Content uploaded by Joshua J. Daspit
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua J. Daspit on Dec 31, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Joshua J. Daspit
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua J. Daspit on Aug 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Knowledge management in family firms: a
systematic review, integrated insights and
future research opportunities
Emma Su and Joshua Daspit
Abstract
Purpose –The literature related to knowledge management (KM) is robust with respect to insights
regarding firms in general. However, less is known about the KM of family firms despite these firms being the
most common form of business organization worldwide. Further, even though the number of studies
examining family-firm KM has increased in recent years, the insights gained remain fragmented. Therefore,
the purpose of this study is to help coalesce and advance the study of family-firm KM.
Design/methodology/approach –In pursuit of these goals, a systematic literature review was
conducted. Using a 6-step, systematic literature review protocol, 74 articles focused on family-firm KM
published in 23 journals were identified and reviewed.
Findings –This literature review contributes to the synthesis and advancement of family-firm KM
scholarship in several ways. First, key factors and relationships are identified and integrated into a
robust framework. Second, scholarly insights are synthesized, and a review of the primary
antecedents, outcomes and moderating factors associated with family-firm KM processes is
presented. Third, promising opportunities for future research are highlighted to advance family-firm
KM scholarship.
Originality/value –With a focus on reducing the fragmentation in the literature, this review synthesizes
insights related to the most commonly studied antecedents, outcomes and moderators associated with
family-firm KM. Additionally, antecedents are organized and reviewed according to the nature of their
influence on family-firm KM processes, highlighting the simultaneous opposite effects of some
influences. Further, key outcomes are synthesized based on their family versus firm-centric orientation.
Even further, insights and opportunities focused on advancing the theory, antecedents, outcomes,
moderators and other issues related to family-firm KM are presented in an effort to support the continued
progress of scholarship in this area.
Keywords Family firms, Knowledge management, Literature review, Future research directions
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
The “knowledge economy” is upon us. In recent years, scientists have increasingly
noted the transition of advanced industrial nations from economies based on physical
inputs to the increased reliance on knowledge-based assets (Latilla et al.,2018;Powell and
Snellman, 2004). Accordingly, knowledge is recognized as the most important resource in
corporate operations (Singla et al.,2020;Spender, 1996), and because of this, the ability of
firms to strategically manage knowledge is paramount. Knowledge management (KM) –or
the systematic management of knowledge implemented via processes [1]thatare
designed to facilitate the creation, storage, transfer and application of knowledge (Del
Giudice et al., 2010)–is vital for firm survival and success. While robust literature offers
insight into factors associated with the KM of firms in general, less is known about the
factors related to the KM of family firms specifically.
Emma Su is based at the
Department of
Management and
Marketing, University of
Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Joshua Daspit is based at
the Department of
Management, McCoy
College of Business, Texas
State University, San
Marcos, Texas, USA.
Received 31 August 2020
Revised 25 January 2021
6 June 2021
7 August 2021
Accepted 9 August 2021
The authors would like to thank
Dr Arzubiaga and the
anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments and
guidance throughout the review
process.
DOI 10.1108/JKM-08-2020-0658 ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
Family firms are businesses owned and/or managed by a family or families with
transgenerational succession intentions (Chua et al., 1999). Family firms range in size and
are the predominant form of business organization worldwide (Miller and Le Breton-Miller,
2005). Compared to nonfamily firms, family firms can have unique resources and
capabilities (Habbershon et al.,2003), governance configurations (Daspit et al., 2018)and
nonfinancial goals (Chrisman et al.,2021;G
omez-Mejı
´aet al.,2007). These and other
idiosyncratic characteristics, which result from the family’s involvement in the firm, are
known to influence KM processes in both positive and negative ways (Del Giudice et al.,
2010). The range of effects from these unique characteristics creates opportunities for
investigating the emergence and influence of factors that are not easily (or ever) observed
in nonfamily firms. Furthermore, while the number of studies on family-firm KM has
increased in recent years, the insights gained remain fragmented. This fragmentation has
resulted, in part, from a salient focus in the literature on understanding family-firm
innovation [2], overshadowing the attention given to the underlying KM processes of family
firms. Even further, measurement challenges –coupled with the conceptual complexity of
family-specific characteristics –have also contributed to the fragmentation of the family-firm
KM literature. If this fragmentation persists (or is exacerbated), it is likely to result in the
inability to articulate differences among family firms, create theoretical inaccuracies, lead to
empirical indeterminacies and limit the precision of practitioner recommendations (Chua
et al.,2012;Melin and Nordqvist, 2007).
Given that the knowledge of family-firm KM remains fragmented despite an increasing
number of studies, we aim to help coalesce research in this area by reviewing the extant
literature, synthesizing insights and offering directions for the advancement of scholarly
work. To this end, we reviewed 74 articles on family-firm KM published in 23 journals. The
findings of the review are integrated into a conceptual model consisting of antecedents,
outcomes and moderators related to the primary KM processes. Further, to highlight the
divergent nature of influences, we note both the positive and negative effects of the most
commonly studied antecedents. In addition, outcomes are categorized according to their
family-centric versus firm-centric orientation and the (moderating) boundary conditions on
prominent relationships are identified.
This review offers several contributions to the literature. First, given the disjointed nature of
scholarly work on family-firm KM, this review helps to coalesce academic insights by
providing a synthesized understanding of the current state of knowledge. By integrating
insights into a robust framework of antecedents, outcomes and moderating factors, we
support the progress of knowledge that bridges gaps in this area of study. Second, given
the idiosyncratic effects that result from the family’s involvement in the firm, we elucidate
both the positive and negative effects on KM, highlighting factors that have simultaneous
opposite effects on KM. Further, we note that the effect of some factors varies depending
on the KM process examined. Third, we contribute to the advancement of family-firm KM
scholarship by synthesizing insights from the current literature and illuminating
opportunities for future research.
