ArticlePDF Available

Transgenerational Entrepreneurship: Exploring Growth and Performance in Family Firms Across Generations

Authors:

Abstract

Introducing a new concept in family businesses Transgenerational Entrepreneurship addresses how these businesses achieve growth and longevity through entrepreneurial activities. It focuses on the resources, capabilities and mindsets that families develop and draw upon in order to be entrepreneurial across generations, and presents findings from an international research collaboration between family business researchers and practitioners. In addition to a comprehensive conceptual chapter, the editors include a unique set of empirical case-based research papers that investigates transgenerational entrepreneurship in different European contexts. They bring together and integrate frontier research on entrepreneurship and family business, as well as provide a basis for future research. Academics, teachers and students in business and management, entrepreneurship and family business will find this path-breaking book of value, as will libraries, policy makers and consultants.
1
1. Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Timothy G. Habbershon, Mattias Nordqvist
and Thomas M. Zellweger
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This book is about transgenerational entrepreneurship. This concept is
introduced to the literature as a way to examine, understand and explain
entrepreneurship – and especially corporate entrepreneurship – within
the context of families and family businesses. We see entrepreneurship as
the creation of new enterprising activities (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001;
Schumpeter, 1934), that is, innovation, new venture and strategic renewal
(Sharma and Chrisman, 1999) leading to social and economic perform-
ance within  rms. Following Schumpeter (1934) we consider that the
creation of new streams of economic and social value through enterprising
activities is crucial, not only for new  rms but also for established  rms,
since entrepreneurship is not only important for creating but also for sus-
taining the  rm’s internal ‘generative capability’, de ned as the capacity
to renew a  rm’s operations through innovation in order to create new
capabilities (Zahra, 2005).
In particular, we focus on established  rms that are controlled by
families and that have a vision of family in uence beyond the founding
generation (Chua et al., 1999). We argue that entrepreneurship is a key
to performance and success over several generations in family  rms. Our
interest in multigenerational business families and family businesses is
the main reason why we use the concept of transgenerational entrepre-
neurship. Following Gartner’s (2001) view to adopt a dynamic view of
entrepreneurship as a process that occurs over time, we formally de ne
transgenerational entrepreneurship as the ‘processes through which a
family uses and develops entrepreneurial mindsets and family in uenced
capabilities to create new streams of entrepreneurial,  nancial and social
value across generations’. As elaborated on further below, we see the
entrepreneurial mindset as the attitudes, values and beliefs that orient
a person or a group towards the pursuit of entrepreneurial activities
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983). By entrepreneurial capabilities
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 1M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 1 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
2 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
we mean the resources and capabilities that a given family possesses or
has access to and that may either facilitate or constrain entrepreneurial
activities (Habbershon et al., 2003; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). New streams
of entrepreneurial,  nancial and social values refer to a broader under-
standing of performance and value that reaches beyond the boundaries of
only economic performance outcomes in the context of families and family
rms. Finally, we adopt a longitudinal perspective by looking at how value
is created not only for the current stakeholders, especially the family, but
for the future and, in particular, future family generations.
The aim of this chapter is threefold. First, we present the concept of
transgenerational entrepreneurship and discuss its theoretical founda-
tions. Second, we develop and present a research framework for examin-
ing and understanding transgenerational entrepreneurship in the context
of family and family businesses. Third, we introduce and summarize the
di erent chapters of this book and explicate what part(s) of the framework
each chapter addresses. In the next section we provide a more detailed jus-
ti cation of our research in light of some tensions and limitations in extant
relevant research literature.
1.2 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR THE
RESEARCH PROJECT
This book presents some early research  ndings from the Global STEP
Project founded in 2005 by Babson College and a group of European
universities and business schools. From its inception, the founding institu-
tions envisaged STEP to be a leading international collaborative research
project that would bring together a large group of scholars interested in
entrepreneurship within family business contexts. From the very begin-
ning a leading idea behind STEP was to use research methods that allowed
scholars to engage deeply in the phenomenon they were studying. Thus a
priority within STEP is to interact with leaders and owners of family busi-
nesses. In addition to a yearly summit where families and scholars meet
to exchange experiences, this means that researchers within STEP use a
qualitative in- depth case research approach, as one important method to
address our overall research questions. In the subsequent chapters of this
book researchers from STEP present some  ndings from their qualitative
case research. In Chapter 2 we present and explain the key facets of our
qualitative approach.
Furthermore, the Global STEP Project is motivated by at least four
distinct reasons. First, families represent not just the dominant form of
business organization but provide and use resources for new enterprises
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 2M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 2 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 3
and entrepreneurial activities worldwide (Aldrich and Cli , 2003). In
these  rms the family is a central stakeholder and its in uence in the
businesses they own and/or manage is thus of crucial relevance for both
the  rm’s identity and its success. The family institution is commonly
associated with speci c values, interests and expectations that are di er-
ent from other types of owners and managers (Lansberg, 1983; Zellweger
and Nason, 2008). This assumption is, for instance, visible in the research
adopting either an agency (Chrisman et al., 2004; Jensen and Meckling,
1976; Schulze et al., 2003a) or a stewardship perspective (Corbetta and
Salvato, 2004; Eddleston et al., 2008a) to family businesses. Both views
share, however, the observation that the family is a key constituent of
this type of  rm. Thus it is motivated to introduce the family as the level
of analysis for entrepreneurial activities. By including the family as an
additional level of analysis and by investigating the family’s role in entre-
preneurial activities, the STEP Project develops a more comprehensive
approach to study the long- term success of family  rms. In line with
Davidsson and Wiklund (2001), we acknowledge that entrepreneurship
occurs at and e ects di erent societal levels simultaneously. As a result,
Davidsson and Wiklund (2001) encourage research studies to consider
micro and macro perspectives which incorporate multiple levels of analy-
sis. Prior shifts in levels of analysis have given rise to new insights in the
eld of entrepreneurship. For example, the rise of portfolio entrepreneur-
ship literature and the insights researchers and practitioners have derived
from this research has been largely related to the shift of the level of analy-
sis away from the  rm level and towards the individual level (Scott and
Rosa, 1996; Westhead and Wright, 1998). We take Birley and Westhead’s
(1994) considerations a step further by suggesting that there is a threat
to underestimate value creation of (family) businesses if the family as a
level of analysis is not taken into consideration. As elaborated on further
below, introducing the family as the level of analysis enables us to look
beyond a focal business and give more attention to the fact that many
business families own and control several  rms within a group or portfo-
lio. Having said this, we hasten to add that the study of entrepreneurship
in the context of families and family  rms is distinct and di erent from the
more traditional study of family businesses. Examining entrepreneurship
within the context of families and their businesses, we are less interested
in continuity, succession of ownership and leadership and stability, which
has been dominant in the  eld of family business studies to date, as we are
in change, growth and the creation of the new. In short, we are interested
in families as engines for entrepreneurship.
Second, a corporate entrepreneurship study within the context of fami-
lies and family businesses is motivated also because there is no agreement
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 3M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 3 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
4 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
in the literature as to whether family businesses represent a context where
entrepreneurship  ourishes or is hampered (for example, Naldi et al.,
2007). Certain scholars have argued that the particular culture and power
structure found in many family  rms may have considerable in uence
on the extent to which entrepreneurial activities are encouraged or held
back (Hall et al., 2001; Salvato, 2004; Schein, 1983; Zahra et al., 2004).
Some scholars propose that family  rms present a unique setting for
entrepreneurship to  ourish, for example, through stewardship behavior
(Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2006) family to  rm- unity (Eddleston et al.,
2008a) or a long- term horizon (Zellweger, 2007). Other scholars note that
family  rms should invoke lower levels of entrepreneurship (Levinson,
1987; Miller, 1983; Morris, 1998; Schulze et al., 2003). Considering long-
term orientation, an aspect often assigned to family  rms, Barringer and
Bluedorn (1999) proposed that a reliance on a long- term planning horizon
runs counter to the proactive nature of the entrepreneurial process and
that a long- term tenure is optimal for conservative and less entrepre-
neurial  rms (Covin, 1991; Covin and Slevin, 1991). These studies suggest
that family  rms are endangered, for example, by strategic simplicity and
inertia, conditions that cause some managers to overuse ready- made solu-
tions without probing the assumptions underlying the decisions they make
(Cabrera- Suarez et al., 2001; Miller, 1983; Morris, 1998). In this vein,
research acknowledges the serious tensions that develop within the family
rm between the need for change and stability in which entrepreneurship
is seen as an antidote to stability and strategic simplicity (Schulze et al.,
2003). Whereas the above research provides some preliminary  ndings
and indications on entrepreneurship in the family  rm context, we see the
need to further substantiate our understanding of the family  rm speci c
contextual factors and of the what, how and why of entrepreneurship in
this speci c context.
Third, family business research has undertaken considerable e orts to
better understand continuity and succession as well as how existing busi-
ness is perpetuated in businesses (for example, Le Breton- Miller et al.,
2004). In contrast, the entrepreneurship literature has focused on the crea-
tion of new enterprises, especially through new ventures, innovation and
renewal within organizations (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Zahra, 1995).
However family  rms do not face just one of these challenges. Rather,
they need to  nd ways to create new streams of value within an existing
long- term oriented organizational setting, through exploration of new
ways of doing things and at the same time through exploitation of existing
products, service or organizational processes. Therefore we argue in line
with Zahra and Sharma (2004) that there is a need for a new theoretical
foundation that is able to capture and explain how families bring new
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 4M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 4 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 5
streams of value to their business activities to survive and prosper across
many generations. In other words, rather than examining the transfer of
ownership and leadership in an existing organization from one generation
to the next, we shift the focus to the use and development of entrepre-
neurial mindsets and capabilities across time and generations which can
be deployed in existing but also new activities. What we call transgenera-
tional entrepreneurship is about how families create new streams of value
across generations – not simply how to grow and pass on a business. Since
this approach is new to the literature, as researchers we face signi cant
challenges to investigate the actual mindsets and capabilities of families
involved in launching and fostering new entrepreneurial initiatives, just as
the creation of  nancial and social value across generations.
Fourth, whereas most research in the entrepreneurship and family
business context has traditionally used a descriptive approach, or single
respondent and cross- sectional data analysis, we see a need for a longitu-
dinal and multiple respondent research approach that draws upon both
qualitative and quantitative methods. Given that we are striving to analyse
entrepreneurial behavior and capabilities of business families in depth
and across time, we need by de nition to apply a multi- respondent and
longitudinal research design that can bene t from the strengths of more
than one research tradition. We develop this argument in greater detail in
Chapter 2.
Introducing the concept of transgenerational entrepreneurship and
building the research framework that we introduce below is our way of
addressing these tensions and limitations in the extant literature on entre-
preneurship and family businesses. There are other scholars who have
approached this challenge in the literature on entrepreneurship within the
context of families and family businesses. In the next section we brie y
review a selection of these studies.
1.3 ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE FAMILY FIRM – A BRIEF LITERATURE
REVIEW
Early academic literature viewed family business and entrepreneurship as
separate but overlapping domains of interest, and noted that there was
no integrated theory that explained the relationship between family and
entrepreneurship (Dyer and Handler, 1994; Hoy and Verser, 1994). In
what could be labeled an ‘integrative approach’, Poza (1988) proposed
practices that support interpreneurship in the family  rm context. Coining
the concept of interpreneurship, Poza (1988) wanted to draw attention
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 5M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 5 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
6 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
to how family members from di erent generations could contribute to
growth and renewal of a family business. Brockhaus (1994) proposed a
parallel development of entrepreneurship and family business research,
thereby suggesting that the two need to be coordinated, but kept separate.
In many ways, the entrepreneurship and family business perspectives are
based upon di ering and in certain ways con icting assumptions. Whereas
entrepreneurship has its roots in the context of younger and smaller or
mid- sized rms, family business scholars have looked at older and often
larger  rms. Whereas entrepreneurship has stressed resource accumula-
tion, family business researchers have particularly investigated resource
shedding and recon guration (for example, Sharma and Manikutty, 2005;
Sirmon et al., 2007).
In their attempts to combine the entrepreneurship and family busi-
ness perspective, most authors took a common denominator approach.
The common denominator attributed to both family business and entre-
preneurship covers topics and issues that the two would share. This
approach was aimed at  nding common subjects such as small business
management, entrepreneurial couples, lifestyle start- ups, founders and
founder’s culture, transition and succession, and some corporate entre-
preneurship themes (Dyer and Handler, 1994; Hoy and Verser, 1994).
However the common denominator approach is limited in terms of its
explicative power. If the goal is to study family businesses through the
lens of entrepreneurship, the common denominator entrepreneurship will
de ne what actually can and will be studied in the family  rm context.
However the speci c family related aspects, which are not covered by the
individual and organizational aspects represented within entrepreneurship
(entrepreneurship being the common denominator), cannot be studied
with this approach. Calls by other researchers to build an integrated
approach towards studying family  rms are abundant. Chrisman et al.
