence of retailers' family unit firm image on

new production acceptance: an empirical investigation in the German language FMCG market,

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Direction, 43(12), pp. 1126-1143.

[5] Bergfeld, M.-One thousand., Weber, F., One thousand. (2011). Dynasties of innovation: highly performing

German family firms and the owners' role for innovation. Int J Entrep Innov Manag,

13(1), pp. 80-94.

[vi] Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, Thou., Mol, Thou. J. (2008). Management innovation. Acad Manag J ,

33(four), pp. 825-845.

[vii] Block, J. H. (2012). R&D investments in family and founder firms: an bureau

perspective, Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), pp. 248-265.

[8] Broekaert, Westward., Andries, P., and Debackere, Yard. (2016). Innovation processes in family

firms: the Relevance of organizational flexibility, Modest Business Economics, 47(iii),

pp. 771-785.

[9] Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., and Kraus, South.

(2018). Innovation in family firms: a systematic literature review and guidancdue east for

hereafter inquiry, International Periodical of Management Reviews, available at: http://

doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12192.

[10] Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-

controlled firms, Entrep Theory Pract , 29(3), pp. 249-265.

[11] Cassia, Fifty., De Massis, A., Pizzurno, E. (2012). Strategic innovation and new product

evolution in family unit firms: An empirically grounded theoretical framework,

International Periodical of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(2), pp. 198-232.

[12] Cassia, L., De Massis, A., and Pizzurno, East. (2011). An exploratory investigation of

NPD in small family business from Northern Italia, International Journal of Business organization,

Management and Social Sciences, 2(ii), pp. i-fourteen.

[13] Chen, H. L., and Hsu, Westward. T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D

investment, Family Business organization Review, 22(four), pp. 347-362.

[xiv] Chirico, F., and Salvato, C. (2016). Knowledge internalization and production development

in family firms: when rational and melancholia factors thing, Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, 40(one), pp. 201-229.

[xv] Chrisman, J. J. , and Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and

nonfamily firms: behavioural agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives, Academy of

Management Journal, 55(four), pp. 976-997.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economic science and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

799

[sixteen] Classen, N., Carree, Yard., Van Gils, A., and Peters, B. (2014). Innovation in family

and nonfamily SMEs: an exploratory assay, Small Business Economics, 42(3),

pp. 595-609.

[17] Contò , F., Vrontis, D., Fiore, M., Thrassou, A. (2014). Strengthening regional identities

and culture through wine industry cross border collaboration, British Nutrient Periodical,

116(11), pp. 1788-1807.

[xviii] De Massis, A., and Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family unit business organisation

inquiry: guidelines for qualitative scholarship, Journal of Family Business Strategy,

5(1), pp. 15-29.

[nineteen] Duran, P., Kammerlander, Northward., Van Essen, M., and Zellweger, T. (2016). Doing more than with

less: innovation input and output in family unit firms, Academy of Management Journal ,

59(4), pp. 1224-1264.

[20] Economist (2009). European family firms in the recession, Dynasty and durability ,

September 26, p. 75.

[21] Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. Westward., and Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource configuration in

family firms: linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities to

performance, Periodical of Management Studies, 45(1), pp. 26-l.

[22] Giacosa, East., Broccardo, L., Truant, E. (2016). A comparative study of the innovation

strategies of family and not-family firms in Italy, Impresa Progetto, Electronic Periodical

of Management, 3.

[23] Feranita, F., Kotlar, J., and De Massis, A. (2017). Collaborative innovation in family

firms: past research, current debates and agenda for future inquiry, Journal of Family

Business Strategy, 8(3), pp. 137-156.

[24] Frank, H., Kessler, A., Bachner, C., Fuetsch, E., Reyes-Suess, J. (2019). Principles for

innovation management in family firm. An analysis of long-term successful good

practices with a practitioner validation of the principles. Journal of Family Concern

Management Emerald Publishing Limited, 2043-6238 DOI x.1108/JFBM-09-2018-

0049.