2. Knowledge management processes
For the modern firm, the ability to appropriately manage knowledge is essential for survival and
success. Given this importance, scholarly work in this area has become increasingly relevant
as both researchers and practitioners seek to understand how best to systematically manage
knowledge. This systematic management is often implemented via knowledge-related
processes in the firm (Del Giudice et al.,2010). While firms vary in how knowledge is managed,
studies note that social and organizational dynamics are among the most salient factors that
contribute to a firm’s successful KM (Inkinen, 2016). Researchers generally agree that KM is a
multi-component process involving knowledge-related activities that occur within and across
the organization’s boundaries for value-creation purposes (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014;Durst and Edvardsson, 2012;Edvardsson, 2009). Given this
consensus, we organize this review following the seminal work of Alavi and Leidner (2001),who
developed a multi-process framework grounded in the sociology of knowledge.
Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) framework acknowledges the social nature of KM by viewing
firms as “social collectives” with “knowledge systems.” The sociological underpinnings of
this framework align with the idiosyncratic manifestations that result from the family’s
involvement in the firm. In other words, due to the family’s involvement, family firms
possess unique forms of social capital (Herrero, 2018), foster trust-based interpersonal
exchanges (Long and Mathews, 2011), and in general, are unique given the integration
of the family’s relational dynamics in the firm (Habbershon et al., 2003). This seminal
framework by Alavi and Leidner (2001) complements the unique nature of the family firm;
thus we follow this conceptualization and organize our review based on the four primary
KM processes of knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer
and knowledge application.
2.1 Knowledge creation
Knowledge creation is the development of new knowledge that typically results in new
ideas, inventions, practices and/or products, which includes replacing existing firm
knowledge (Pentland, 1995;Phelps et al.,2012). Knowledge creation often involves the
interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge and is typically created through individuals’
cognitive processes, as well as collaborative mechanisms (Nonaka, 1994). In other words,
social interactions among organizational members can facilitate the creation of new
knowledge as new insights are developed through communication; however, knowledge
creation can also occur, for example, when current knowledge is combined, when tacit
knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge (e.g. creating formalized practices) or when
explicit knowledge is converted to tacit knowledge (e.g. individual learning from reading)
(Nonaka, 1994).
2.2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
While firms create knowledge, they also have a “memory” and can “forget” (Argote et al.,
1990). The storage and retrieval of knowledge, or organizational memory (Walsh and
Ungson, 1991), is integral to effective KM (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Organizational memory
is “[...] the means by which knowledge from the past, experience, and events influence
present organizational activities” (Stein and Zwass, 1995: 85). Knowledge can be
embedded for storage in various explicit and tacit forms, which include manuals,
databases, culture and work processes (Moorman and Miner, 1998). In addition to storing
knowledge, recalling the appropriate knowledge when needed –either from a knowledge
repository or other storage system –allows stored knowledge to be retrieved for later use
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
2.3 Knowledge transfer
Given its distributed nature, knowledge may require being transferred to a new location
prior to application (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Knowledge transfer can be affected by
elements such as motivational disposition of the sending unit in terms of a willingness to
share knowledge, motivational disposition of the receiving unit regarding a willingness to
acquire knowledge from the source and the existence of transmission channels (Gupta and
Govindarajan, 2000). Knowledge transfer can take place at various levels, which include
between and/or among individuals, groups, organizations. Communication channels
facilitate the transfer of knowledge through means that are formal (e.g. training sessions),
informal (e.g. coffee-break conversations), personal (e.g. apprenticeships) and/or
impersonal (e.g. knowledge repositories) in nature (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). The most
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
effective transfer mechanism also depends on the type of knowledge being transferred and
the entities involved (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998).
2.4 Knowledge application
Knowledge itself does not necessarily directly lead to organizational outcomes; however,
the effective application of knowledge is where commercial value is realized (Kogut and
Zander, 1992). As noted by Grant (1996), effective knowledge application is typically
governed by clear organizational directives (e.g. rules and procedures) with refined
routines embedded in the firm that allow for application efficiency. Firm routines, which are
developed based on coordination patterns and protocols, are important mechanisms for
knowledge application because they allow individuals to integrate and use their knowledge
without the need to communicate what they know to others (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). In
short, without a systematic approach for applying knowledge within the firm, simply
possessing stocks of knowledge yields marginal value, if any.
3. An overview of family-firm knowledge management
In the broader KM literature, most research focuses on KM processes in the context
of large, professionalized, nonfamily firms (Gray, 2006). As a result, less is known,
comparatively, about the factors that relate to these processes in family firms. Even though
the number of family-firm KM studies continues to increase, the collective insights gained
have remained limited despite the importance of managing knowledge for this type of
organization: the most predominant form of enterprise worldwide (Miller and Le Breton-
Miller, 2005).
While knowledge is valuable for all firms, family firms have characteristics that offer unique
potential with respect to KM. For instance, family firms can generate deep levels of firm-
specific tacit knowledge given the longer tenures of family firm leaders (Lee et al.,2003;
Sirmon and Hitt, 2003), and family firms are commonly considered long-term-oriented given
their desire to pass the business on to future generations (Brigham et al.,2014;Chua et al.,
1999), underscoring the importance of managing knowledge across generations. This
transgenerational knowledge exchange includes the knowledge transferred from the
incumbent to the successor, which is paramount for preparing the successor to lead the
firm (Cabrera-Su
arez et al.,2018;Dou et al.,2020;Woodfield and Husted, 2017). Family
firms, being deeply rooted in traditions, also represent a particularly unique context for
understanding organizational memory and how their past knowledge affects their present
activities. For example, studies suggest that family firms are able to store prior knowledge
and then retrieve this knowledge for the purpose of unique value creation, which is referred
as “innovating through tradition” (De Massis et al.,2016).
Additionally, family firms can have an advantage over their nonfamily counterparts with an
enhanced relational flow among family members that facilitates knowledge transfer,
especially the transfer of tacit knowledge (Cunningham et al.,2016;Su and Carney, 2013).
Further, the commitment to change among kin and their prior history together also foster the
efficient exchange and application of knowledge (Brinkerink, 2018;Chirico and Salvato,
2008).
On the other hand, family firms also have characteristics that potentially limit KM processes.
For instance, family firms tend to be more insular and less likely to engage in external
knowledge exchange given the economies created among kin with the internal transfer of
tacit knowledge (Patel and Fiet, 2011). Moreover, family firms are noted for their pursuit of
socioemotional wealth (SEW; G
omez-Mejı
´aet al., 2007). The pursuit of these noneconomic
goals can restrict the extent to which family firms share knowledge with nonfamily actors
given the lack of trust and the risk of losing control (Brinkerink, 2018).