(2003) state that if theories of entrepreneurship ignore family involve-
ment, they might miss critical family related factors in new venture crea-
tion. Similarly, they consider it to be di cult to lay claim to developing a
theory of entrepreneurship if we do not look at organizations in all of their
diversity, including family  rms. Habbershon and Pistrui (2002) propose
the notion of enterprising families to create a true nexus between business
and family. They argue for shifting the focus of corporate entrepreneur-
ship studies from the conventional  rm level of analysis to the level of
the family or ownership group. Enterprising families are seen as business
families that strive for transgenerational entrepreneurship and long- term
wealth creation through the creation of new ventures, innovation and
strategic renewal (Habbershon and Pistrui, 2002). Airing a similar trust
in the capacity of families to drive both the processes and outcomes of
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 6M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 6 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 7
entrepreneurship, Rogo and Heck (2003, p. 559) suggest recognizing the
‘family as the oxygen that feeds the  re of entrepreneurship’.
Ucbasaran et al. (2001) propose that the focus of entrepreneurial
research needs to include the family  rm as an organizational form while
Zahra and Sharma (2004) propose that family business research needs to
be an integral part of the entrepreneurship literature. Aldrich and Cli
(2003) argue that families have a pervasive e ect on entrepreneurship and
propose a ‘family embeddedness’ perspective on entrepreneurial activities.
Recent literature examining the impact of family related variables on
entrepreneurship delivered the  rst insights into our topic. For instance,
Hall et al. (2001) and Zahra et al. (2004) observe the crucial role of the
family in uenced organizational culture in either promoting or inhibit-
ing corporate entrepreneurship in family businesses. Kellermanns and
Eddleston (2006)  nd that the willingness of family members to change
is positively related to corporate entrepreneurship. Similarly in the same
study it is demonstrated that strategic planning plays an important role on
generational e ects in family  rms: when strategic planning is taken into
account, family  rms with greater generational involvement appear to
experience greater corporate entrepreneurship. Naldi et al. (2007) examine
risk taking as a dimension of entrepreneurship in established family busi-
nesses, and Salvato (2004) relates governance and organizational charac-
teristics to the amount of corporate entrepreneurship in di erent types of
family businesses. Furthermore, it has been proposed that family  rms
present a unique setting for entrepreneurship to  ourish due to steward-
ship behavior, represented by harmonious (family) relations (Eddleston et
al., 2008) or due to a long- term horizon (Zellweger, 2007).
The diversity of issues studied at the intersection between entrepre-
neurship and family business raises the question of whether an attempt
towards an integrated theory of family business and entrepreneurship
actually makes sense. Following Gartner (2001) we question whether a
single theory can encompass such diverse issues as, for example, creation
of a new  rm, raising capital, succession planning and family con icts. We
think that these topics need to have di erent theoretical underpinnings.
Therefore we revisited the calls by researchers to develop an integrative
perspective of entrepreneurship and family business by asking ourselves
what factors (variables, constructs, concepts) logically should be con-
sidered as part of the explanation of the phenomenon of interest, that is,
entrepreneurship in the context of families and family  rms. These factors
need to allow a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, but at
the same time should be parsimonious enough to capture the main points
of the issue without overloading the arguments.
Building on the aforementioned literature review and considering
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 7M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 7 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
8 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Whetten’s (1989) arguments on the parsimony and completeness of a theo-
retical contribution we would like to think of the transgenerational entre-
preneurship approach as an attempt to address the true nexus between
entrepreneurship theory and family business studies as an appropriate
way to examine and understand the role and in uence of the family in
reaching entrepreneurial,  nancial and social performance, which assures
generation- spanning business activity.
To address this nexus of entrepreneurship theory and family business
research we propose that transgenerational entrepreneurship comprises
ve key components: (1) the particular focus on the family as the unit of
analysis, thereby extending the scope of analysis beyond the individual
and the organizational level, (2) the entrepreneurial mindset of the family,
(3) the family’s in uence on resource stocks and usage, (4) contextual
factors like industry, community culture, family life stage and family
involvement and (5) performance and value creation measured in terms
of entrepreneurial,  nancial and social performance as antecedents to
transgenerational potential, understood as the likelihood for transgen-
erational success of the enterprising family. To sum up and integrate, we
propose the following research framework to study our phenomenon of
interest, which is entrepreneurship in the context of families and family
rms (Figure 1.1).
1.4 FAMILY AS THE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
Gartner (2001) notes that ‘important insights about entrepreneurship can
be gained when researchers are able to conduct studies that are multi- level
in nature’ (p. 32). Despite the fact that researchers have proposed di er-
ent modes of exploitation (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) the challenge
persists. Whereas Low and MacMillan (1988) propose  ve levels of analy-
sis (individual, group, organization, industry and society), the family has
not yet been considered as a distinct level of analysis despite the fact that
it is the discriminatory feature of family  rms. We propose that research
about entrepreneurship within the context of families and their businesses
should particularly investigate the family as a unit of analysis, alongside to
the organization and the individual. Thereby the family needs to be seen
as a key constituent in this type of  rm, beyond a governance and a social
institution (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Zellweger and Nason, 2008).
We follow Habbershon and Pistrui (2002) who proposed that researchers
should envisage the family group as a key level of analysis when examining
entrepreneurship, and Carter and Ram (2003) who argued that the family
household is a relevant unit of analysis for entrepreneurship studies.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 8M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 8 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 9
One of the major problems related to solely using the  rm as a level
of analysis in the context of family  rms is the implicit assumption that
a family  rm consists only of a single business entity. This oversimpli-
cation of the family business leads to a discourse about whether that
speci c rm either succeeds or fails in terms of remaining within family
control. This perspective, however, neglects to account for family  rms
who control multiple  rms or sell a  rm, and maintain the assets to rede-
ploy them into another business unit(s) or a newly founded or acquired
rm.
In fact, according to Kellermanns (2005) and Sharma and Manikutty
(2005), acquisitions and in particular (timely) divestments of resources are
essential for sustaining the competitive advantage and longevity of family
rms. Sharma and Manikutty (2005, p. 295) contend ‘for  rms desirous
of longevity as family  rms of interest to us, changes in the environment
require strategic responses on the part of a  rm (such as readjustment of
the business portfolio and divestment of unproductive resources), so as to
enable regeneration and renewal’. This means that divestment or closure
of a business may actually be the opposite of failure, but necessary to
Entrepreneurial orientation
• Autonomy
• Innovativeness
• Risk taking
• Proactivness
• Aggressiveness
Familiness: resources and
capabilities
• Financial capital
• Human capital
• Physical capital
• Social capital
• Knowledge capital
• Cultural capital
• Intangible capital
Performance
• Entrepreneurial
• Financial
• Social
Transgenerational
Potential
Environment
Industry
Community
culture
Family life stage
Family
involvement
Note: This framework has been developed jointly between researchers from the European
STEP partner schools during the period 2005–08.
Figure 1.1: Research framework for transgenerational entrepreneurship
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 9M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 9 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
10 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
sustain a competitive advantage and ensure longevity for a family business
or a business family. In other words, whereas the ‘ rm’ may not survive,
other family related entrepreneurial activities may prosper and assure the
longevity of the business family.
As a consequence from introducing the family as a level of analysis, it
is further required to revisit the de nition of success of a succession. If a
family  rm is sold or closed down, succession de ned in more traditional
terms will fail. However the proceedings from the sale may be redeployed
in new and more value generating activities, giving family members new
space for development. Similarly, a family member may choose not to take
over the baton in the main company but start some new business activity
by borrowing human,  nancial and social capital from the family, inside
or outside the umbrella of a family (holding) company (Arregle et al.,
2007). Consequently, applying the family level of analysis may shift how
we de ne success or failure of family business succession.
Also, shifting to the family level of analysis may result in new insights
about  rm level phenomena that are not su ciently explained by current
theories, such as portfolio entrepreneurship. For example, Carter and
Ram (2003, p. 372)  nd that ‘an analysis of the wider literature suggests
that for many small  rms, family circumstances may in uence both the
decision to engage in portfolio strategies and also the processes which
are used in the portfolio approach’. A growing literature around family
controlled portfolio entrepreneurship challenges the sole business view
(Carter and Ram, 2003; Scott and Rosa, 1996; Westhead and Wright,
1998). Accordingly, switching to the family level of analysis will provide
new insights into portfolio strategies of  rms.
Consequently, such a research approach that shifts to the family level of
analysis touches upon the very de nition of a family business. It is essen-
tial to consider the many changes in ownership, board and management
structure occurring in all  rms over time, which can impact on whether
a  rm is deemed ‘family’ or ‘non- family’. For example, the transition
from a sole family owner- manager to a non- family CEO with continued
family ownership may mean that this  rm loses its ‘family business’ title
under the strictest de nitions (Chua et al., 1999). Similarly, taking a  rm
public could mean ‘failure’ in terms of maintaining the family business
under many de nitions, but the family may retain control of that  rm
through voting rights or other control mechanisms (Faccio and Lang,
2002). However such a strategic move may greatly increase family wealth,
business value and opportunity for further value creation with the capital
in ux.
Finally, shifting the level of analysis implicates reassessing the macr-
oeconomic relevance of business families and family businesses. Nowadays
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 10M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 10 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 11
there is wide support beyond the family business literature that family
rms make up the utmost part of all  rms in developed countries (Shanker
and Astrachan, 1996). However, beyond the impressive absolute and
relative numbers of family  rms throughout the world, there is increas-
ing evidence that the families who are in control of these  rms need to be
considered as drivers and enablers of new entrepreneurial activity in their
regional and national context. For example, preliminary research using
the data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Volery et al., 2007)
presents preliminary evidence for the plural forms of support business
families provide in starting up new businesses, for instance, in terms of
seed  nancing granted to family and non- family members. Accordingly,
the true economic relevance of business families may be underestimated by
simply measuring the number of family  rms existing or surviving across
time. With a shift of the level of analysis to the business family one may
even  nd stronger evidence for the pivotal role of family related business
activity.
1.5 ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION
To address the entrepreneurial mindset part of our model we draw upon
the entrepreneurial orientation construct from the literature on corpo-
rate entrepreneurship (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). As noted above, we
view transgenerational entrepreneurship as essentially about corporate
entrepreneurship within the context of families and their businesses.
Entrepreneurial mindsets are the attitudes, values and beliefs that orient
a person or a group towards pursuing entrepreneurial activities. This
basically refers to an inclination, or spirit, of enterprising that favors
growth and leads organizations to investigate opportunity when expan-
sion is neither pressing nor particularly obvious (Penrose, 1959). As such
we clearly di erentiate our understanding of entrepreneurial orientation
(EO) as a measure for entrepreneurial mindsets and attitudes from actual
entrepreneurial performance, which is measured in terms of the sum of
an organization’s innovation, renewal and venturing e orts (Dess and
Lumpkin, 2005; Zahra, 1995).
Corporate entrepreneurship is clearly a multidimensional concept and
is best seen as an umbrella term for di erent aspects, levels or stages
of activities and processes through which established organizations act
entrepreneurially, as well as the outcomes of such activities and proc-
esses. Entrepreneurial organizations tend to engage in strategy making
characterized by an active stance in pursuing opportunities, taking risks
and innovation (Dess et al., 1997). This has been the focus of attention
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 11M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 11 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
12 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
for scholars drawing on the construct of EO. Viewing entrepreneurship as
a  rm- level phenomenon, Miller (1983, p. 771) views an entrepreneurial
rm as ‘one that engages in product market innovation, undertakes some-
what risky ventures, and is  rst to come up with “proactive” innovations,
beating competitors to the punch’. This de nition singles out three dimen-
sions, risk taking, innovativeness and proactiveness as the core dimensions
of EO. These three dimensions have been widely adopted in subsequent,
empirical and conceptual research on EO (for example, Covin and Slevin,
1989, 1991; Wiklund, 1998).
As a concept, EO is similar to Stevenson and Jarillo’s (1990) notion of
entrepreneurial management. Building on Miller (1983) and Stevenson
and Jarillo (1990), Lumpkin and Dess (1996) provide a useful overview
and integration of the EO literature. They de ne EO as ‘the processes,
practices, and decision- making activities that lead to new entry’ where
new entry is ‘the act of launching a new venture’ (Lumpkin and Dess,
1996, p. 136). They also present  ve dimensions of EO compared to the
three dimensions originated in Miller (1983) and taken further by Covin
and Slevin (1989, 1991). The  ve dimensions determining if a  rm has an
EO is the extent to which it is characterized by: proactiveness, risk taking,
innovativeness, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness. We now brie y
discuss these dimensions.
Proactiveness
Proactiveness refers to how a  rm takes strategic initiatives by anticipat-
ing and pursuing new opportunities. It is de ned as ‘acting in anticipation
of future problems, needs of changes’. This means a forward- looking
perspective and search for new opportunities that are ‘accompanied by
innovative or new venture activity’. There is an important di erence
between proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness. The former refers
to how a  rm relates to market opportunities in the process of new entry
whereas the latter refers to how  rms ‘relate to competitors, that is, how
rms respond to trends and demands that already exist in the marketplace’
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 147).