[25] Fuetsch, E. (2018). Fall 4: Entrepreneurship im Familienweingut: Innovation und Wandel

als zentrale Strategiebestandteile, In Altenburger, R., Frank, H. and Kessler, A. (Eds),

Innovation in Familienunternehmen. Good Do - Fallanalysen aus Niederösterreich,

Facultas, Vienna, pp. 125-156.

[26] Fuetsch, E., and Suess-Reyes, J. (2017). Inquiry on innovation in family businesses: are

we building an ivory belfry, Journal of Family Concern Management , vii (1), pp. 44-92.

[27] Glover, J. L., and Reay, T. (2015). Sustaining the family business organisation with minimal financial

rewards. How do family farms continue? , Family Business Review, 28(2), pp. 163-177.

[28] Goel, S. and Jones, R. J. III (2016). Entrepreneurial exploration and exploitation in family unit

business: a systematic review and time to come directions, Family Business organization Review, 29(1),

pp. 94-120.

[29] Gómez-Mejía, Fifty. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., and

Sirmon, D. Grand. (2014). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: revisiting family firm

R & D investments with the behavioural agency model, Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 38(half dozen), pp. 1351-1374. JFBM.

[thirty] Grundström, C., Öberg, C., and Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. (2012). Family-owned

manufacturing SMEs and innovativeness: a comparison between within-family unit

Proceedings of the iiird International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

800

successions and external takeovers, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(3),

pp. 162-173.

[31] Gudmundson, D., Tower, C. B., and Hartman, E. A. (2003). Innovation in small

businesses: culture and ownership construction do matter, Journal of Developmental

Entrepreneurship, 8(i), pp. ane-17.

[32] Habbershon, T. G., Williams, One thousand., MacMillan, I. (2003). A Unified systems perspective

of family unit business firm Operation. J Autobus Ventur, 18(4), pp. 451-465.

[33] Hatak, I., Kautonen, T., Fink, M., and Kansikas, J. (2016). Innovativeness and family-

firm performance: the moderating outcome of family commitment, Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 102, January, pp. 120-131.

[34] Hiebl, M. R. (2015). Family unit interest and organizational ambidexterity in later on-

generation family businesses: a framework for farther investigation, Management

Decision, 53(5), pp. 1061-1082.

[35] Kammerlander, N., and Ganter, One thousand. (2015). An attention-based view of family firm

adaptation to continuous technological alter: exploring the role of family CEOs'

noneconomic goals, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(iii), pp. 361-383.

[36] Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., and Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory

study of family unit member characteristics and involvement: effects on entrepreneurial

behaviour in the family unit firm, Family Concern Review, 21(i), pp. 1-14.

[37] King, North., Anderson, N. (2002). Managing innovation and change – a critical guide for

organizations, 2end, Thomson, London.

[38] Kraiczy, N. (2013). Innovations in Pocket-size and Medium-Sized Family unit Firms. An Analysis

of Innovation- Related Elevation Management Team Behaviours and Family Firm Specific

Characteristics, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.

[39] Kraiczy, N., and Hack, A. (2017). Innovation and family business research: a review, In

Kellermanns, F. W. and Hoy, F. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Family Business,

Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 211-240.

[40] Kraus, S., Pohjola, Yard., Koponen, A. (2012). Innovation in family firms: an empirical

assay linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success, Review

of Managerial Science, 6(3), pp. 265-286.

[41] Lamla, J. (1995). Prozeßbenchmarking dargestellt an Unternehmen der Antriebstechnik,

Vahlen, Munich.

[42] Lee, J. (2006). Family firm operation: further evidence, Family Business Review ,

19(2), pp. 103-114.

[43] Lee, K., and Rogoff, East. (1996). Research note: comparison of small businesses with

family unit participation versus small-scale businesses without family unit participation: adue north investigation

of differences in goals, attitudes, and family/business disharmonize, Family unit Concern Review ,

nine(four), pp.423-437.