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
Nonetheless, while family firms, in general, exhibit unique behaviors when compared to
nonfamily firms, not all family firms are the same. Specifically, studies have shown salient
differences among family firms (see review by Daspit et al., 2021). The generation in control,
for instance, is a prominent factor that creates differences among family firms (Cruz and
Nordqvist, 2012;Gersick et al., 1997). Pittino et al. (2018), in their study of psychological
ownership as an influence of entrepreneurial orientation (EO), show that the link between
psychological ownership and EO is mediated through knowledge sharing. However, the
effect of psychological ownership on knowledge sharing is not constant; the effect differs
based on the family generation in control with the effect being weaker in later-generation
family firms (Pittino et al.,2018). The social ties among kin supported by bonding
relationships and traditions are more prevalent in earlier-generation family firms, and these
relational mechanisms facilitate knowledge-sharing activities. Furthermore, the effect is
reduced by professionalization, which is more common in later-generation firms (Pittino
et al.,2018
).
In addition to a range of influences observed in the literature, the fragmentation of family-
firm KM scholarship is exacerbated by inconsistent conceptualizations of KM-specific
processes and an overall lack of insights synthesized across disciplinary boundaries. The
fragmentation in this area of study is similar to the fragmentation recently observed in
the family-firm internationalization literature (see the review by Debellis et al., 2021b). Like
the scholarly work in that area, the study of family-firm KM suffers from a lack of consistency
in its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. Therefore, we proceed with the objective to
help coalesce insights through a systematic review of the literature.
4. Scope of the review
To conduct a comprehensive review of the literature, we followed a systematic approach
used by Stephan (2018) that is based on the work of Tranfield et al. (2003). Our systematic
approach includes a six-step protocol (Figure 1 provides an overview). First, following the
review of Debellis et al. (2021b), we conducted a broad search (not restricted by date) of
article titles, keywords and abstracts using a comprehensive set of search terms [3]. To
ensure a robust search, we conducted the search using the following two commonly used
databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) [4](Hern
andez-Linares and L
opez-
Fern
andez, 2018). The searches were conducted to find content published in major
management and organization-focused journals using the journal-selection criteria used by
Debellis et al. (2021b). Accordingly, we combined the Financial Times top-50 journals with
journals ranked as “3” or above in the 2018 ABS Academic Journal Guide that were
categorized as part of the following subject areas: business history and economic history;
entrepreneurship and small business management; general management, ethics, gender
and social responsibility; international business and area studies; innovation; marketing;
Figure 1 Article selection process
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
organization studies; and strategy. In addition, the Journal of Knowledge Management and
Journal of Family Business Strategy were included given the relevance of these journals to
the review topic [5]. The search, which was conducted within a total of 110 journals,
identified 36 articles from the Scopus database and 64 articles from the WoS database [6].
The identified articles were then combined and reviewed for duplicates, resulting in 71
articles.
In the second step, “in press” articles were identified. To this end, articles that were
available ahead of publication (i.e. articles made available after journal acceptance but
prior to publication in a dedicated journal issue) were searched using the same search-
related criteria noted in the previous step. This search was conducted in all 110 journals by
visiting each website directly. This step led to identifying 2 additional articles, bringing the
total to 73 articles.
In the third step, we reviewed each article in more detail following the work of Andreini et al.
(2020). To be included in the review, each article was required to examine at least one KM
process [7]. Further, the article was required to examine a KM process in the context of
family firms or in the case of comparison studies, compare such process between family
and nonfamily (or potentially other) firms. Editorials, conference proceedings, book
chapters, review articles and pedagogical studies were excluded. To provide a thorough
review, conceptual articles were included. In all, 27 articles were removed due to lack of fit,
leaving 46 relevant articles.
In the next two steps, we sought to ensure the robustness of the search. Specifically, in the
fourth step, following Schnatterly et al. (2018), we examined the references of the 46
identified articles and reviewed studies that directly cite these articles. For inclusion, the
title, abstract, keywords, and, when necessary, the full study were examined to ensure
compliance with the aforementioned inclusion criteria. This resulted in 24 new articles being
identified.
In the fifth step, the authors who commonly publish on this topic were identified and their
other publications were examined. Following the protocol of Aguinis and Glavas (2012),we
identified authors with at least two publications who were included in our article pool. Then,
the publication record of each identified author was examined with the intention of
identifying additional, relevant work. This process led to the addition of 4 articles that met
the inclusion criteria. Thus, the final corpus includes 74 articles that are published in 23
journals [8].
Finally, in the sixth step, each article was coded and categorized. In addition to capturing
basic identifying information for each article, we coded the following components when
relevant: the article’s research question(s); whether a conceptual or empirical contribution;
the primary KM process(es) examined; antecedent(s), outcome(s) and moderator(s) related
to the KM process(es); theoretical framework; details on the sample and method(s) used for
empirical studies; main finding(s); and other data. Table 1 provides a summary of the
corpus of articles.
5. Organizing framework and review findings
Given the developing nature of work in this area, we report on the key constructs and
relationships identified from our review of family-firm KM scholarship. These key findings are
integrated using an organizing framework of antecedents, outcomes and moderators
related to the primary KM processes (for similar frameworks, see: Combs et al.,2011;Kwon
et al.,2020
;Wan et al.,2011). Figure 2 displays the organizing framework and key
constructs. The findings of the review are presented below with a focus on the primary
antecedents, outcomes and moderating factors. Finally, integrated insights and future
research opportunities are offered.
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
Table 1 Summary of articles included in the review of family-firm KM
Author(s) and year
Empirical/
conceptual Theory/perspective
Research
area(s) Primary KM process(es)
Aiello et al. (2020) Empirical SEW; family social capital 2 Knowledge transfer
Ayyagari et al. (2011) Empirical Not specified 1 Knowledge transfer
Baday Yıldız et al. (2021) Empirical Behavioral theory of the firm; dynamic
capabilities
2 Knowledge application
Bamel and Bamel (2018) Empirical RBV; dynamic capabilities 2 Knowledge application
Barros et al. (2016) Conceptual Dynamic capabilities; SEW 2 Knowledge application
Basco (2015) Conceptual Absorptive capacity 2 Knowledge application
Biscotti et al. (2018) Empirical KBV; identity 1,2 Knowledge creation
Boh et al. (2020) Empirical Organizational learning; SEW 2 Knowledge application
Bouncken et al. (2020) Empirical KBV 1,3 Knowledge creation
Boyd and Hollensen
(2012)
Empirical Absorptive capacity 2 Knowledge application
Brinkerink and Rondi
(2021)
Empirical Institutional theory 1 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Brinkerink (2018) Empirical Absorptive capacity; organizational
learning
1 Knowledge application, creation
Cabrera-Su
arez et al.