Risk Taking
Firms with an EO are often said to take risks, where heavy debt and
large resource commitments in relation to a new entry are examples of
risky behavior. Stated formally, risk taking refers to ‘the degree to which
managers are willing to make large and risky resource commitments –
i.e., those which have a reasonable change of costly failures’ (Miller and
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 12M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 12 3/2/10 09:31:433/2/10 09:31:43
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 13
Friesen, 1978, p. 932). Risk- taking  rms show a tendency to ‘take bold
actions such as venturing into unknown new markets’ (Lumpkin and
Dess, 2001, p. 431) without certain knowledge of probable outcomes
(Covin and Slevin, 1991). Previous research on the relationship between
risk taking and outcome variables such as growth and performance gives
inconclusive results (Rauch et al., 2009).
Innovativeness
Innovativeness refers to ‘a  rm’s tendency to engage in and support new
ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in
new products, services, or technological processes’ (Lumpkin and Dess,
1996, p. 142). Innovativeness is crucial to maintain a given  rm’s viability
because it is a key source of the new ideas that lead to product introduc-
tions, service improvements and managerial practices that advance and
sustain a company (Lumpkin et al., 2009). There is typically a continuum
of innovativeness, both regarding the scope and pace of innovation in
products, markets and technologies. Being innovative in terms of new
products, process and attitudes has been found to increase growth of  rms
(Moreno and Casillas, 2008; Rauch et al., 2009). Innovativeness is char-
acterized by processes where existing market structures are disrupted by
the entry of new goods and services that may render previous goods and
services obsolete (Schumpeter, 1934).
Autonomy
Autonomy is about the freedom granting individuals inside an organiza-
tion to be creative, to push for ideas and to change current ways of doing
things. Lumpkin and Dess (1996, p. 140) de ne autonomy as ‘the inde-
pendent action of an individual or a team in bringing forth an idea or a
vision and carrying it through to completion’. For autonomy to be estab-
lished in a  rm exible organizational structures, open communication
and low power distance is important. Individuals and teams must have the
ability to make decisions and take actions without being hindered by the
organizational constraints or strategic norms that often impede progress
(Lumpkin et al., 2009). Burgelman (1983) has shown that a certain amount
of autonomous behavior by individuals and teams is needed for new
venture creation within established  rms. Autonomy can also refer to an
external autonomy in the sense that individuals and teams are independ-
ent in relation to external constituents such as banks,  nancial markets,
suppliers and customers. External autonomy refers to a greater sense of
controlling one’s destiny (Nordqvist et al., 2008).
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 13M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 13 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
14 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Competitive Aggressiveness
Competitive aggressiveness refers to ‘a  rm’s propensity to directly and
intensively challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position,
that is, to outperform industry rivals in the market place’ (Lumpkin and
Dess, 1996, p. 148). While proactiveness is a response to opportunities
competitive aggressiveness is a response to threats (Lumpkin and Dess,
2001). Competitive aggressiveness can thus be reactive. This means, for
instance, a new entry that is an imitation of an existing product or service
would be considered entrepreneurial if the move implies an aggressive
‘head- to- head’ confrontation on the market. Competitive aggressiveness
also embraces non- traditional ways of competing in an industry, such as
new ways of distributing or marketing products.
The literature tends to be consistent in suggesting that the  ve dimen-
sions of EO are likely to be separate but related (for example, Lumpkin
and Dess, 1996; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). This means that  rms can
vary in terms of how proactive, risk taking, innovative, autonomous and
competitively aggressive they are. For example, a particular  rm may be
very competitively aggressive, but not take many risks, but still be viewed
as having an EO. That is,  rms can vary in the degree of each dimension
so that they are not equally entrepreneurial across all  ve dimensions. In
addition, some  rms can be cautious and risk averse under some circum-
stances and take risks in others (Brockhaus, 1980). The  ve dimensions
are, however, suggested to be positively correlated (Lumpkin and Dess,
1996), which also has been validated empirically (Rauch et al., 2009).
Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Family Firm Context
As outlined above, we face equivocal  ndings in whether family  rms
exhibit a context proli c or unproductive for corporate entrepreneurship
to occur. Reaching beyond the diversity of  ndings at the level of entrepre-
neurship or entrepreneurial orientation in family  rms, we expect that EO
has speci c features in family  rms.
First, EO uses the business as the level of analysis. The family as the
critical constituent of any family  rm remains largely neglected. We argue
that the importance of family and family involvement for this type of
business calls for an investigation of the entrepreneurial mindset of the
business family. Martin and Lumpkin (2003) contrast EO with what they
call family orientation (FO) and suggest that an increasing FO will over-
take the EO as the family  rm is passed on through generations. Their FO
dimensions are interdependency, loyalty, security, stability and tradition
(Lumpkin et al., 2008). Martin and Lumpkin (2003)  nd decreasing levels
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 14M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 14 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 15
of EO in terms of autonomy, risk taking and competitive aggressiveness
as later generations are involved in the family  rm in their US sample.
They conclude that while founding generations are more motivated by
entrepreneurial concerns, these become replaced with family concerns
and an increasing FO over time and generations that appears to be in
con ict with EO. Martin and Lumpkin (2003) thus argue for a tradeo
view between EO and FO where both postures cannot exist simultane-
ously. This approach can be challenged. By shifting the level of analysis
in line with the argument by Habbershon and Pistrui (2002) we can, for
example, think of a combined EO and FO measure that addresses the EO
of the family unit rather than the one of the business unit. Such a family
entrepreneurial orientation (FEO) measure would more directly address
EO in the family context and go after the essence of family in uence on
EO. Investigating FEO would, for instance, increase our understanding of
di erent types of business families, in addition to di erent types of family
businesses. Keeping the FO scale, additional dimensions that would be
relevant to include are persistence, e ciency and reputation concerns
since they are typical to many family  rms and have potentially a positive
impact on entrepreneurial performance.
Second, we may need to introduce new concepts to our framework in
order to better understand our observations of EO in the family context.
Nordqvist et al. (2008), for instance, draw on the  ve dimensions of EO
and integrate the concept of duality to interpret what characterizes entre-
preneurship in family  rms over time, and how and why certain dimen-
sions of entrepreneurship are more present and important than others for
performance. They identify three dualities related to the dimensions of
EO: the historical/new path duality, the independence/dependence duality
and the formality/informality duality. Based on in- depth case research,
they propose that the risk- taking and competitive aggressiveness dimen-
sions of EO are less important to family  rms. Conversely, they suggest
that autonomy, innovativeness and proactiveness are more present dimen-
sions of EO and have greater meaning for long- term entrepreneurial
performance. This supports the assertion that EO may occur in di erent
combinations depending on the context and that the e ectiveness of EO
is related to the contexts in which organizational activity takes place
(Lumpkin, 2006).
Third, the de nitions of several underlying constructs of EO might need
to be revisited when applying them to the family business context. Risk
taking is a key feature of entrepreneurship and the family’s risk pro le can
play a central role for EO in family  rms (Naldi et al., 2007; Zahra, 2005).
Risk taking might need to be further speci ed given that families face a
high  nancial risk in terms of committed and undiversi ed personal funds.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 15M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 15 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
16 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
However, in terms of control risk, measured by leverage levels, family
rms are rather risk averse. Recent studies on reference point dependent
risk behavior (for example, Gomez- Mejia et al., 2007; Zellweger et al.,
2008) provide a new picture of risk taking. Similarly, autonomy might
be diverse when di erentiating between internal (if decision making is
bounded by predetermined processes) and external autonomy (in terms
of independence from external stakeholders) (Nordqvist et al., 2008). A
family  rm can well display predetermined structures and processes inter-
nally and hence low internal autonomy, but high independence towards
external stakeholders.
Fourth, EO literature assumes that the more entrepreneurial a  rm
is across all these dimensions, the more successful it will be in the long
run. However we might, for instance, see that  rms that are successful in
the long run display lower levels of certain EO dimensions (for example,
competitive aggressiveness and risk taking) since they have detected or
actively created market niches in which they are unrivaled. Whereas high
levels of EO across all dimensions might be appropriate when launching
and growing a  rm, such an EO pattern might not be needed or sustain-
able over several generations. This argument is forcefully advanced in
Chapter 8 by Zellweger et al. in this volume. They argue that high degrees
of entrepreneurial performance may only be necessary in speci c times to
regenerate and grow the business. To secure transgenerational potential
and longevity in family  rms, a continuously high EO in all of its  ve
dimensions may not be optimal (Zellweger et al., 2008).
1.6 THE RESOURCE- BASED VIEW
We see the resource- based view (RBV) as the second underlying theory
for our transgenerational entrepreneurship framework. The RBV holds
that businesses with unique bundles of resources can create strategies
that lead to a sustained competitive advantage, if they form the strate-
gies based on resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and
non- substitutable (Barney, 1986, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). A central thesis
in RBV is that the resource pro le of a particular organization drives
the success of performance outcomes of that organization (Greene and
Brown, 1997). In the RBV resources are viewed as the fundamental units
of value creation (Mathews, 2002). Being an elegant conceptual frame-
work, RBV has been a popular base for theorizing in many areas of strat-
egy and management research, including human resource management,
entrepreneurship and international business (Barney et al., 2001) while
empirical explorations and testing of the RBV are still very rare (Cool et
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 16M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 16 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 17
al., 2002). There has been a general progression in the RBV from an inter-
est in which resources might be valuable to an examination of how these
resources are managed and leveraged. The underlying idea is that manag-
ing, in other words using, deploying and recon guring, resources is the key
to sustainable competitive advantage (Mahoney, 1995).
Recent years have seen more scholars drawing on the RBV- related  elds
of entrepreneurship (for example, Alvarez and Barney, 2004) and family
rms (for example, Habbershon and Williams, 1999; Sirmon and Hitt,
2003). In the entrepreneurship literature some have argued that the actual
processes associated with the ability to seek, capture and exploit oppor-
tunities can be a resource in its own right (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001).
In family business research the interaction between the family and the
business is argued to give rise to unusually complex and di cult to imitate
resources (Cabrera- Suarez et al., 2001; Chrisman et al., 2005; Habbershon
and Williams, 1999; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). Habbershon and Williams
(1999) use the RBV to coin the notion of ‘familiness’ and to argue that
complex and unique resources and family involvement in a  rm’s strategic
business activities can generate a competitive advantage. Family in uence
can thus become the root to heterogeneity since it leads to idiosyncrasies
of the individual family  rms. These family driven idiosyncrasies become
part of the competitive advantage of a  rm when they are valuable and
inimitable by other  rms. The value and inimitability of these idiosyn-
cratic resources and capabilities is due to their socially complex, path
dependent and often tacit nature.
However not all family in uenced resources enhance performance.
Rather ‘some family  rm attributes provide advantages in the resource
management process, while others limit this ability’ (Sirmon and Hitt,
2003, p. 340). Therefore Habbershon et al. (2003) suggest that family
involvement can either drive or constrain performance depending on the
nature of the resources, as well as the particular business activity in focus.
In other words, a speci c family in uenced resource can either represent
distinctive familiness (‘f+’) for in uences that support an advantage to
emerge, or restrictive familiness (‘f−’) for in uences that constrain and
lead to a disadvantage, and ‘f0’ for family in uences that are neutral in
relation to desired outcomes (Habbershon et al., 2003). The notion of
familiness in relation to the RBV thus aims to capture the source of what
is idiosyncratic in the resource pro le of each family  rm and provides a
conceptual path for examining the way in which family in uence may lead
to a business creating heterogeneous performance outcomes.
There has been a great deal of confusion on the appropriate usage of
the term familiness. The term has originally been de ned as the unique
rm level bundle of resources and capabilities resulting from family
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 17M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 17 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
18 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
involvement (Habbershon et al., 2003). In recent publications authors
have undertaken signi cant e orts to clarify the nature and the domain
of the construct (Pearson et al., 2008; Sharma, 2008). However, due to the
still fragmentary and incomplete knowledge about the concept, we see a
need to clarify our understanding of familiness, thereby contributing to
the concept’s nomological net (Pearson et al., 2008).
In line with the more general RBV we understand familiness as a
concept that addresses both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of family involve-
ment in  rms. On the side of the content, hence the ‘what’ dimension,
familiness informs about the type and amount of resource stocks available
within family in uenced rms. Scholars have particularly underlined the
relevance of particular resources in the family  rm context, such as social
capital (Pearson et al., 2008; Sharma, 2008), human capital (Puhakka,
2002),  nancial capital (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003) and physical capital
(Miller and Le Breton- Miller, 2005; Steier, 2007). In addition, research-
ers have investigated the explicit and in particular the implicit knowledge
resources embedded in the family business system (Carney, 2005; Sirmon
and Hitt, 2003), which can be particularly strong and critical for these  rms
due to the path- dependent development and their dependence on govern-
ance and ownership structures. Furthermore, our research shows that
family  rms often exhibit a particular corporate culture that can be in u-
enced by the family’s sustained presence in the  rm, often referring back
to the attitudes and beliefs of the founders of these companies (Poutziouris
et al., 1997). Finally, we see intangible resources and in particular repu-
tation as a further key resource in this type of  rm (Dyer and Whetten,
2006). Several scholars have investigated the performance implications
of personal, family and corporate reputation, but there are equivocal
ndings they report about the reputation–performance link (for example,
Anderson et al., 2003; Naldi et al., 2008; Zellweger and Kellermanns,
2008). As such, we consider family  rms to have unique social, human,
nancial, physical, knowledge, cultural and intangible resource stocks
due to family involvement in the  rm. Here we see the necessity to apply a
trans- unit of analysis perspective since part of the resources at the  rm and
family level are provided by either family or  rm system. As Sharma (2008)
correctly points out, we need to consider capital  ows between family and
rm system to understand the competitive advantages or disadvantages of
family  rms. In such a trans- unit of analysis perspective, family and  rm
can both serve as lenders and borrowers of resource stocks.