[44] Leenen, S. (2005). Innovation in family businesses –a conceptual framework with case

studies of industrial family firms in the German "Mittelstand", St. Gallen, HSG.

[45] Lindow, C. M. (2013). A strategic fit perspective on Family unit Firm Performance, DOI

ten.1007/ 978-three-8349-7167-8, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013 Research, Leipzig,

Germany.

[46] Llach, J., Nordquist, M. (2010). Innovation in family and non-family businesses: a

resources perspective, Journal Entrepreneurial Venturing , 2(3/4) , pp. 381-399.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. 786-802

801

[47] Llach, J., Marquès, P., Bikfalvi, A., Simon, A., and Kraus, S. (2012). The innovativenessouth

of family unit firms through the economical bicycle, Journal of Family Business organization 1000anagement,

2(2), pp. 96-109.

[48] Lubatkin, M. H., Ling, Y., Schulze, WS. (2007). An organizational justice-based view

of self-control and agency costs in family unit firms, Journal Management Studies, 44(6),

pp. 955-971.

[49] Mandl, I. (2008). Overview of family business relevant issues. Final Report, project on

behalf of the European Commission, Vienna, Austrian Institute for SME Research.

[50] Matzler, K., Veider, V., Hautz, J., and Stadler, C. (2015). The affect of family ownership,

direction, and governance on innovation, Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 32(3), pp. 319-333.

[51] Miller, D., Friesen, P. H., (1983). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms:

2 models of strategic Momentum, Strateg Manag J , 3(one), pp. ane-25.

[52] Morck, R., Strangeland, D. A., Yeung, B. (2000). Inherited wealth, corporate control, and

economic growth: the Canadian affliction. In: Morck R (ed) Concentrated corporate

ownership. University of Chicago Printing, Chicago, pp. 319-369.

[53] Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity. Quorum, Westport

[54] Munari, F., Oriani, R., and Sobrero, M. (2010). The furnishings of owner identity and external

governance systems on R & D investments: a study of Western European firms, Research

Policy, 39(8), pp. 1093-1104.

[55] Naldi, 50., Nordqvist, Chiliad., Sjöberg, K., and Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation,

chance taking, and performance in family firms, Family Business organisation Review, 20(1), pp. 33-47.

[56] Nieto, One thousand. J., Santamaria, L., and Fernandez, Z. (2015). Understanding the innovation

behavior of family firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(ii), pp. 382-399.

[57] Patel, P. C., and Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Hazard abatement equally a strategy for R&D

investments in family firms, Strategic Direction Journal, 35(iv), pp. 617-627.

[58] PWC report about succession (2019). https://www.pwc.ro/en/press-room/printing-releases-

2019/pwc-study--entrepreneurs-in-romania-are-the-most-advanced-in-th.html

(accessed, September 2019).

[59] Roed, I. (2016). Disentangling the family firm'due south innovation process: a systematic review,

Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), pp. 185-201.

[60] Romano, C., Tanewski, G., and Smyrnios, Grand.X. (2000). Upper-case letter construction decision making

a model for family business, Family Concern Review, 16(1), pp. 285-310.

[61] Sapprasert, Chiliad. (2010). Determinants and furnishings of organizational innovation. In

Sapprasert, One thousand. (ed.) Exploring Innovation in Firms: Heterogeneity, technological and

organisational innovation, and firm performance. Oslo: Academy of Oslo (Ph.D.

dissertation).

[62] Schaper, M., Volery, T. (2004). Entrepreneurship and small business concern: a Pacific Rim

perspective. Wiley, Milton.

[63] Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

enquiry, University of Management Review , 25(i), pp. 217-226.