(2011)
Conceptual RBV; stakeholder theory 2,3 Various KM processes
Cabrera-Su
arez et al.
(2011)
Conceptual KBV; RBV 1,2 Knowledge transfer
Cabrera-Su
arez et al.
(2018)
Conceptual RBV; KBV 1 Knowledge creation
Casprini et al. (2017) Empirical KBV 2 Knowledge transfer, application
Cesinger et al. (2016) Empirical Uppsala model; SEW 1,2 Knowledge transfer
Chaudhary and Batra
(2018)
Empirical Absorptive capacity; KBV 2 Knowledge application
Chirico and Nordqvist
(2010)
Empirical Dynamic capabilities 2 Various KM processes
Chirico and Salvato
(2008)
Conceptual KBV 1,2 Knowledge application
Chirico and Salvato
(2016)
Empirical KBV 2,3 Knowledge creation
Chirico (2008) Empirical KBV 1 Knowledge transfer, application
Chirico et al. (2011) Empirical Resource orchestration 2 Knowledge transfer
Cunningham et al. (2016) Empirical Path-goal theory 1 Knowledge transfer
Cunningham et al. (2017) Empirical KBV 1,3 Knowledge transfer
Daspit et al. (2019) Conceptual Dynamic capabilities; absorptive capacity;
familiness
1,2,3 Knowledge application
De Massis et al. (2018) Empirical RBV 2 Knowledge application
Debellis et al. (2021a) Conceptual Ability and willingness perspective 1,2 Knowledge transfer, application
Debicki et al. (2020) Empirical Social capital; SEW 2,3 Knowledge application
Dou et al. (2020) Empirical Social learning theory 2 Knowledge transfer
Erdogan et al. (2020) Empirical Family imprinting perspective 2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Fang et al. (2018) Empirical KBV 2 Knowledge application
Fern
andez Moya (2010) Empirical Not specified 1,2 Knowledge transfer
Giovannoni et al. (2011) Empirical KBV 1 Knowledge transfer
Glyptis et al. (2021) Empirical Dynamic capabilities; RBV 1 Knowledge application
Hatak and Roessl (2015) Empirical KBV 1 Knowledge transfer
Hern
andez-Perlines et al.
(2017)
Empirical Absorptive capacity 2 Knowledge application
Herrero and Hughes
(2019)
empirical Social capital; family social capital 2,3 Knowledge transfer
Howorth et al. (2004) Conceptual Agency theory 1,2 Knowledge transfer
Jaskiewicz et al. (2013) Conceptual Social exchange theory 1,2 Knowledge transfer
Jones and Craven (2001) Empirical Absorptive capacity 1 Knowledge application
Kammerlander et al.
(2015)
Empirical KBV; path dependence 2 Knowledge transfer, storage/
retrieval
(continued)
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
5.1 Antecedents of knowledge management processes in family firms
Our review of family-firm KM finds that, relatively, a notable amount of research has been
conducted on the antecedents of KM processes in family firms. Given the unique nature of
the family’s involvement in the firm, our review finds that antecedents –especially those
that are family-specific –can be categorized based on the nature of their influence: positive
and/or negative effects on KM. To this end, for each KM process, we categorize
antecedents based on the nature of their influence, focusing on the most commonly
investigated antecedents.
5.1.1 Knowledge creation. 5.1.1.1 Positive effects. When the family is involved in the firm, a
unique bundle of resources and capabilities manifest that are distinct to family firms
(Habbershon and Williams, 1999;Habbershon et al., 2003). Although this “familiness”
includes a range of unique, family-influenced features, one of the resources most commonly
Table 1
Author(s) and year
Empirical/
conceptual Theory/perspective
Research
area(s) Primary KM process(es)
Kotlar et al. (2020) Conceptual Absorptive capacity 1,3 Knowledge transfer, application
Kotlar et al. (2013) Empirical Behavioral agency model 1,3 Knowledge transfer, application
LeCounte (2020) Conceptual KBV 2 Knowledge transfer
Lee et al. (2003) Conceptual Game theory 2 Knowledge transfer
Madison et al. (2021) Empirical Transactive memory systems theory 2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Magistretti et al. (2020) Empirical KBV 2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Manzaneque et al. (2020) Empirical Behavioral theory of the firm 1,2,3 Knowledge transfer, application
Mazzola et al. (2008) Empirical Grounded theory 1 Knowledge creation
Ng and Keasey (2010) Empirical Absorptive capacity 2 Knowledge application
Patel and Fiet (2011) Conceptual Family business dynamics 1,2 Knowledge creation, application
Perez and Puig (2004) Conceptual New institutionalism and sociological
perspectives
2 Knowledge transfer
Pittino et al. (2018) Empirical KBV; stewardship theory 2,3 Knowledge transfer
Randolph et al. (2021) Empirical Social capital; causation and effectuation
logics
2 Knowledge transfer
Randolph et al. (2017) Conceptual KBV; SEW 2 Knowledge transfer
Royer et al. (2008) Empirical TCE 2 Knowledge transfer
Salvato and Melin (2008) Empirical Social capital 2 Knowledge application
S
anchez-Sellero et al.