Whereas recent developments in family business theory have provided
some insights into the relevance of di erent resource stocks, the RBV
has traditionally also stressed the relevance of resource management and
leveraging as outlined above. Accordingly, the second dimension of our
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 18M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 18 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 19
understanding of familiness, the ‘how’ dimension, relates to the ways in
which owners and managers of family  rms are actually able, or com-
petent, to bundle and leverage their resource bases to create competitive
advantages (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). In this regard, Naldi et al. (2008)
stress that family involvement in strategy- making processes may be seen as
a moderator that impacts on whether intangible resources such as knowl-
edge and reputation can be deployed at their full potential to create  nan-
cial performance. Adding to this contingency perspective, Kellermanns
(2005) and Sharma and Manikutty (2005) stress that family  rms might
be biased by the personal preferences of family members when it comes to
resource adding and shedding. Eddleston et al. (2008b) show that family
rms can bene t from emphasizing the positive aspects of kinship and
from developing innovative capacities. As such, they demonstrate that not
only do  rm- speci c resources contribute to family  rm performance, but
also that family relationships based on reciprocal altruism, which could
be seen as a family  rm- speci c form of bonding social capital, can be a
source of competitive advantage for a family  rm.
In summary, combining these two perspectives in the transgenerational
entrepreneurship framework, we therefore consider the relevance of study-
ing family in uence on both resource stocks and usage. As such, we stress
family in uence on resources, and do not see the family as a resource on
its own. Also we do not see familiness as a pure  rm- level phenomenon,
as originally de ned by Habbershon et al. (2003), but as a trans- unit of
analysis phenomenon, due to the interrelation of the family and the  rm in
resource availability and usage.
1.7 THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RESOURCES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
ORIENTATION
Traditionally, entrepreneurship scholars have argued that while the RBV
focuses on heterogeneity of resources, entrepreneurship theory focuses on
the heterogeneity of beliefs about the value of these resources. Hence the
focus on heterogeneity in  rms’ strategic pro les can be seen as a common
denominator between the RBV and entrepreneurship. Thus combining
the RBV with an entrepreneurship framework such as EO may, we argue,
allow researchers to address the essence of the question why some  rms
stay competitive and continue to grow while other  rm decline or even
become obsolete.
In line with Habbershon (2006), we may argue that the interactions
between the family, its  rm and individuals in the family and/or  rm create
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 19M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 19 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
20 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
resources that either promote or inhibit entrepreneurial orientation. It is
conceivable, for example, that a family in uenced social network might
foster entrepreneurial behavior. A certain leadership style as a resource
may very well facilitate EO in one generation, while constraining it in
another. Another family in uenced resource that may a ect EO is govern-
ance. Family  rms are often assumed to have rather informal governance
and organizational structures with quick, sometimes intuitive, decision
making (Carney, 2005; Hall et al., 2006). These characteristics, Lumpkin
and Dess (1996) argue, promote EO. Poza (1988), however, looks at
‘interpreneurship’, de ned as intergenerational entrepreneurial activities
in family  rms and argues that formalized governance and especially the
presence of non- family board members are conducive to promote contin-
ued growth over the long term. Brunninge and Nordqvist (2004) do not
nd empirical support for the hypothesis that non- family board members
promote corporate entrepreneurship. Other examples of family in uenced
resources that have been argued to have an impact on the entrepreneurial
capacity of family  rms is organizational culture (Hall et al., 2001; Zahra
et al., 2004), knowledge (Chirico, 2008) and trust (Steier, 2003). Wiklund
and Shepherd (2003) stress the role of intangible resources for entrepre-
neurial activities and orientation. Furthermore, kinship ties within social
capital can facilitate opportunity recognition and exploitation (Aldrich
and Cli , 2003). Finally, Eddleston et al. (2008a) found that family to  rm
unity moderates the relationships between human capital and corporate
entrepreneurship, whereby a lack of human capital can be o set by higher
levels of family unity. Given these considerations, some of the chapters in
this book are explicitly dedicated to further explore these speci c resource
aspects of entrepreneurial orientation in the family and the family  rm
context.
Despite some noteworthy exceptions presented above, we consider
that there is still a dearth of research untangling the relationship between
family in uenced resources and the entrepreneurial orientation of  rms.
In particular, we challenge the unidirectional nature of the relationship,
where (prior) resource allocations should serve as an indicator of an
entrepreneurial posture (Lyon et al., 2000). Also the opposite way is con-
ceivable: for example, if a  rm displays high levels of autonomy towards
internal and external stakeholders, it will most likely experience lower
levels of social capital. However the reliance on internal processes and
ways of doing things might, in contrast, be proli c to develop tacit knowl-
edge. Furthermore, being aggressive towards competitors might impact
reputational resources, both at the family and the  rm level. Moreover,
an innovative posture might not only be positively impacted by the  rm’s
human capital and knowledge- based resources. Innovativeness might also
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 20M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 20 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 21
fuel the levels of human capital and knowledge- based resources through
learning e ects.
Accordingly, we see entrepreneurial postures and resources as inter-
related, the  rst one representing the attitudes to take an active stance
in doing things, and the latter representing the means to undertake the
required actions. We therefore see both as being important drivers of a
rm’s performance and value creation potential and, ultimately, success
across several generations. This view is driven by the insight that resources
and entrepreneurial orientation taken on their own are necessary but
not su cient conditions for long- term success. Without resources entre-
preneurial orientation lacks the means to be realized. Thus without an
entrepreneurial posture resources are unexploited, become slack and lack
rejuvenation. Our transgenerational perspective proposes that only the
combination of resources and entrepreneurial orientation will carry family
rms and business families into a successful future.
1.8 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
An important aspect of theory development is setting the boundaries for
its application and accounting for the contextual factors in which the
theory holds or is investigated. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue that
the strength of the  ve di erent dimensions of EO may di er depend-
ing on the characteristics of the  rm or types of  rm. Besides industry,
they suggest size, ownership and age as other possible contextual factors
that may impact EO in a particular  rm. But they also underline that
little empirical research has so far been done to untangle these relation-
ships. Also there have been arguments within the EO literature to further
explore the EO – performance relationships (Dess et al., 1997; Zahra,
1993). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) suggest that organizational factors such
as size, structure, strategy, strategy- making processes,  rm resources and
culture and top management team characteristics should moderate the
relationship. Furthermore, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue that environ-
mental factors such as dynamism, muni cence, complexity and industry
characteristics might interfere.
Beyond these arguments, Lyon et al. (2000) suggest that time might be a
further contextual issue in the relationship between EO and performance,
since entrepreneurial attitudes and initiatives often do not create immedi-
ate performance e ects. A recent meta- analysis explored the extent to
which the di erent dimensions of EO are positively or negatively related
to performance (Rauch et al., 2009). Broadly speaking, the literature tends
to be consistent in suggesting that  rms with higher EO levels are more
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 21M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 21 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
22 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
likely to do well in traditional performance measures, such as growth and
pro tability.
In a similar way, within the RBV scholars have called for more atten-
tion to be paid to the boundaries of the theoretical concept (Priem and
Butler, 2001) and to the contexts within which particular resources were
determined to be more or less valuable (Miller and Shamsie, 1996). Again
industry is seen as such a contextual factor, but also community culture
(Hofstede, 1991) and the temporal orientation (Powell, 1992).
Following these calls, we introduce a series of contextual factors within
the transgenerational entrepreneurship research framework that are
intended to capture the variance in the context and to set the boundaries
of our research (Whetten, 1989). Accordingly, in the STEP Project we
include contextual factors that have been identi ed in previous studies
of EO and the RBV, such as industry, community culture and the envi-
ronment (captured through dynamism, muni cence and complexity).
Furthermore, we also include contextual factors that we have observed
in the  rst phases of the qualitative case research such as family life stage
and family involvement. By family life stage we mean the number of gen-
erations the family has been in control of the speci c rm. Partly in line
with Martin and Lumpkin (2003) we see that business families may di er
in their resources and entrepreneurial posture depending on the genera-
tion they are in. In an attempt to account for generational di erences,
Cruz and Nordqvist (2008) study how the determinants of proactiveness,
risk taking and innovativeness di er depending on the family generation
in charge of the business. They argue that while the founders drive EO
to a great extent in the  rst generation, EO is more subject to managers’
interpretations of the competitive environment in the second genera-
tion. In the third generation and beyond, access to non- family resources
is increasingly important to maintain an EO in family  rms (Cruz and
Nordqvist, 2008).
We investigate family involvement, in particular through the family’s
involvement in equity, management and, if available, governance board.
Our cases show very heterogeneous ways in which families are involved in
their  rms, as is evident in the studies forming the chapters in this book.
Capturing the temporal dimension that has been stressed is an impor-
tant contextual factor both in EO and RBV theory. We investigate the
evolution of family involvement across time, but also the evolution of
the portfolio of the businesses making part of the family business group.
Furthermore, we are investigating the entrepreneurial performance of the
family  rms under investigation across time. As such we are able, at least
partly, to overcome the limitations related to a cross- sectional design of
EO and RBV studies.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 22M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 22 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 23
1.9 PERFORMANCE
Within our framework we expect that performance is a necessary ante-
cedent for successful business activity that spans generations. Due to
numerous assertions that family  rms strive for multiple performance
dimensions (Chrisman et al., 2005; Zellweger and Nason, 2008), we dif-
ferentiate between three types of performance outcomes: entrepreneurial,
nancial and social performance outcomes. As such we see performance in
the family  rm context as a multidimensional construct. Before describing
the three performance dimensions we hasten to add that we see these per-
formance dimensions as interrelated. As elaborated on below, we conceive
that one performance dimension will impact the other ones, for instance,
through substitution but also synergistic e ects. Family harmony through
hiring of a family member might only be achievable at the expense of
nancial performance. But family reputation, a performance outcome
on the side of the family, may also nurture corporate  nancial perform-
ance through access to clients and industry networks. Moreover, we also
consider these performance dimensions to be interrelated in the tempo-
ral dimension. For example, entrepreneurial performance in terms of
renewal or venturing might take years to manifest itself in  nancial terms.
We now explain what we mean by entrepreneurial,  nancial and social
performance.
Entrepreneurial Performance
In line with our consideration that entrepreneurship is an important
engine for generation- spanning business activities, we consider that entre-
preneurial performance is one of the key performance measures for our
study. Entrepreneurial performance is de ned as ‘the sum of an organi-
zation’s innovation, renewal, and venturing e orts where innovation
involves creating and introducing products, production processes and
organizational systems. . . renewal means revitalizing the company’s oper-
ations by changing the scope of its business, its competitive approaches,
and acquiring new capabilities and then creatively leveraging them to add
value for shareholders. . .venturing means that the (organization) will
enter new businesses by expanding operations in existing or new markets’
(Zahra, 1995, p. 227; for similar de nitions see Davidsson and Wiklund,
2001; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).
The entrepreneurship view on performance considers that the relative
performance advantage over competitive  rms, as strategic manage-
ment scholars hold (Venkataraman, 1997), is not a su cient measure
for entrepreneurial performance. This is related to the insight that a
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 23M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 23 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
24 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
performance advantage may be insu cient to compensate for the oppor-
tunity cost of other alternatives, a liquidity premium for time and capital
and a premium for uncertainty bearing (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
Entrepreneurship researchers rather consider performance as the degree
to which valuable opportunities (for example, new entry) are exploited,
thereby creating entrepreneurial rents.
The above de nition of entrepreneurial performance as the ‘sum of an
organization’s innovation, renewal, and venturing e orts’ might create
confusion with the measure of entrepreneurial orientation. EO is de ned
as an indication of entrepreneurial attitudes and practices at the  rm level.
As such, EO determines a  rm’s inclination to be entrepreneurial, and
is a measure of the  rm’s attitude to undertake entrepreneurial e orts.
To avoid confusion between the two terms, we see entrepreneurial per-
formance as the actual entrepreneurial initiatives in terms of innovation,
renewal and venturing, and hence as the manifestation of the entrepre-
neurial stance or e orts. Even though there might be a high positive cor-
relation between EO and entrepreneurial performance, we see them as
distinct and separate constructs. For example, a  rm can display a low
level of entrepreneurial performance despite high levels of EO since the
organization is unable to transform its entrepreneurial posture into actual
entrepreneurial performance (for example, new products), or due to the
temporal distance between the entrepreneurial behavior and the actual
entrepreneurial performance.
Considering the di erences between entrepreneurship in the context of
established  rms as opposed to newly founded organizations, for example,
in terms of resource stocks, we expect to discover distinct patterns of entre-
preneurial performance. Whereas for newly founded  rms creating new
products and introducing them to new markets is the key to overcoming
liability of newness, in the context of long- established  rms di erent types
of innovation activities might become essential for survival and prosper-
ity. For example, a top selling product that has a loyal customer base does
not have to be reinvented or replaced by a new product, even if it is ‘old’.