[64] Simon, H. (2009). Hidden Champions of the Twenty-First Century: The Success

Strategies of Unknown World Marketplace Leaders, Springer, New York, NY.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Briefing on Economics and Social Sciences (2020), ISSN 2704-6524, pp. vii86-802

802

[65] Suess-Reyes, J., and Roed, I. (2018). Innovationen in Familienunternehmen: Lernen von

'Skillful Practices', In Altenburger, R., Frank, H. and Kessler, A. (Eds), Innovation in

Familienunternehmen. Good Practice-Fallanalysen aus Niederoesterreich, Facultas,

Vienna, pp. 10-29.

[66] Tanewski, M. A., Prajogo, D., and Sohal, A. (2003). Strategic orientation and innovation

performance between family unit and not-family firms, Presented at the World Conference

of the International Council of Small Business organisation, Monash University.

[67] Teece, D. J. (1980). The improvidence of an administrative innovation, Manage Sci , 26(5),

pp. 464-470.

[68] Veider, V., and Matzler, K. (2016). The power and willingness of family-controlled firms

to arrive at organizational ambidexterity, Journal of Family Business Strategy,

7(2), pp. 105-116.

[69] Wengel, J., Lay, 1000., Nylund, A., Bager- Sjo¨gren , L., Stoneman, P., Bellini, N.,

Bonaccorsi, A., Shapira, P. (2000). Analysis of Empirical Surveys on Organisational

Innovation and Lessons for Future Customs Innovation Surveys, Scientific Follow-up

of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) Project CIS 98/191. European Committee,

Brussels.

[70] Wolf, J., and Rosenberg, T. (2012). How individual scholars can reduce the rigor-

relevance gap in Management inquiry, Business organization Research, 5(2), pp. 178-196.

[71] Zahra, Southward. A. (2003). International expansion of U.South. manufacturing family businesses:

the effect of ownership and involvement, Journal of Business concern Venturing, 18(5),

pp. 495-512.

[72] Zellweger, T. (2018). Managing the Family Business: Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar

Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton, MA.

[73] Zellweger, T. (2017). Managing the Family Business, Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar

Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, Us.

[74] Zellweger, T. M., and Sieger, P. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family unit

firms, Small Business Economics, 38(1), pp. 67-84.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

  • Michael H. Morris Michael H. Morris

Organizations vary in terms of how entrepreneurial they are. The concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) seeks to capture this variability past focusing on the extent to which a company is innovative, chance-taking and proactive. This commodity argues that EO fails to fully capture how entrepreneurship is actually manifested in organizations, every bit it incorporates just the degree of entrepreneurship. To address this limitation, the term entrepreneurial intensity (EI) is introduced. Focusing on the occurrence of entrepreneurial events within an organization, EI reflects both how often the visitor engages in such events (frequency) and how innovative, risky, and proactive those events are (degree). An entrepreneurial grid is presented with degree and frequency of entrepreneurship on the axes. Using the filigree, a number of different strategic entrepreneurial postures can be identified (e.thou., high frequency/low degree, medium frequency/loftier caste). It is posited that the appropriate combination for a given organisation depends on its industry and market context. Further, extant evidence suggesting a positive relationship betwixt EO and performance should be re-assessed with this context in mind. Rather than last that beingness more than entrepreneurial inherently leads to amend performance, it is argued that a company that does better at the combination of degree and frequency that is about appropriate for its context will be the superior performer.

The electric current study attempts to augment our understanding of the processes underlying successful innovation in family unit firms by studying not only research and development (R&D) just also organizational flexibility as drivers of innovation performance. Building on existing theoretical and empirical piece of work, we formulate hypotheses on the relationship between family unit ownership and R&D and organizational flexibility, and on how this translates into successful innovation. Using a sample of 2,604 firms and 3,140 year-observations, we notice that family firms engage less in R&D, simply are more flexible in the way they organize, and that this organizational flexibility enables them to successfully develop new products and even outperform non-family owned businesses when it comes to process innovation. This research contributes to the family business field by disentangling R&D and organizational flexibility as processes underlying the human relationship between family unit ownership and innovation performance. It illustrates how family unit firms' organizational flexibility tin can issue in an innovation advantage, and thereby has of import implications for practitioners.