(2014)
Empirical Absorptive capacity 1 Knowledge application
Santoro et al. (2021) Empirical Resiliency and psychological capital
perspectives
2,3 Knowledge transfer, creation and
application
Savino et al. (2017) Empirical Not specified 2 Knowledge creation, storage/
retrieval
Sciascia and Mazzola
(2008)
Empirical Agency theory; stewardship theory; KBV 2 Knowledge transfer
Sciascia et al. (2013) Empirical Upper echelons theory 2 Knowledge transfer
Soluk et al. (2021) Empirical Dynamic capabilities 1,2,3 Knowledge application
Su and Carney (2013) Empirical KBV 1 Knowledge transfer, creation
Su and Dou (2013) Empirical KBV 2 Knowledge transfer
Tsang (2020) Conceptual Organizational learning 2 Knowledge application
Werner et al. (2018) Empirical KBV; SEW 1,2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Woodfield and Husted
(2017)
Empirical KBV 1 Knowledge transfer
Young and Tsai (2008) Empirical Social capital 2 Knowledge transfer
Zahra (2012) Empirical Behavioral theory of the firm 1,2,3 Knowledge application, transfer
Zahra et al. (2004) Empirical RBV 1,2 Knowledge creation, transfer
Zahra et al. (2007) Empirical KBV 2,3 Knowledge transfer
Zybura et al. (2021) Empirical RBV; KBV 2 Knowledge transfer
Notes: For the research area(s), 1 = Antecedents, 2 = Outcomes, 3 = Moderators, as delineated in Figure 2; RBV: Resource-based view;
KBV: Knowledge-based view; SEW: Socioemotional wealth
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
studied for its effects on knowledge creation relates to a form of social capital known as
family social capital. Family social capital [9] consists of the unique resources embedded in
and accessible through the network of family-based relationships (Arregle et al.,2007).
Family social capital is a particular type of bonding social capital, steeped in deep levels of
trust, which exists among family members in the family firm (Herrero, 2018).
Family social capital affects the family firm’s knowledge creation. This form of social capital
among kin has the potential to deliver a knowledge-creation advantage for family firms
(compared to nonfamily firms) given the ability of family firms to efficiently synthesize
existing knowledge via their unique relational bonds (Patel and Fiet, 2011). The strong
bonds associated with family social capital enable a more creative (re)combination of new
and existing knowledge than what is likely to otherwise exist. Brinkerink (2018), for example,
finds that family firms are more capable of being “closed innovators” due, in part, to these
unique relational bonds. In fact, this relational closeness among kin, which reinforces
“traditional” knowledge, helps enhance the family firm’s ability to combine and create new
knowledge across generations (Brinkerink, 2018;De Massis et al.,2016).
While acknowledging the value of family bonds, Patel and Fiet (2011) underscore the family
firm’s long-term orientation and the shared common language among family members as
these factors –which support the development of family social capital –also promote
stewardship behavior and limit turnover, allowing the family firm to develop more complex
cognitive systems and, ultimately, create more new knowledge. The shared collective
knowledge among kin is more likely to be combined to create new, internal knowledge
Figure 2 Conceptual map of family-firm KM research
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
when family social capital exists, yet organizational mechanisms can also be used to
facilitate knowledge creation. One example is the use of family meetings during which
existing and new knowledge can be combined (potentially across generations) to generate
new insights (Zahra et al.,2004).
Family social capital enhances knowledge creation within the family firm owing to the noted
benefits; however, knowledge creation also occurs beyond the firm’s boundary.
Specifically, studies highlight the effect of external relationships on the family firm’s
knowledge creation process and find that family firms are cautious when engaging with
external organizations. When knowledge creation opportunities that involve an external
organization are identified, family firms are more likely to engage when trust-based, external
relationships exist with such organizations (Arregle et al., 2007;Miller and Le Breton-Miller,
2005). Based on insights drawn from the dynamic relational view, Bouncken et al. (2020)
show that when engaging in knowledge-creation activities with external firms, family firms
rely on trust (rather than contracting) with alliance partners, and further, heavily specified
contracts are damaging to knowledge creation (attributed to the lack of trust); whereas
nonfamily firms engage with alliance partners when either trust or a contract exists.
5.1.1.2 Negative effects. While some studies find that family social capital enhances
knowledge creation in the family firm, others note that family social capital has negative
effects on knowledge creation. For instance, Su and Carney (2013) suggest that when
family social capital is salient, nonfamily employees are more likely to be perceived as less
trustworthy. Nonfamily employees –who are a potentially rich source of diverse knowledge
for the family firm given that family members tend to share similar knowledge and have
overlapping networks –may not contribute the full scope of their knowledge given the lack
of trust from (or with) the family firm. Ultimately, this results in a potentially impactful
hindrance on the family firm’s knowledge creation ability.
Furthermore, despite the benefits of the unique factors that result from the family’s
involvement in the firm, the extent to which family members identify with the firm is noted to
impact knowledge creation, creating differences among family firms. Specifically, drawing
on insights from social identity theory, Biscotti et al. (2018) suggest that the family firm
identity held by a member of the controlling family can create conflict between family-
centered priorities and the needs of the family business. This conflict results in family
owners underestimating the firm’s learning-related needs and attributing less importance to
activities such as employee training and development programs. Such actions negatively
impact employee development and limit knowledge creation in the family firm. In all, studies
collectively show that the involvement of the family in the firm both enhances and limits
knowledge creation through various influences.
5.1.2 Knowledge storage/retrieval. 5.1.2.1 Positive effects. Organizations, as noted, store
knowledge for later retrieval and use. The process of storing and retrieving knowledge
allows knowledge from past experiences to be applied to present endeavors (Stein and
Zwass, 1995). The storage and retrieval of knowledge, or an organization’s memory,
manifests via language, interactions and stories (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). Broadly,
studies noting positive effects on family-firm knowledge storage/retrieval focus on the
influence of stories and traditions, as well as the influence of the firm’s collective culture.
The stories and traditions of the family firm are distinctive mechanisms for storing and
retrieving knowledge that potentially create transgenerational value (Erdogan et al.,2020).
As noted by Kammerlander et al. (2015), the core of family-centered stories remains quite
stable over time, further underscoring that shared stories are a worthwhile means of long-
term knowledge storage for family firms. However, long-established family firms with a rich
endowment of stories and traditions create a paradox given the simultaneous need for
continuity and change. Interestingly, Erdogan et al. (2020) address this tension and
introduce the construct of “temporal symbiosis,” which allows the family firm to concurrently
preserve their rich traditions while recalling and leveraging stored knowledge to remain
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
current. In other words, achieving this balance allows family firms to retain their history
without becoming irrelevant.