Rather, long- term successful goods or services need to be rejuvenated
and need not to be replaced to satisfy today’s customers. Accordingly, we
expect long- term established  rms to display di erent types of entrepre-
neurial performance, with presumably lower levels of innovation in terms
of new products or markets, but higher levels of renewal. As such, we see
entrepreneurial performance not as a manifestation of the  rm’s need
to overcome liability of newness, but to overcome ‘liability of oldness’,
de ned as the liability faced by established  rms to keep up with changes
in their environmental and organizational setting. In a similar way, we
might  nd that established  rms are challenged more with shrinking the
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 24M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 24 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 25
product portfolio that has become excessively diversi ed over the years.
In contrast to the traditional entrepreneurship perspective, we see such
moves as equally entrepreneurial as adding new products.
Financial Performance
Traditionally, management scholars have evaluated performance of
organizations in  nancial terms. Whereas  nancial performance is cer-
tainly a crucial outcome of any business activity, we understand it as
a result of entrepreneurial performance, and thereby entrepreneurial
activities being the engine or the driver of  nancial success.
In the case of privately  rms, performance of family  rms has been
assessed using objective measures such as return on equity, return on
assets, return on sales and gross margin, or growth measures of the
aforementioned ratios and  gures. In the absence of objective measures,
subjective performance measures have been used since prior research sug-
gests that there is a high level of correlation between actual performance
and the self- reported subjective performance data (Dess and Robinson,
1984; Love et al., 2002; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987). In addition,
subjective measures allow inclusion of perks and the  nancial freedom for
family members to develop a reliable performance measure. In the context
of publicly quoted  rms, stock market performance has been investigated
or Tobin’s Q, the market value of the  rm divided by the replacement costs
of the assets.
There is a wide array of studies investigating the  nancial performance
of privately held and publicly quoted family  rms. Since Anderson and
Reeb (2003) found that family  rms are outperforming their non- family
counterparts on the stock market, a large number of performance studies
on family  rms have emerged (Rutherford et al., 2008; for an overview
see Miller and Le Breton- Miller, 2005). These studies provide ambiguous
ndings. A large number of studies examining the impact of family in
ownership conclude that family ownership does not impact  nancial per-
formance (Cho, 1998; Demsetz and Lehn, 1985; McConaughy et al., 2001;
McConnell and Servaes, 1990; Mo et al., 1988; Stulz, 1988). Other studies
suggest that it is paramount to distinguish between founding ownership
(that is,  rst- generation family in uence) and descendant ownership (that
is, in uence of the family via second or later generations). Several authors
(for example, Adams et al., 2005; Fahlenbrach, 2006; McConaughy et al.,
1998; Morck et al., 1988; Villalonga and Amit, 2006) agree that family
rms are outperforming their non- family counterparts when the founder
remains active in the  rm. However this issue has not received unequivocal
support either.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 25M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 25 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
26 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Whereas studies investigating family ownership and governance
provide ambiguous  ndings, there seems to be some support for the
case that family  rms are  nancially outperforming their non- family
counterparts when family is active in the management of the  rm (Sraer
and Thesmar, 2007; Zellweger, 2006). This is tied to lower salary levels,
the long- term tenure of employees and related innovation and e ciency
e ects and trust- based manager relations.
This literature review on performance studies is far from being com-
plete. However, all in all, studies investigating the  nancial performance
of family  rms provide very diverse results. We consider that this variety
is not only related to the diversity and fuzziness of the applied family
rm and performance de nitions. At least as important, we consider that
these frontal attempts to measure family  rm performance, for example,
through arti cially dichotomizing family versus non- family  rms, over-
look how families can be drivers of entrepreneurial activities and sources
of distinctive familiness which ultimately fuels  nancial performance.
Therefore within our research model we will particularly investigate
how business families’ mindsets, resources and capabilities will a ect the
performance of these  rms.
Social Performance
A common theme in family business literature is that  nancial outcomes
may have been inaccurately assumed to be the primary or even sole
performance objective of a family business (Alvarez and Barney, 2004;
Anderson and Reeb, 2003; Chrisman et al., 2003, 2004; Dunn, 1995; Lee
and Rogo , 1996; Sharma, 2004; Westhead and Cowling, 1997; Zellweger
and Astrachan, 2008). Scholars have suggested that family  rms have
multiple and changing goals rather than a singular and constant goal,
and that this type of  rm displays a stronger preference towards non-
pecuniary outcomes like independence, prestige, tradition and continuity
than non- family  rms (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004; Dunn, 1995; Sharma
et al., 1997; Sorenson, 1999; Sta ord et al., 1999; Tagiuri and Davis, 1982;
Ward, 1997). We describe these non- nancial performance outcomes as
social performance. Thereby it is important to note that we do not de ne
social performance according to its  nancial or non- nancial nature.
Social performance, for example, in philanthropy or giving to environ-
mental groups, is mostly  nancial in nature. However, given the use of the
funds for social aims we consider them as part of social performance.
Litz (1997) and Sharma (2004) have proposed that stakeholder theory
might be useful in investigating family  rms. Indeed, we also believe that
the stakeholder framework is useful to investigate the social performance
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 26M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 26 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 27
dimension, since family  rms have a natural inclination to satisfy multiple
stakeholders that follow social alongside  nancial goals. We see three dis-
tinct reasons for this (Zellweger and Nason, 2008).
First, in contrast to non- family enterprises, family  rms by de nition
have an additional stakeholder group, the family. In addition, the family
stakeholder group has unique goals, many of which can be considered
social, such as harmony, jobs for family members and family control.
A second reason why family  rms have a natural inclination to satisfy
multiple stakeholders is related to the tight overlap between the individual
owner- manager, the family and the  rm. Given that entrepreneurs in
family  rms often make part of all three stakeholder categories, we should
expect that these decision makers have a higher incentive to ensure the
particular satisfaction of the related individual stakeholders and stake-
holder groups who form the reputation of the organization (Dyer and
Whetten, 2006; Hogg et al., 1995).
Third, family enterprises have been reported to display strong com-
munity relations and display richer social capital due to their transgen-
erational outlook (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). The transgenerational outlook
and patient capital allow these  rms to devote the proper time to cultivate
the necessary relationships with societal stakeholders, allowing these
rms to establish more e ective relations with support organizations (for
example, banks), while maintaining legitimacy with other important con-
stituencies and societal stakeholders (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
Applying the stakeholder paradigm to assess the social performance of
family  rms provides insight into the question of which social perform-
ance outcomes family  rms will actually produce to satisfy key constitu-
ents. However, beyond the question of which performance dimensions
should be produced to satisfy the multiple stakeholders, family  rms need
to answer the question of how they should e ciently produce the diverse
performance outcomes originating from these multiple stakeholders. This
question is related to the observation that certain outcomes of business
activity have the capacity to satisfy multiple stakeholder categories and
impact each other (Chrisman and Carroll, 1984). Thereby we follow Dess
et al. (2003) who propose that a stakeholder analysis need not implicitly
involve tradeo s among the various stakeholders, but rather that other,
for example, symbiotic, relationships may exist and that stakeholder
groups can be satis ed in other matters. Zellweger and Nason (2008) have
extended this line of thinking by showing that beyond substitution e ects,
in which non- economic performance dimensions o set economic perform-
ance, this relation can be synergistic, causal (one performance dimension
causing multiple other performance dimensions) or overlapping (one
performance dimension satisfying multiple stakeholders).
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 27M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 27 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
28 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Despite the relevance of social performance in the context of family
rms, only recently have scholars investigated this performance dimen-
sion in more detail (for example, Dyer and Whetten, 2006; Zellweger and
Astrachan, 2008). By investigating the social aspects of performance,
alongside entrepreneurial and  nancial performance, we follow calls by
Chrisman et al. (2005) to further investigate the issue.
1.10 BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE CHAPTERS
OF THE BOOK
Having laid out the major building blocks of our transgenerational entre-
preneurship framework, we believe that the approach chosen exhibits a
good  t between the theoretical foundations and the object of investiga-
tion. The following chapters introduce the methodology of our case study
approach and the preliminary  ndings from the European STEP team.
In Chapter 2 the STEP Project’s qualitative research approach is
presented and discussed. In addition to explaining the need for more in-
depth, theory generating research in the area of entrepreneurship in family
businesses, Mattias Nordqvist and Thomas Zellweger describe the main
aspects of the case research method we have applied. We cover the sam-
pling criteria, details about data collection as well as the process of data
analysis. We also brie y explain the importance of creating an interactive
learning environment within a large, global research project as well as the
role of the yearly summits.
In Chapter 3 the Italian team from Bocconi University, Milan, investi-
gates the resource perspective within the transgenerational entrepreneur-
ship framework. Ugo Lassini and Carlo Salvato argue that, although
a focus on speci c resources is attractive since it o ers a parsimonious
explanation of what determines family  rms’ value creation potential,
there is widespread agreement among scholars that the gradual develop-
ment of  rm- speci c resource stocks over generations may also be a source
of inertial forces blocking family  rm’s entrepreneurial potential (Collins
and Porras, 1994; Miller and Le Breton- Miller, 2005; Sharma and Irving,
2005). Despite this awareness, little research to date has been carried out
on how controlling families can leverage the pool of unique  rm- speci c
resources they develop, while overcoming the inertial risks they carry.
Lassini and Salvato present a pioneering study that investigates how some
family  rms attain this di cult balance between the positive features
of idiosyncratic resources cumulated over generations and their inertial
potential.
The German team, from the University of Witten- Herdecke, represented
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 28M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 28 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 29
by Markus Plate, Arist von Schlippe and Christian Schiede, presents in
Chapter 4 a single case analysis of the processes and conditions of port-
folio entrepreneurship within a large multinational family  rm, and iden-
tify resources that enable portfolio entrepreneurship. In their study the
authors strive to answer two research questions. First, how do the port-
folio of ventures emerge in the family context? This analysis includes the
processes, conditions, motives and strategy of the portfolio entrepreneur-
ship process. Second, the authors investigate which resources (in uenced
by the family and the entrepreneur) enable the development of successful
portfolio entrepreneurship practices. This analysis takes a resource- based
view, with a special focus on the bundle of resources in uenced and
provided by the entrepreneur and the business family. The study is an
important early attempt to better grasp the dynamics of family portfolio
entrepreneurship.
In Chapter 5 the Swedish team, from Jönköping International Business
School, represented by Ethel Brundin, Mattias Nordqvist and Leif Melin,
aims at increasing the understanding of how entrepreneurial orientation is
transferred and translated to the next generation family members in strong
family business cultures. The purpose of their chapter is to illustrate and
discuss the role of culture as a key element for entrepreneurial orientation
to travel over generations. More speci cally, the Swedish team shows how
autonomy and proactiveness can both support and hamper such a process.
Based on  ndings from two in- depth case studies and the transgenera-
tional entrepreneurship framework, they explore the role of culture, seen
as a family in uenced resource, on entrepreneurial orientation. Moving
beyond conventional life cycle reasoning, they show that founder- centric
cultures can return in later stages of the  rm’s life cycle. They introduce
the concept of ‘owner- centric culture’ as an alternative way of thinking
about and conceptualizing strong family businesses cultures and their
impact on the entrepreneurial orientation of a business.
In Chapter 6 the French team, from HEC School of Management,
Paris, represented by Alain Bloch, Michel Santi and Alexandra Joseph,
analyses two French family business case studies. In both families children
were faced with the sudden and early death of their fathers which left them
unprepared to be in charge. They nevertheless kept the ownership of the
company within the family and developed the family business successfully.
In both cases they  nd that entrepreneurial performance followed a very
similar path. In their cases  rm life stage did not follow family life stage,
which unleashed additional entrepreneurial performance in both  rms.
Both families had to face a breakout in the succession process and both
families answered the same way: maintaining the  rm under the family
control without necessarily occupying a management position. They
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 29M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 29 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
30 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
succeeded in maintaining the family  rm’s entrepreneurial performance
despite a generational breakthrough within the family life stage.
The Spanish team, from ESADE, Barcelona, represented by Eugenia
Bieto, Alberto Gimeno and Maria José Parada, focuses in Chapter 7
on how familiness evolves over time. These authors speci cally deal
with entrepreneurial teams as a key resource within the family’s pool of
resources which tends to weaken over time mainly due to family com-
plexities. Through an in- depth study, their chapter analyses the role of
succession, governance structures and relations in entrepreneurial teams.
A thorough analysis of interview material from family owners/ managers
and non- family executives of two family  rms suggests that the three
aforementioned elements play a critical role in the evolution of the leader-
ship team as a distinct resource. These  rms evolved from solo- founder
to top management teams (teams of siblings) up to the entrepreneurial
management team (team of family and non- family managers). Their
chapter contributes to the family business and familiness/RBV literature
by approaching the familiness advantage from a dynamic point of view,
proposing an explanation about how some of the resources that create the
familiness advantage are sustained or diluted.