Collaborative innovation tin can boost family unit firms' innovation performance by enabling them to tackle their resource constrains and tap into noesis, financial capital, technology, and information from other organizations. Unfortunately, existing research on collaborative innovation in family firms is still in its infancy. We systematically review and organize fragmented findings and arguments from prior inquiry along three perspectives: strategic, transactional, and relational. In doing so, nosotros provide a summary of the current country-of-the-art in this literature, point to the importance of collaborative innovation to resolve the innovation dilemma in family firms and place promising opportunities for future enquiry.

  • Nils Kraiczy

Pocket-size and medium-sized firms are a prevalent organizational course in Germany. Their importance for the High german economic system is indisputable. Most of them are global marketplace leaders in their niches and are considered to exist a strength for innovation in the German language economy. The ability to be innovative in niche markets has been identified every bit the antecedent of their strong, or fifty-fifty dominant, competitive positions in their industries. The commuter of this innovation success may well be the family, which distinguishes family unit firms from non-family unit firms. Nils Kraiczy analyzes if a family influences innovation in a family firm and if this influence has simply positive effects. The dissertation focuses on the touch on of top management teams on innovations interacting with family business firm-specific characteristics. The author shows the complexity of family unit influence by presenting different effects of each investigated family firm-specific characteristic on the relationship betwixt acme management team behavior and innovation.

Purpose – One of the central requirements of research is that the knowledge caused should not merely exist academically rigorous, but as well socially useful. If an article fails to address practical relevance, the audience will question its value and respond with "so what?". Due to recent criticism regarding the practical relevance of innovation inquiry, the purpose of this newspaper is to examine whether a like "ivory divide" prevails in research on innovation in family businesses. More specifically, this paper investigates to what extent and at what depth researchers generate practical implications for innovation in family businesses. Furthermore, unlike strategies to span the "ivory divide" are discussed. Blueprint/methodology/approach – This literature review systematically analyses the findings of 50 journal articles focusing on innovation in family businesses published betwixt 2004 and 2015. Based on this, the articles are classified according to their caste of practical relevance. Findings – Although the findings unanimously show the relevance of innovation for strengthening business concern's performance, only a minority of manufactures offer in-depth implications for practitioners in terms of practical guidance for action and application-oriented recommendations. A number of reasons for the evolution of this "ivory divide" are discussed and suggestions for how the connectedness between research and practise could exist strengthened are provided. Originality/value – This paper attempts to provide an impulse toward more practically oriented family concern research in guild to increase its interestingness to academics and its value to practitioners.

Inquiry on innovation in family unit firms is continuously increasing and has recently reached a peak of attention. The leading bookish journal on innovation research, the Periodical of Product Innovation Direction, has published a special effect on this topic, which shows that enquiry on innovation in family unit firms has started to attract attention not only of the family business organisation inquiry community but also of the innovation inquiry community. Additionally, ane of the leading full general management journals, the University of Management Journal, has recently published a meta-analysis on innovation input and output in family firms (Duran et al. 2015), which further shows the bang-up involvement in this topic. However, this meta-assay only includes studies published through 2012, which omits the recent results of an increasing number of studies. This is not a surprising development considering the ability to exist innovative in niche markets has been identified equally a characteristic of the strong, or even dominant, competitive positions of "Hidden Champions" in their industries. "Hidden Champions" are successful small and medium-sized enterprises, 70 percent of which are family firms (Simon 2009). The driver of this innovation success may well be the family, which distinguishes family firms from nonfamily firms. However, how can a family unit influence innovation in a family firm, and does the firm e'er benefit from family influence? In their attempts to answer this question, family concern researchers have analysed family influence spanning the innovation process. A review of technological innovations in family unit firms by De Massis, Frattini, and Lichtenthaler (2013) practical an input-mediation-output (IMO) framework to structure relevant literature concerning family influence on innovation inputs, innovation activities, and innovation outputs. The authors analyzed 23 studies that were published through 2012. Since 2012, the number of studies focusing on innovation in family businesses has increased dramatically. Hence, a review may assist construction the literature and derive gaps and futurity enquiry. Commencement, we briefly draw the method used to place the existing literature on innovation in family businesses. In the literature review, we examine the theoretical frameworks that have been applied in the context of innovation in family business. Second, we adopt the IMO approach used by De Massis, Frattini, and Lichtenthaler (2013) to structure the literature concerning family influence on innovation spanning the innovation process. Third, we move i step forrard by analyzing the studies from an ability-willingness perspective that may help explain family unit firm innovative behavior (Chrisman et al. 2015; De Massis et al. 2014). Last, we discuss limitations of the electric current state of inquiry and present avenues for future enquiry.