The family firm’s enhanced organizational memory is also a result of a collective culture.A
collective and “people-centric” culture, for which many family firms are known, includes a
long-term commitment to employees and enhanced trust (Werner et al., 2018), which often
results in less turnover –especially during periods of market decline –compared to
nonfamily firms (Lee, 2006). Less turnover, in the context of a collective culture underpinned
by long-term commitment and trust, supports knowledge storage given that long-serving
employees are a knowledge repository (Grant, 1996;Posch and Wiedenegger, 2014).
Offering further positive support for a collective orientation, Brinkerink and Rondi (2021)
demonstrate that the loyalty and commitment exhibited when the family is involved in the
firm decreases turnover and acts as a safeguard toward the storage of knowledge assets,
limiting the leak of sensitive knowledge.
5.1.2.2 Negative effects. Studies also find that family-specific influences, like family status,
can hinder knowledge storage and retrieval in family firms. For instance, Madison et al.
(2021) examine the transactive memory system of the family firm: a firm-level system for
storing and retrieving knowledge that resides among individuals (Ren and Argote, 2011;
Wegner et al., 1985). Using triadic data from family employees, nonfamily employees, and
leaders in family firms, the findings show that the communication between family and
nonfamily employees hinders, rather than enhances, the shared perceptions of where
knowledge is stored within the transactive memory system. With further analyses, Madison
et al. (2021) show that the unexpected finding results from communication having differing
effects based on family status; specifically, for nonfamily employees, communication
enhances firm-level innovation but has a negative effect on shared perceptions of
knowledge storage. Overall, studies such as this underscore the importance of the type,
quantity and quality of communication between family and nonfamily employees given the
effects on how knowledge is stored and retrieved when (family status) differences exist.
5.1.3 Knowledge transfer. 5.1.3.1 Positive effects. Knowledge transfer is the most studied
KM process in family firms, and of the knowledge-transfer antecedents examined, family
social capital is one of the most common themes. As a resource among kin in the firm, this
unique form of social capital –and the deep, trust-based relational bonds with which it is
associated –can positively affect knowledge transfer in the family firm. A contingent of
studies that examines knowledge transfer focus, specifically, on transgenerational
knowledge transfer (Cabrera-Su
arez et al., 2001;Giovannoni et al.,2011;Hatak and Roessl,
2015;LeCounte, 2020). Transgenerational knowledge transfer is often examined in the
context of succession, which is perhaps unsurprising given that succession is one of the
most commonly studied topics in family business research (De Massis et al., 2008).
Relationships are vehicles of knowledge exchange; when relational bonds are strong in the
succession process, knowledge transfer is enhanced (Daspit et al.,2016). The valuable
effect of familial ties is highlighted, for example, in a case study of a prominent historical
publishing house in Spain. In this study, Fern
andez Moya (2010) shows that the intimacy of
the father-son relationship enables transgenerational knowledge transfer. Similar findings
related to transgenerational knowledge transfer hold across cultural and geographic
contexts. Studies of family firms in China, for instance, demonstrate that interactions among
family members, along with the next generation’s early firm involvement, enrich
transgenerational knowledge transfer in a family firm (Su and Carney, 2013). Indeed,
consensus exists that family social capital can facilitate the transfer of knowledge
(Cunningham et al., 2016,2017).
Further, the transgenerational knowledge transfer between the successor and incumbent is
a focus of studies with the primary influences governing this knowledge transfer relating to
incumbent and successor characteristics. While numerous characteristics of both the
incumbent and successor have been examined, among the studies reviewed, a common
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
focus relates to the importance of the successor’s competence. In particular, the perceived
relational competence of the successor, in terms of the successor’s ability to initiate and
maintain relationships, is positively related to the accuracy and amount of knowledge
transferred from the incumbent to the successor (Hatak and Roessl, 2015). The successor’s
relational competence is used as a signal to indicate whether they are likely to behave in a
trustworthy manner, which mitigates the incumbent’s uncertainty and enhances the
willingness of the incumbent to share better-quality (and more) knowledge with the
successor (Hatak and Roessl, 2015).
Related to family social capital and trust, attention is also given to familial relationships from
a social exchange perspective. In their review of family-firm succession, Daspit et al. (2016)
note the benefits (and limitations) of generalized versus restricted social exchanges among
the stakeholders involved in succession and, specifically, highlight that generalized
exchange between and among stakeholders (i.e. collectively focused exchange with no
immediate expectation of return) benefits knowledge transfer through the phases of
succession. Further, Jaskiewicz et al. (2013) suggest that generalized exchange is
enhanced by reciprocal nepotism, which they posit is distinct from entitlement nepotism.
Reciprocal nepotism –or nepotism developed from family-member interdependence, prior
interactions among kin and family-benefitting norms –is theorized to enhance the transfer of tacit
knowledge through the generalized exchange relationship between the hiring family member
and the family member benefitting from the nepotistic treatment (Jaskiewicz et al., 2013).
While relationships in the family firm are important to internal knowledge transfer, the
transfer of knowledge also occurs across the firm’s boundary. When such transfer occurs,
having trust with the exchange partner is crucial for most family firms. For instance, in a
study of management buy-outs and buy-ins, Howorth et al. (2004) show that trust-based,
external relationships reduce information asymmetry and facilitate the transfer of tacit
knowledge between the parties involved. Similar views are supported by Cesinger et al.
(2016), who note that trust and commitment enhance knowledge transfer with external
parties, owing to the family firm perceiving less risk of resource exposure due to the trust
with the exchange partner. Overall, cross-boundary knowledge transfer is enhanced when
the family firm trusts the exchange partner.
5.1.3.2 Negative effects. While family firms have characteristics that enhance knowledge
transfer, not all characteristics yield positive effects. For instance, although nonfamily
employees are an important source of knowledge for family firms (Randolph et al.,2021;
Tabor et al.,2018), knowledge transfer is less likely to occur between family and nonfamily
employees when family social capital is salient. When a large proportion of family members
are involved in the business, and when those family members are linked by strong familial
ties, knowledge transfer with nonfamily members is less likely to occur (tacit knowledge in
particular) in such conditions (Su and Carney, 2013). Strong family ties represent intensive
interactions within the family and reduce the exposure and the motivation to engage with
outsiders like nonfamily employees (Daspit et al., 2019). In other words, familial ties can be
“too much of a good thing” (Herrero and Hughes, 2019) by creating insularity among kin
that results in less motivation to share knowledge with nonfamily members (Su and Carney,
2013).