Finally, in Chapter 8 the Swiss team, from the University of St
Gallen, represented by Thomas Zellweger, Philipp Sieger and Corinne
Muehlebach, investigates EO in the context of family  rms that have been
successful over long periods of time, in their case more than 80 years.
These researchers question whether EO is a suitable concept to explain the
success of transgenerational family  rms. Thereby, the Swiss team inves-
tigates the levels and patterns of EO in these  rms and questions whether
EO really is a necessary condition for long- term organizational success in
that context, as implicitly suggested by many corporate entrepreneurship
studies (for example, Dess et al., 2003; Rauch et al., 2009). The Swiss team
shows that the levels of EO alter across the life cycle of these  rms, phases
of low levels of EO followed by phases of higher levels of entrepreneurial
activity. On average, the three family  rms they investigate show rather
moderate levels of EO across time. They also discuss the shortcomings of
the traditional subdimensions of EO and propose re ned measures that
are better suited to explain the patterns of entrepreneurship in long- living
family  rms.
In summary, the chapters in this book explore parts of the building
blocks and relationships within the transgenerational entrepreneurship
framework. As such, these chapters do not strive to provide a complete
overview on all aspects that can potentially be explored within the trans-
generational entrepreneurship framework. We hope, however, that they
stimulate further re ections and research about one of the most central
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 30M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 30 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 31
questions in investigating family  rms: what makes these  rms successful
in the long run.
REFERENCES
Adams, R.B., H. Almeida, and D. Ferreira (2005), ‘Powerful CEOs and
their impact on corporate performance’, Review of Financial Studies, 18(4),
1403–32.
Aldrich, H.E. and J.E. Cli (2003), ‘The pervasive e ects of family on entre-
preneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(5), 573–96.
Alvarez, J.L. and L. Busenitz (2001), ‘The entrepreneurship of resource- based
theory’, Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–75.
Alvarez, S.A. and J.B. Barney (2004), ‘Organizing rent generation and appropria-
tion: toward a theory of the entrepreneurial  rm’, Journal of Business Venturing,
19(5), 621–35.
Anderson, R.C. and D.M. Reeb (2003), ‘Founding- family ownership and  rm per-
formance: evidence from the s&p 500’, Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–28.
Anderson, R.C., S.A. Mansi and D.M. Reeb (2003), ‘Founding family ownership
and the agency cost of debt’, Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 263–85.
Arregle, J.- L., M.A. Hitt, D.G. Sirmon and P. Very (2007), ‘The development of
organizational social capital: attributes of family  rms’, Journal of Management
Studies, 44(1), 73–95.
Barney, J.B. (1986), ‘Strategic factor markets: expectation, luck, and business
strategy’, Management Science, 32(10), 1231–41.
Barney, J.B. (1991), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J.B., M. Wright and D.J.J. Ketchen (2001), ‘The resource- based view of
the  rm: ten years after 1991’, Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–41.
Barringer, B.R. and A.C. Bluedorn (1999), ‘The relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal,
20(5), 421–44.
Birley, S. and P. Westhead (1994), ‘A taxonomy of business start- up reasons and
their impact on  rm growth and size’, Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1), 7–31.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), ‘Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs’, Academy of
Management Journal, 23(3), 509–20.
Brockhaus, R.H.S. (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship and family business research: com-
parisons, critique, and lessons’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1),
25–38.
Brunninge, O. and M. Nordqvist (2004), ‘Ownership structure, board composition
and entrepreneurship: evidence from family  rms and venture- capital- backed
rms’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
, 10(1/2),
85–105.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983), ‘A process model of internal corporate venturing in the
diversi ed major  rm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–44.
Cabrera- Suarez, K., P. De Saa- Perez and D. Garcia- Almeida (2001), ‘The suc-
cession process from a resource- and knowledge- based view of the family  rm’,
Family Business Review, 14(1), 37–48.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 31M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 31 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
32 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Carney, M. (2005), ‘Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-
controlled rms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–65.
Carter, S. and M. Ram (2003), ‘Reassessing portfolio entrepreneurship’, Small
Business Economics, 21(4), 371–80.
Chirico, F. (2008), ‘Knowledge accumulation in family  rms: evidence from four
case studies’, International Small Business Journal, 26(4), 433–62.
Cho, M. (1998), ‘Ownership structure, investment, and the corporate value: an
empirical analysis’, Journal of Financial Economics, 47(1), 103–21.
Chrisman, J.J. and A.B. Carroll (1984), ‘Corporate responsibility – reconciling
economic and social goals’, Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 59–65.
Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua and L.P. Steier (2003), ‘An introduction to theories of
family business’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 441–8.
Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua and R.A. Litz (2004), ‘Comparing the agency costs
of family and non- family  rms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence’,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–54.
Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua and P. Sharma (2005), ‘Trends and directions in
the development of a strategic management theory of the family  rm’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–75.
Chua, J.H., J.J. Chrisman and P. Sharma (1999), ‘De ning the family business by
behavior’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
Collins, J.C. and J.I. Porras (1994), Built to Last: successful Habits of Visionary
Companies, New York: HarperCollins.
Cool, K., L.A. Costa and I. Dierickx (2002), ‘Constructing competitive advantage’,
in A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds), Handbook of Strategy and
Management. London: Sage Publications, pp. 55–71.
Corbetta, G. and C. Salvato (2004), ‘Self- serving or self- actualizing? Models of
man and agency costs in di erent types of family  rms: a commentary on “com-
paring the agency costs of family and non- family  rms: conceptual issues and
exploratory evidence”’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 355–62.
Covin, J.G. (1991), ‘Entrepreneurial versus conservative  rms: a comparison of
strategies and performance’, Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439–62.
Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin (1989), ‘Strategic management of small  rms in hostile
and benign environments’, Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin (1991), ‘A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as
rm behavior’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–24.
Cruz, C. and M. Nordqvist (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation in family 
rms: a
generational perspective’, Paper presented at the 8th Annual Ifera Conference,
Nyenrode, Breukelen, NED.
Davidsson, P. and J. Wiklund (2001), ‘Levels of analysis in entrepreneur-
ship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–100.
Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn (1985), ‘The structure of corporate ownership: causes
and consequences’, Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155–77.
Dess, G.G. and G.T. Lumpkin (2005), ‘The role of EO in stimulating e ective cor-
porate entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–56.
Dess, G.G. and R.B. Robinson (1984), ‘Industry e ects and strategic management
research’, Journal of Management, 16(7), 7–27.
Dess, G.G., G.T. Lumpkin and J.G. Covin (1997), ‘Entrepreneurial strategy
making and  rm performance: tests of contingency and con gurational models’,
Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–95.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 32M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 32 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 33
Dess, G.G., R.D. Ireland, S.A. Zahra, S.W. Floyd, J.J. Janney and P.J. Lane
(2003), ‘Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship’, Journal of Management,
29(3), 351–78.
Dunn, B. (1995), ‘Success themes in scottish family enterprises: philosophies and
practices through the generations’, Family Business Review, 8(1), 17–28.
Dyer, W.G. and W. Handler (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship and family business:
exploring the connections’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 71–84.
Dyer, W.G. and D.A. Whetten (2006), ‘Family  rms and social responsibility:
preliminary evidence from the s&p 500’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
30(6), 785–802.
Eddleston, K.A. and F.W. Kellermanns (2006), ‘Destructive and productive
family relationships: a stewardship theory perspective’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 22, 545–65.
Eddleston, K., F.W. Kellermanns and T. Zellweger (2008a), ‘Corporate entre-
preneurship in family  rms: a stewardship perspective’, Paper presented at the
USASBE, San Antonio.
Eddleston, K.A., F.W. Kellermanns and R. Sarathy (2008b), ‘Resource con gu-
ration in family  rms: linking resources, strategic planning and technological
opportunities to performance’, Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 26–50.
Faccio, M. and L.H.P. Lang (2002), ‘The ultimate ownership of western european
corporations’, Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365–95.
Fahlenbrach, R. (2004), Founder- CEOs and stock market performance, unpub-
lished working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Gartner, W.B. (2001), ‘Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions
in theory development’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27–39.
Gomez- Mejia, L.R., K.T. Haynes, M. Nunez- Nickel, K.J.L. Jacobson and J.
Moyano- Fuentes (2007), ‘Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-
controlled rms: evidence from spanish olive oil mills’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 52(1), 106–37.
Greene, P.G. and T.E. Brown (1997), ‘Resource needs and the dynamic capitalism
typology’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 161–73.
Habbershon, T.G. (2006), ‘Commentary: a framework for managing the famili-
ness and agency advantages in family  rms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 30(6), 879–86.
Habbershon, T.G. and J. Pistrui (2002), ‘Enterprising families domain: family-
in uenced ownership groups in pursuit of transgenerational wealth’, Family
Business Review, 15(3), 223–37.
Habbershon, T.G. and M.L. Williams (1999), ‘A resource- based framework for
assessing the strategic advantages of family  rms’, Family Business Review,
12(1), 1–25.
Habbershon, T.G., M. Williams and I.C. MacMillan (2003), ‘A uni ed systems
perspective of family 
rm performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4),
451–65.
Hall, A., L. Melin and M. Nordqvist (2001), ‘Entrepreneurship as radical change
in the family business: exploring the role of cultural patterns’, Family Business
Review, 14(3), 193–208.
Hall, A., L. Melin and M. Nordqvist (2006), ‘Understanding strategizing in the
family business context’, in P. Poutziouris, K.X. Smyrnios and S.B. Klein
(eds), Handbook of Research on Family Businesses, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 253–68.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 33M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 33 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
34 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London:
McGraw Hill.
Hogg, M.A., D.J. Terry and K.M. White (1995), ‘A tale of two theories: a critical
comparison of identity theory with social identity theory’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58(4), 255–69.
Hoy, F. and T.G. Verser (1994), ‘Emerging business, emerging  eld: entrepreneur-
ship and the family  rm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 9–23.
Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling (1976), ‘Theory of the  rm: managerial behav-
ior, agency costs, and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, 3,
305–60.
Kellermanns, F.W. (2005), ‘Family  rm resource management: commentary and
extensions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 313–19.
Kellermanns, F.W. and K.A. Eddleston (2006), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship in
family  rms: a family perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6),
809–30.
Lansberg, I.S. (1983), ‘Managing human resources in family  rms: the problem of
institutional overlap’, Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 39–46.
Le Breton- Miller, I., D. Miller and L.P. Steier (2004), ‘Toward an integrative model
of e ective FOB succession’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305–28.
Lee, M. and E.G. Rogo (1996), ‘Research note. comparison of small businesses
with family participation versus small businesses without family participation:
an investigation of di erences in goals, attitudes, and family/business con ict’.
Family Business Review, 9(4), 423–7.
Levinson, R.E. (1987), ‘Problems in managing a family- owned business’, in
C.E. Arono and J.L. Ward (eds), Family Business Sourcebook, Detroit:
Omnigraphics, pp. 169–74.
Litz, R. (1997), ‘The family  rm’s exclusion from business school research:
explaining the void; addressing the opportunity’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 21(3), 55–71.
Lounsbury, M. and M.A. Glynn (2001), ‘Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legiti-
macy, and the acquisitions of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7),
545–64.
Love, L.G., R.L. Priem and G.T. Lumpkin (2002), ‘Explicitly articulated strategy
and  rm performance under alternative levels of centralization’, Journal of
Management, 28(5), 611–27.
Low, M.B. and I.C. MacMillan (1988), ‘Entrepreneurship: past research and
future challenges’, Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–61.
Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess (1996), ‘Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation
construct and linking it to performance’, Academy of Management Review,
21(1), 135–72.
Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess (2001), ‘Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation to  rm performance: the moderating role of environment and indus-
try life cycle’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–51.
Lumpkin, G.T., W.J. Wales and M.D. Ensley (2006), ‘Assessing the context for
corporate entrepreneurship: the role of entrepreneurial orientation’, in M. Rice
and T.G. Habbershon (eds), Praeger Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Vol. III,
‘Westport, CA: Praeger Publishers.
Lumpkin, G.T., W. Martin and M. Vaughn (2008), ‘Family orientation: individ-
ual- level in uences on family  rm outcomes’, Family Business Review, 21(2),
127–38.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 34M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 34 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 35
Lumpkin, G.T., K. Brigham and K. Moss (2009), ‘Long- term orientation: implica-
tions for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses’,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, forthcoming.
Lyon, D.W., G.T. Lumpkin and G.G. Dess (2000), ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial
orientation research: operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision
making process’, Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055–85.
Mahoney, J.T. (1995), ‘The management of resources and the resource of manage-
ment’, Journal of Business Research, 33(2), 91–101.
Martin, L. and T. Lumpkin (2003), ‘From EO to “family orientation”: genera-
tional di erences in the management of family businesses’. Paper presented at
the 22nd Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson
College, Massachusetts.
Mathews, J.A. (2002), ‘A resource- based view of Schumpeterian economic dynam-
ics’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1/2), 29–54.
McConaughy, D.L., M.C. Walker, G.V. Henderson and C.S. Mishra (1998),
‘Founding family controlled  rms: e ciency and value’, Review of Financial
Economics, 7(1), 1–19.