  • Irina Röd Irina Röd

Previous reviews have advanced our knowledge of the differences in innovation in family firms compared to non-family unit firms. For example, family unit firms invest less in innovation, but this does not necessarily mean that they are less innovative. Nonetheless, we are notwithstanding lacking a comprehensive overview of the family firm'southward innovation procedure, and how the family accounts for distinctiveness in innovation inputs, activities, and outputs. To address this gap, the nowadays systematic review article analyzed 78 peer-reviewed journal articles on innovation in family businesses. Subsequently, a conceptual framework is developed that provides a holistic view of the multi-staged innovation process by incorporating the family arrangement equally an influencing context variable. Edifice on the concept of familiness, the framework demonstrates how family factors, based in the family organization, impact the various stages of the family business firm's innovation process. Whether the family unit leads to an advantage or disadvantage for the innovation behavior of the business depends on contextual factors (e.yard., performance hazards, kind of family unit involvement, and generational effects) and offset and foremost on the familiness of the firm. The insights of this review are used to develop suggestions for time to come research.

  • Hermann Simon

What do Tetra aquarium supplies, Elector-Nite sensors, and Nissha touch panels take in common? They are typical "hidden champions," medium-sized, unknown companies (with annual revenues nether $4 billion) that have quietly, under the radar, become world market leaders in their corresponding industries. Hermann Simon has been studying these hidden champions for over 20 years, and in this sequel to his worldwide bestseller, Subconscious Champions, he explores the dramatic bear upon of globalization on these companies and their outstanding international success. Going deep within more than than a one thousand hidden champions effectually the world, Simon reveals the common patterns, behaviors, and approaches that brand these companies successful, and, in many cases, able to sustain earth marketplace leadership for generations, despite intense contest, financial pressures, and constantly evolving market dynamics. In the tradition of In Search of Excellence, Built to Last, and Good to Bully, Simon identifies the factors in concern operations, customer service and marketing, innovation, human resource management, organizational design, leadership, and strategy that separate these outstanding performers from the residue of the pack - and from the big corporations of the solar day. In the process, he provides a glimpse behind the curtains of many secretive companies who buck today's management fads, and succeed instead through such mutual-sense strategies as focusing on core capabilities, delivering real value to the customer, establishing long-term relationships, innovating continuously, rewarding employees for functioning, decentralized operations, and developing an unparalleled global presence. Hidden champions teach us that good direction ways doing many small things better than the competition-quietly, with determination, commitment, and never-ending stamina. And in turbulent economic times, the subconscious champions represent an antidote to the short-sighted and excessive practices that have brought many corporate giants crashing down. The hidden champions provide invaluable lessons for all stakeholders in the business concern customs, from entrepreneurs to corporate managers, investors to employees, union organizers to regulators, avant-garde and emerging countries and may well serve as the new office models for sustainable economical growth in the globalized globe of the hereafter.