In some family firms, conflict exists among kin. A strong family influence in the firm may
support family social capital; however, the same family influence may also cause family
conflict, which consists of, but is not limited to, interpersonal tension, affective differences
and sibling rivalry. Although Kellermanns and Eddleston (2004) note that conflict can be
beneficial for the family firm, they also note that some types are destructive. For instance,
relational conflict negatively affects family-firm performance due, in part, to the hindrance
on interpersonal exchange and mutual understanding (Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2007).
Furthermore, while trust-based relationships help to facilitate knowledge transfer between
the family firm and external actors (Cesinger et al., 2016;Howorth et al., 2004), the extent to
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
which a family firm engages in such external exchanges is often influenced by the SEW
preservation intentions of the firm’s controlling family. The intentions of the controlling family
to preserve SEW (i.e. nonfinancial aspects or affective endowments of family owners;
G
omez-Mejı
´aet al., 2007) are related to the family’s emotional attachment to the firm, power
concentration, identification with the firm and related factors (Berrone et al., 2012). The
intentions to preserve such elements are noted to restrict knowledge transfer between the
family firm and external (nonfamily) parties (Debellis et al., 2021a;Kotlar et al.,2020;
Manzaneque et al., 2020). For example, Kotlar et al. (2020) argue that when family owners
have a strong emotional attachment to their business, they are more likely to perceive
knowledge transfer with external, nonfamily parties as a threat to maintaining their SEW,
thus suggesting that emotional attachment limits external knowledge exchange. Likewise,
Manzaneque et al. (2020) show that the family’s concern over discretionary power loss to
external actors (with whom they have limited trust) reduces their tendency to engage in
knowledge transfer with external parties. In all, while varied effects are observed to
positively and negatively influence the family firm’s knowledge transfer, many of the
influences have a relational and/or trust-based orientation.
5.1.4 Knowledge application. 5.1.4.1 Positive effects. From the knowledge-based
perspective of the firm, the source of a firm’s competitive advantage resides in its
knowledge application process, or rather, its ability to apply (exploit) knowledge for
commercial purposes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001;Grant, 1996). To this point, our review has
shown that family social capital affects knowledge creation and knowledge transfer.
Similarly, studies note that family social capital enhances knowledge application.
During the knowledge application process, new knowledge is applied to firm operations: a
process that is complex and one that requires patience along with a detailed understanding
of the firm and its processes (Gold et al.,2001;Kogut and Zander, 1992). Family firms with
more established family social capital are more likely to possess valuable tacit knowledge
about the firm’s processes and have lower governance costs, allowing these family firms to
excel at applying new knowledge (Glyptis et al., 2021). Governance costs are lessened as
a result of the “socially intense” and trust-based relationships among family members; in
turn, the refined coordination among kin allows for enhanced integration and application of
their individual, specialized knowledge (Chirico and Salvato, 2008). Likewise, given that
family social capital yields collective goals and actions, kin in the firm are more likely to
share the desire to apply knowledge for the benefit of the collective (Daspit et al.,2019;
Pearson et al., 2008).
In addition to the distinctive relationships that constitute family social capital, the shared
experiences, frequent exchanges and length of time affiliated with the family firm contribute
to a specialized family knowledge base embedded in the tacit knowledge of kin. Family
firms (compared to nonfamily firms) are shown to excel in their ability to process and exploit
internally developed knowledge (Brinkerink, 2018). This benefit is attributed to several
factors that include the synergistic perspectives among family members given that they
have differing, yet complementary, educational and professional backgrounds. A
knowledge base composed of complementary resources among kin enhances how
knowledge is orchestrated and, thereby, enhances the application of knowledge in the
family firm (Chirico, 2008;Soluk et al.,2021).
Further, a family firm’s ability to apply knowledge is associated with their SEW preservation
intentions. For example, Kotlar et al. (2020) suggest that the family owner’s emotional
attachment can be a strong incentive to apply knowledge. When a strong emotional
attachment to the firm exists, family owners are more motivated to ensure knowledge is
properly applied because their name and reputation are at stake (Kotlar et al.,2020).
Therefore, controlling family members with the desire to preserve their SEW enhance the
family firm’s knowledge application due to their emotional investment in the firm.
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
5.1.4.2 Negative effects. Even though knowledge application can be positively influenced
by the aforementioned factors, the process can also be hindered. Among the key factors
that restrict knowledge application is family conflict. Family firms can be fertile environments
for conflict, and depending on the family’s culture, familial conflict may be common
(Kellermanns and Eddleston, 2004). Sibling rivalry and other forms of conflict generated
from interpersonal, affective incompatibilities prevent family members from integrating
knowledge, weakening the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge application in the firm
(Chirico and Salvato, 2008).
Additionally, family firms often have limited human capital given that they select from a
smaller pool of talent given the types of employees generally attracted to work in a family
firm (Fang et al.,2021). The limited talent pool potentially restricts the quality of nonfamily
members hired, and if nonfamily members are hired who do not enhance the human capital
of the firm, the ability for the family firm to successfully engage in knowledge application
may be jeopardized (S
anchez-Sellero et al.,2014;Zahra, 2012). On the other hand, if
nonfamily members with diverse knowledge resources are involved in the family firm, the
goals of the nonfamily members may differ from the dominant coalition of family and/or
nonfamily employees may not be well-socialized within the family firm. Moreover, the strong
social ties among family members can create a boundary between family and nonfamily
members, further exacerbating the division between family and nonfamily employees, and
such a faction between family and nonfamily employees limits the application of knowledge
(Daspit et al.,2019).
Even further, while the family owner’s emotional attachment is noted to increase knowledge
application in the family firm (Kotlar et al.,2020), studies also suggest that other SEW
preservation intentions negatively affect knowledge application. In particular, family firms
may encounter difficulties extracting value from external, exploratory knowledge given the
family’s desire to maintain control of the firm (Brinkerink, 2018). Offering a similar
conclusion, Kotlar et al. (2020) posit that the family owner’s intention to maintain
concentrated power limits the application of knowledge due to fear of losing control of the
firm. Overall, in family firms, numerous influences are observed to positively and/or
negatively affect knowledge application.