McConaughy, D.L., C.H. Matthews and A.S. Fialko (2001), ‘Founding family
controlled  rms: performance, risk, and value’, Journal of Small Business
Management, 39(1), 31–49.
McConnell, J.J. and H. Servaes (1990), ‘Additional evidence on equity ownership
and corporate value’, Journal of Financial Economics, 27(2), 595–612.
Miller, D. (1983), ‘The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of  rms’,
Management Science, 29(7), 770–91.
Miller, D. and P.H. Friesen (1978), ‘Archetypes of strategy formulation’,
Management Science, 24(9), 921–33.
Miller, D. and I. Le Breton- Miller (2005), Managing for the Long Run: Lessons
in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Miller, D. and J. Shamsie (1996), ‘The resource- based view of the  rm in two
environments: the Hollywood  lm studios from 1936 to 1965’, Academy of
Management Journal, 39(3), 519–43.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer and R.W. Vishny (1988), ‘Management ownership and
market valuation: an empirical analysis’, Journal of Financial Economics, 20,
293–315.
Moreno, A.M. and J.C. Casillas (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and growth
of SMEs: a causal model’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3),
507–28.
Morris, M.H. (1998), Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for
Individuals, Organizations, and Societies, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Naldi, L., M. Nordqvist, K. Sjöberg and J. Wiklund (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial ori-
entation, risk taking, and performance in family  rms’, Family Business Review,
20(1), 33–47.
Naldi, L., M. Nordqvist and T.M. Zellweger (2008), ‘Intangible resources and
family  rm performance: the moderating role family involvement in strategy
making’, Paper presented at the Babson Kaufmann Entrepreneurship Research
Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Nordqvist, M., T.G. Habbershon and L. Melin (2008), ‘Transgenerational entre-
preneurship: exploring EO in family  rms’, in H. Landström, H. Crijns and E.
Laveren (eds), Entrepreneurship, sustainable growth and performance: frontiers in
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 35M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 35 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
36 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
European Entrepreneurship Research. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA,
USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pearson, A.W., J.C. Carr and J.C. Shaw (2008), ‘Toward a theory of familiness: a
social capital perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949–69.
Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Poutziouris, P., K. O’Sullivan and L. Nicolescu (1997), ‘The (re)- generation of
family- business entrepreneurship in the Balkans’, Family Business Review, 10(3),
239–62.
Powell, T.C. (1992), ‘Strategic planning as competitive advantage’, Strategic
Management Journal, 13(7), 551–8.
Poza, E.J. (1988), ‘Managerial practices that support interpreneurship and contin-
ued growth’, Family Business Review, 1(4), 339–59.
Priem, R.L. and J.E. Butler (2001), ‘Is the resource- based “view” a useful perspec-
tive for strategic management research?’, Academy of Management Review,
26(1), 22–40.
Rauch, A., J. Wiklund, G.T. Lumpkin and M. Frese (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial ori-
entation and business performance: an assessment of past research and sugges-
tions for the future’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 76–87.
Rogo , E.G. and R.K.Z. Heck (2003), ‘Evolving research in entrepreneurship and
family business: recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the  re of entrepre-
neurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 559–66.
Rutherford, M.W., D.F. Kuratko and D.T. Holt (2008), ‘Examining the link
between familiness and performance: can the f- pec untangle the family business
theory jungle?’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1089–109.
Salvato, C. (2004), ‘Predictors of entrepreneurship in family  rms’, Journal of
Private Equity, 7(3), 68–76.
Schein, E.H. (1983), ‘The role of the founder in creating organizational culture’,
Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28.
Schulze, W.S., M.H. Lubatkin and R.N. Dino (2003), ‘Toward a theory of agency
and altruism in family  rms’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 473–90.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Scott, M. and P. Rosa (1996), ‘Has  rm level analysis reached its limits? Time for
a rethink’, International Small Business Journal, 14(4), 81–9.
Shane, S.A. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a
eld of research’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–26.
Shanker, M.C. and J.H. Astrachan (1996), ‘Myths and realities: family businesses’
contribution to the U.S. Economy – a framework for assessing family business
statistics’, Family Business Review, 9
(2), 107–18.
Sharma, P. (2004), ‘An overview of the  eld of family business studies: current
status and directions for the future’, Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36.
Sharma, P. (2008), ‘Commentary: familiness: capital stocks and  ows between
family and business’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 971–7.
Sharma, P. and J.J. Chrisman (1999), ‘Toward a reconciliation of the de nitional
issues in the  eld of corporate entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Sharma, P. and P.G. Irving (2005), ‘Four bases of family business successor com-
mitment: antecedents and consequences’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(1), 13–33.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 36M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 36 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
Transgenerational entrepreneurship 37
Sharma, P. and S. Manikutty (2005), ‘Strategic divestments in family  rms: role of
family structure and community culture’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(3), 293–311.
Sharma, P., J.J. Chrisman and J.H. Chua (1997), ‘Strategic management of the
family business: past research and future challenges’, Family Business Review,
10(1), 1–35.
Sirmon, D.G. and M.A. Hitt (2003), ‘Managing resources: linking unique
resources, management, and wealth creation in family  rms’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–58.
Sirmon, D.G., M.A. Hitt and R.D. Ireland (2007), ‘Managing  rm resources in
dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box’, Academy
of Management Review, 32(1), 273–92.
Sorenson, R.L. (1999), ‘Con ict management strategies used by successful family
businesses’, Family Business Review, 12(4), 325–40.
Sraer, D. and D. Thesmar (2007), ‘Performance and behavior of family  rms:
evidence from the French stock market’, Journal of the European Economic
Association, 5(4), 709–51.
Sta ord, K., K.A. Duncan, S. Dane and M. Winter (1999), ‘A research model of
sustainable family businesses’, Family Business Review, 12(3), 197–208.
Steier, L. (2003), ‘Variants of agency contracts in family- nanced ventures as a
continuum of familial altruistic and market rationalities’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(5), 597–618.
Steier, L. (2007), ‘New venture creation and organization: a familial sub- narrative’,
Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1099–107.
Stevenson, H.H. and C.J. Jarillo (1990), ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entre-
preneurial management’, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.
Stulz, R. (1988), ‘Managerial control of voting rights:  nancing policies and the
market for corporate control’, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 25–54.
Tagiuri, R. and J.A. Davis (1982), ‘Bivalent attributes of the family  rm’, Working
paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Reprinted 1996,
Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208.
Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead and M. Wright (2001), ‘The focus of entrepreneurial
research: contextual and process issues’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
25(4), 57–80.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), ‘The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research’,
in J. Katz (ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 119–38.
Venkatraman, N. and V. Ramanujam (1987), ‘Measurement of business perform-
ance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches’, Academy of Management
Review, 11(4), 801–14.
Villalonga, B. and R. Amit (2006), ‘How do family ownership, control and man-
agement a ect rm value?’, Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417.
Volery, T., H. Bergmann, M. Gruber, G. Haour and B. Leleux (2007), Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, Bericht 2007 zum unternehmertum in der schweiz
und weltweit. St Gallen: KMU- HSG.
Ward, J.L. (1997), ‘Growing the family business: special challenges and best prac-
tices’, Family Business Review, 10(4), 323–37.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘The resource- based view of the  rm’, Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), 171–80.
Westhead, P. and M. Cowling (1997), ‘Performance contrasts between family
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 37M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 37 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
38 Transgenerational entrepreneurship
and non- family unquoted companies in the UK’, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 3(1), 30–52.
Westhead, P. and M. Wright (1998), ‘Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are
they di erent?’ Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173–204.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), ‘What constitutes a theoretical contribution?’, Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490–5.
Wiklund, J. (1998), Small Firm Growth and Performance: Entrepreneurship and
Beyond, Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School.
Wiklund, J. and D. Shepherd (2003), ‘Knowledge- based resources, entrepre-
neurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium- sized businesses’,
Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–14.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), ‘Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and  nancial per-
formance: a taxonomic approach’, Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–40.
Zahra, S.A. (1995), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and  nancial performance: the
case of management leveraged buyouts’, Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3),
225–47.
Zahra, S.A. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial risk taking in family  rms’, Family Business
Review, 18(1), 23–40.
Zahra, S.A. and P. Sharma (2004), ‘Family business research: a strategic re ec-
tion’, Family Business Review, 17(4), 331–46.
Zahra, S.A., J.C. Hayton and C. Salvato (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship in family
vs. non- family  rms: a resource- based analysis of the e ect of organizational
culture’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363–81.
Zellweger, T.M. (2006), Risk, Return and Value in the Family Firm, St Gallen:
University of St Gallen.
Zellweger, T.M. (2007), ‘Time horizon, costs of equity capital, and generic invest-
ment strategies of  rms’, Family Business Review, 20(1), 1–15.
Zellweger, T.M. and J.H. Astrachan (2008), ‘On the emotional value of owning a
rm’, Family Business Review, 21(4), 347–363.
Zellweger, T.M. and F.W. Kellermanns (2008), ‘Family  rm reputation concern:
antecedents and performance outcomes’, Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Conference, Anaheim, California.
Zellweger, T.M. and R.S. Nason (2008), ‘A stakeholder perspective on family  rm
performance’, Family Business Review, 21(3), 203–16.
Zellweger, T.M., C. Mühlebach and P. Sieger (2008), ‘How much and what kind
of entrepreneurial orientation is needed for family business continuity?’, Paper
presented at the 8th Annual Ifera Conference. Nyenrode, Breukelen, NED.
M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 38M2184 - NORDQVIST TEXT.indd 38 3/2/10 09:31:443/2/10 09:31:44
... Moreover, family businesses are different because some unique resources can often explain their entrepreneurial behavior (Nordqvist and Zellweger, 2010). For example, heirs are a valuable resource because they can maintain the family's legacy and wealth (Miller et al., 2003). ...
Article
Purpose The present study aims to identify the practices employed to bring heirs into family businesses as successors. Design/methodology/approach We conducted an exploratory, qualitative investigation using a case study approach. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with external consultants and with incumbent leaders, next-generation heirs working in the firm (and likely to become successors) and employees from three family firms from different industries and under ownership and control of different generations of their respective families (first, second and third and fourth generations). In addition to surveying their general perceptions of the succession processes in their firms, each informant was asked to rate the degree of importance of 12 succession practices identified in the literature and the extent to which they exist in their respective firms. Findings Our results showed that heirs typically enter the family business after a development process outside of the family business, which we have termed as coming back to the nest. This process was enacted through practices that we allocated to the following categories: continued development of heirs, developing relationships in the succession process, separation of roles and attitude of the successor heirs. Overall, 8 of the 12 practices derived from the theoretical framework were endorsed as important by representatives of the family businesses and 9 were endorsed by the consultants, 7 of which coincided in both groups. However, only 5 of the practices were identified as present in the firms’ succession processes by the representatives of the family businesses, while the consultants did not identify any of the 12 practices as present. Originality/value We present additional important practices, the adoption of which would be beneficial for family business succession, such as adapting external learning to the family business, acquiring leadership skills and experience and developing emotional intelligence. Our study advances the prior literature since we do not merely discuss succession planning but analyze in an applied manner how succession actually takes place in family businesses.
... Indeed, understanding strategic and risky decisions such as IPO (Lester et al., 2006) in family businesses may involve multiple theoretical lenses and levels of analysis (Leppäaho et al., 2016), which are often interrelated, even if the decision-making process is in the family's hands, as family influence is manifested through the family business goals (Sharma, 2004). The effects of strategic decisions occur at the family and business levels (Habbershon et al., 2010). Further, as there is a dearth of theories on why and how family firms go public via IPO, this study uses an inductive multiple-case study methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989). ...
Article
This study investigates why and how family firms go public via initial public offering (IPO) and explores how family firms’ distinctive traits contribute to specific IPO behavior. The results show that family firms face IPO following three paths— shine, continue, and challenge. Family IPO firms emphasize control, identification, and succession ( shine); focus on family social capital, responsibility toward stakeholders, and family business identity ( continue); and highlight control, identification, new leaders’ self-affirmation, and generational transfers ( challenge). We uncover the complexities of emotional endowment—a reference point for making IPO decisions and a resource or constraint to engage in the IPO process.
... Fourth, we encourage scholars to address questions about how construals can be actively shaped and/or whether or how they can change over time. For instance, these questions resonate with research on transgenerational entrepreneurship (Habbershon et al., 2010;Jaskiewicz et al., 2015), which seeks to understand how some FFs are able to maintain their entrepreneurial spirit across generations, as construals may be antecedents of these entrepreneurial actions. In addition, construal level theory could inform research on FF conflict and cohesion (Bettinelli et al., 2022), since each family member builds her/ his construal egocentrically, but must ultimately confer and agree to make decisions. ...
Article
Digital product innovation (DPI) is critical for the survival of firms, especially those operating in traditional industrial-age industries. While research has started to investigate digital innovation in family firms (FFs) considering them as a monolithic group, we still lack a more nuanced perspective that considers heterogeneity among FFs with respect to DPI and what drives such variance. Drawing on construal level theory to explain the risk behavior and goal time horizon of FF owner-managers, we propose and find that the presence of later family generations in control positively influences DPI in FFs, while the presence of a family CEO is detrimental to DPI. Furthermore, we propose that these relationships are moderated by the size of the top management team (TMT), finding that a larger TMT weakens the positive relationship between later generations in control and DPI. We base our analysis on a longitudinal sample of 103 FFs in the automotive, industrial engineering, and pharmaceutical sectors observed from 2013 to 2020. This first empirical study applying construal level theory to the family business literature has important implications for the FF digital innovation literature and for FF owner-managers interested in achieving DPI.
... Although it is widely recognized that entrepreneurial families, i.e. families that own one or more businesses and pursue entrepreneurial activities across generations (Capolupo et al., 2022), can stimulate an entrepreneurial attitude and behavior in their family members by exposing children to entrepreneurial role models , passing on skills, knowledge, and career opportunities (Rogoff & Heck, 2003;Bettinelli et al., 2014;Randerson et al., 2015) and providing social, financial, and human capital (Estrada-Robles et al., 2021), we have little knowledge about motives, factors, and conditions that may prompt children to pursue entrepreneurial careers outside family businesses. Most studies have investigated how entrepreneurial families can feed new generations' entrepreneurial attitudes and motivate designated successors to ensure the viability of family businesses and their survival over time (Habbershon et al., 2010;Zellweger & Sieger, 2012;Michael-Tsabari et al., 2014;Canovi et al., 2022). Conversely, few scholars have focused on non-successors and their entrepreneurial choices. ...
Chapter
Family firms are a vital element of our economy and society and their continuity through intrafamily succession has been the focus of academic debate for several decades, recently with particular emphasis on the role of daughters. Research has deeply investigated how entrepreneurial families can nurture entrepreneurial attitudes across generations and what factors may hinder or favor daughters in being chosen as successors. However, little is known about daughters who voluntarily decide to leave the family business, despite the possibility of serving as the successor, to engage their entrepreneurial legacy in creating new enterprises. This paper investigates the experiences of a daughter who decided to give up her role of family business successor to start her own, new venture. It aims to identify the reasons behind this daughter’s decision and to understand how her experience in the family business has contributed to the formation of her entrepreneurial identity. Placed in the research field of family entrepreneurship and drawing on a case study, this paper shows that for some daughters, joining their family firms may be an unattractive option, even if they have been designated as successors. Personal motivations, ambitions, and family needs may prompt some daughters to exploit their entrepreneurial legacy by pursuing an independent entrepreneurial career. In the analyzed case, this process occurred in the form of a metamorphosis: while the daughter entered the family business with the intention to take on leadership within a few years, her experience as a manager grew and enriched her skills, and accentuated her self-efficacy, creativity, and risk-taking, to the point of inspiring the emergence of an entrepreneurial intention and prompting her to create a new enterprise. Findings also show that the family can play a decisive role in this process of entrepreneurial identity formation as a source of learning, encouragement, and inspiration.
... The survey questionnaire comprised of three parts. The first part asked questions to determine if the organization where respondents were working was considered a private family firm based on the definition by Nordqvist and Zellweger (2010), and the next question determined whether the respondent could be considered as an NFE, by not being related to the firm' owners either by blood or marriage (Razzak et al., 2022). The second part of the questionnaire gathered information about demographic details of the respondents. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Workplace thriving (WT), self-job crafting (SJC), and workplace belongingness (WB) have been shown to lead to positive outcomes for organizations and their employees. However, there seems to be a dearth of insights into the relationship between the three constructs, and non-existent in the context of non-family employees (NFEs) working in private family firms. Therefore, this study examines whether enabling NFEs to craft their own jobs leads them to reappraise their position in the organization, thus influencing both WB and WT. Design/methodology/approach Leaning on the conservation of resources (COR) theory and with the support of the self-determination theory (SDT), a set of hypotheses is posited relating the dimensions of SJC (seeking resources, seeking challenges and job-demand reduction) to WT, through WB as a mediator. The hypotheses are tested through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) by collecting survey data from 256 NFEs working in private family firms in Oman. Findings The results indicate that all three dimensions of job crafting have a positive influence on WB. In the case of direct effect on WT, only the relationship between seeking challenges and WT was significant. However, the relationships between all 3 dimensions of SJC and WT became significant through WB as mediator. Research limitations/implications The implication of this study is that merely empowering non-family employees to craft their own jobs may not lead them to thrive in private family firms. However, if they appraise such empowerment as significant resource-gain that leads them to feel that they belong to the organization, then it is likely to enhance WT. Practical implications This study presents evidence for private family firms that by emphasizing on creating a sense of belongingness among their non-family employees, they can create a workplace where such employees can thrive. Originality/value Three novel contributions are presented through this research: (1) this appears to be the first study that integrates the COR theory with SDT to enrich the fragmented literature on NFEs in family firms by presenting an integrated framework that links SJC, WB and WT, (2) the study presents nuanced insights into the relationships between the dimensions of SJC and WT and (3) finally, this study provides evidence on the mediating role of WB between dimensions of SJC and WT, which seems to be overlooked in the past.
... Entrepreneurship refers to the mind-set, attitudes, and beliefs that orient a person toward pursuing entrepreneurial (business) activities (Habbershon et al., 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
While the literature highlights the important role played by family values in family businesses, knowledge on the nature of these values is limited or close to non-existent from certain perspectives, notably an indigenous African family business perspective. Therefore, utilizing seven indigenous Black South African family businesses as case studies, our study seeks to identify the family value sets in the business-owning families using a qualitative design. The findings show that these families uphold and teach the next-generation (NextGen) four family value sets, namely moral and ethical, economic, spiritual and religious, and cultural values. The NextGen is expected to use these value sets as they navigate their lives in and outside the family. Our study contributes to theory by identifying, developing and providing detailed insights into the nature of family values from an indigenous Black South African business-owning family perspective, and our value classification framework potentially provides other researchers with a theoretical foundation to conduct further research. Business-owning families should uphold value sets that accommodate the needs of individual family members, entire business-owning families, and their respective cultures. We also believe that non-indigenous businesses need to understand the family value sets upheld by indigenous Black African businesses to engage with them appropriately and improve business relationships.
Article
Full-text available
Ninety-nine percent of family business articles tend to justify their studies by stating that “the majority of businesses in the world are family firms” and often assume that “family” is defined as a nuclear or extended traditional family bound by socio-legal obligations (Aldrich et al., 2021; Hoskisson et al., 2017). However, sociologists have extensively explained how various changes—cultural, economic, social, political, and demographic—have influenced the formation, arrangement, and meaning of different family configurations (e.g., Gilding, 2010; Kushins and Behounek, 2020). For instance, research (Chambers and Garcia, 2021; Wagner et al., 2015), and government reports (Copen et al., 2012; Eurostat, 2018; Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013) have primarily documented the phenomenon of decreasing marriages and increasing divorces. Sociologists have also explored the impact of new alternative living arrangements on public opinions and social behaviors. This includes, for example, same-sex marriages (Carpenter et al., 2021; Lee and Mutz, 2019), single-parent families (Yorks, 2022), different/same-sex common-law couples (Carter and Duncan, 2018), and post-divorce and blended families—where couples may divorce and live separately with their children, or even live together for the “sake” of their children. Family science scholars have also highlighted the rise and prevalence of stepfamilies compared to first-marriage families (Coleman et al., 2000; Dunn and Ly-Donovan, 2021). Stepfamilies are defined as households where two adults have entered a relationship with a new partner, and at least one partner has offspring from a previous relationship (Ganong and Coleman, 2004). This shift reflects changing societal norms and the increasing rates of divorce and remarriage, resulting in more complex family dynamics and structures. Consequently, what has been defined as a “non-traditional” or “modern” family includes households with alternative family structures such as same-sex marriages, single-parent families, different/same-sex common-law couples, and post-divorce blended families. Still, extant family business literature seems “to not care”. When examining family firm behaviors, social relationships, structures, and processes (e.g., succession), scholars tend to assume and search for a traditional family structure beyond the business. They typically exclude the possibility that alternative living arrangements might affect family firm dynamics and processes. With few emerging exceptions (e.g., Jaskiewicz and Dyer, 2017), the question of how modern family arrangements affect family organizational dynamics, business strategies, and outcomes remains largely ignored in the literature. With the present special issue on “Modern Family Firms: The Missing Piece in Family Business Studies,” we aim to open a critical and contemporary debate on “modern” family firms—specifically, those owned/managed by modern families. This initiative challenges the numerous in-house assumptions and current perspectives that overlook the evolving nature of traditional families into modern family structures. We trust that this special issue will provoke and advance family business and entrepreneurship research, encouraging scholars to consider alternative family arrangements and their effects on decision-makers' behaviors and firm outcomes.
Article
Purpose Resilience of long-lived family businesses has been widely acknowledged but the mechanisms enabling longevity need to be further investigated. This can be done by examining how narratives about crisis situations are processed in family firms. Design/methodology/approach Based on narrative interviews, this qualitative study examines how crisis situations have been dealt with and narrated by long-lived German family firms. Findings Narratives of survival can have a strengthening effect so they become also narratives for survival. The analysis reveals how the constructive management of crises contributes to emotional attachment, identification and commitment and also strengthens resilience and longevity. Originality/value The study contributes to narrative identity theory by answering calls for narrative analysis and capturing the influence of narratives on family firms and business families. The discussion of the findings leads to the narrative processing model showing how past crises are processes to gain identity and resilience in the future and how the business family can influence this process.
Article
Full-text available
After more than four decades of China’s reform and opening up, many family businesses in China are welcoming the peak of trans-generational inheritance. Therefore, more research is needed to help the second-generation successors avoid the potential negative effect of trans-generational conflicts and keep and maintain the sustainable development of their family businesses. To fill these gaps in the literature, this paper explores the impact of trans-generational conflicts on trans-generational entrepreneurial performance and investigates the moderating role of first-generation entrepreneurs’ business and social networks. Based on a survey data captured from the 221 matched responses from founder and second-generation successors dyads in China, we found that both cognitive and process conflicts have negative effects on trans-generational entrepreneurial performance, and process conflict has a greater negative impact than cognitive conflict. Furthermore, we found that the first-generation entrepreneurs’ business and social networks independently alleviate the negative impact of cognitive conflict on trans-generational entrepreneurial performance. By examining the three-way inaction effect, we also found that the negative effect of process conflict on trans-generational entrepreneurial performance is alleviated. Theoretical and managerial implications are also provided.
Article
Full-text available
Using proxy data on all Fortune-500 firms during 1994–2000, we find that family ownership creates value only when the founder serves as CEO of the family firm or as Chairman with a hired CEO. Dual share classes, pyramids, and voting agreements reduce the founder's premium. When descendants serve as CEOs, firm value is destroyed. Our findings suggest that the classic owner-manager conflict in nonfamily firms is more costly than the conflict between family and nonfamily shareholders in founder-CEO firms. However, the conflict between family and nonfamily shareholders in descendant-CEO firms is more costly than the owner-manager conflict in nonfamily firms.
Article
Full-text available
This article uses the six key specification decisions for entrepreneurship research (purpose, theoretical perspective, focus, level of analysis, time frame, and methodology) outlined in Low and MacMillan (1988) to explore unstated assumptions in entrepreneurship theory development. An article by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research, is analyzed and recommended as a model for clarity. A recommendation is made that the field of entrepreneurship needs to develop communities of scholars identified with specific research questions and issues.
Article
This article explores how the family Influences an entrepreneur's career. There are various points In time where family and entrepreneurial dynamics intersect. These Include: (1) early experiences In the entrepreneur's family of origin; (2) family Involvement and support of early start-up activities; (3) employment of family members In the new venture; and (4) involvement of family members In ownership and management succession. The article explores each of these four areas and suggests research questions that need to be explored to develop a better understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurs and their families.
Article
The primary purpose of this article is to clarify the nature of the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) construct and to propose a contingency framework for investigating the relationship between EO and firm performance. We first explore and refine the dimensions of EO and discuss the usefulness of viewing a firm's EO as a multidimensional construct. Then, drawing on examples from the EO-related contingencies literature, we suggest alternative models (moderating effects, mediating effects, independent effects, interaction effects) for testing the EO-performance relationship.
Article
Understanding sources of sustained competitive advantage has become a major area of research in strategic management. Building on the assumptions that strategic resources are heterogeneously distributed across firms and that these differences are stable over time, this article examines the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Four empirical indicators of the potential of firm resources to generate sustained competitive advantage-value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability are discussed. The model is applied by analyzing the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages. The article concludes by examining implications of this firm resource model of sustained competitive advantage for other business disciplines.
Article
This article proposes that the fields of entrepreneurship and family business consist of separate and distinct but overlapping domains. The intersection of the two domains provides a unique perspective from which to examine six strategic management issues: leadership, culture, boards of directors, life cycles, strategic management processes, and ethics and values. Gartner's eight principal ideas or themes In the study of entrepreneurship are used to describe the areas of commonality of entrepreneurship and family business. The Gartner framework has implications both for scholars and practitioners.
Article
The history of entrepreneurship research offers some insights into the future of family business research. These Insights suggest possible developmental processes for the family business research field and offer opportunities for family business researchers to build upon the foundations prepared by entrepreneurship researchers. History offers cautions as well to the future and value of family business research.