5.2 Outcomes of knowledge management processes in family firms
Key family-firm KM outcomes that have been studied are noted. Following Holt et al. (2017),
we categorize outcomes as firm- and family-centric. Firm-centric outcomes “represent
meaningful outcomes for the firm that, while they may be affected by the family system,
would also play a role in firms with no family involvement” while family-centric outcomes
“represent meaningful outcomes for the family that may be affected by the business
system” (Holt et al.,2017: 186).
5.2.1 Firm-centric outcomes. 5.2.1.1 Innovation. Given that KM is essential for firm
innovation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;Spender, 1996), it is not unexpected that the most
commonly studied outcome is innovation. For family firms, innovation is critical to long-term
sustainability (De Massis et al., 2013;Rondi et al.,2019) and is necessary for realizing their
transgenerational succession intentions, which is a defining component of the family firm
(Chua et al., 1999).
The family’s capability to efficiently combine and apply knowledge creates a unique
advantage over nonfamily firms in identifying and exploiting opportunities related to
innovation (Patel and Fiet, 2011;Zahra, 2012). For example, Patel and Fiet (2011) argue that
noneconomic goals, such as a long-term sustainability intention, help family members to
view the growth of their firm as a collective family responsibility, and with a more collective
orientation, internal knowledge transfer is enhanced, which leads to the identification of
more opportunities and enhances firm innovation. Similarly, the presence of familiness and
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
family social capital enhances the transformation and application of knowledge, thus
leading to greater innovation (Aiello et al.,2020;Baday Yıldız et al., 2021;Daspit et al.,
2019). Even though some family firms acquire less knowledge from external parties (Kotlar
et al., 2013,2020), they may have a refined capacity to translate external knowledge into
tangible benefits and improve innovation (Aiello et al.,2020). Moreover, Baday Yıldız et al.
(2021) show that the family firm’s innovation performance is positively driven by specialized
tacit knowledge within the firm and (trusted) collaborations with external stakeholders.
Together these findings suggest that the closeness among kin can enhance internal
knowledge development (and even external collaborations when engaged with a
trustworthy stakeholder), which enhances innovation outcomes of the family firm (Baday
Yıldız et al., 2021).
As family firms are often deeply rooted in their traditions, knowledge from the past may be
leveraged to influence their present activities. Family firms are in a privileged position for
leveraging their traditions to innovate. “Innovating through tradition” provides interesting
insights on how knowledge from the past influences innovation in family firms (De Massis
et al.,2016
). Even though firms that follow their traditions are typically thought to suffer from
inertia and develop core rigidities, recent work has shown that family firms can leverage
knowledge stored in their traditions to support innovation, highlighting the potential
advantages of past knowledge for the family firm’s innovation pursuits (De Massis et al.,
2016). In fact, Magistretti et al. (2020) show that family firms are better able to store and
manage “old” knowledge, which puts them in a better position to establish links with
tradition. “Innovating through tradition,” though, creates challenges, yet family firms with a
“temporal symbiosis” capability –or a capability to simultaneously adopt retrospective and
prospective approaches that guide resource use –are more likely to preserve traditions
while innovating (Erdogan et al.,2020).
In addition to using the past to innovate, family firms face unique barriers when executing
an open-innovation strategy. The family firm’s desire for cohesiveness and control can lead
to a decreased emphasis on acquiring external knowledge and on creating new external
relationships, which restricts the quality and quantity of innovation-related outcomes (Boh
et al., 2020). Based on an exploratory case study of an Italian family firm, Casprini et al.
(2017) identify the following two idiosyncratic capabilities that family firms use to overcome
such barriers: imprinting capability and fraternization capability. The imprinting capability
supports open-innovation strategies by improving knowledge transfer from the family to the
business system and allowing the family values to be better understood; whereas the
fraternization capability supports innovation strategies by building trust in social interactions
and developing stable and long-lasting relationships with employees and outside partners
(Casprini et al.,2017).
Finally, research also shows that innovation outcomes are related to the nature of
knowledge shared across generations. For example, applying a multiple-case-study
research design, Kammerlander et al. (2015) investigate the impact of knowledge and
stories shared across generations on innovation. Their study shows that in shared stories, a
founder focus is negatively, and a family focus is positively, associated with innovation
(Kammerlander et al.,2015). When shared stories strongly focus on the founder, the family
is typically more resistant to change in their business, resulting in less innovation
(Kammerlander et al.,2015). Family firms with a more salient focus on the family in their
stories typically consider a broader range of potential options and are not necessarily
constrained by past decisions (Kammerlander et al., 2015).
5.2.1.2 Entrepreneurial orientation. KM processes in the family firm also affect the firm’s EO.
Drawing on stewardship theory and the knowledge-based view (KBV), for instance, Pittino
et al. (2018) find that cross-generational knowledge sharing among family members is
related to the dimensions of EO such that the effects on proactiveness and innovativeness
are enhanced, yet the effect on risk-taking is negative. On one hand, the psychological
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
ownership of family members fosters knowledge sharing and the exchange of tacit
knowledge, which improves the family firm’s ability to identify and exploit entrepreneurial
opportunities, enhancing the proactive and innovative posture of the business (Pittino et al.,
2018). On the other hand, the psychological ownership of kin also fosters the exchange of
values and increases the family firm’s desire to preserve their SEW, thus leading to a more
conservative, risk-averse posture (Pittino et al., 2018).
Further, the relationship between knowledge transfer and the family firm’s EO is not always
linear. Sciascia et al. (2013), for example, show that a curvilinear relationship exists between
the number of family generations simultaneously involved in the top management team
(TMT) and the family firm’s EO. Drawing on upper echelon theory, Sciascia et al. (2013) note
that the increased generational involvement in the TMT enhances knowledge transfer and
the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities; however, as generational involvement
in the TMT increases, family relationships become complicated, which impedes knowledge
transfer and hinders the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities.
5.2.1.3 Internationalization. Internationalization is another outcome of family-firm KM that
has received research attention. In a study by Fang et al. (2018), generational differences,
in addition to available knowledge resources, are shown to affect the family firm’s
internationalization. These authors highlight that the founding generation often acts with
future generations in mind and is motivated to create value for future generations by
exploring alternative uses of knowledge-based resources. Given this, the founding
generation is more likely to pursue strategic decisions, such as internationalization, as
knowledge resources increase (Fang et al.,2018). Moreover, Tsang (2020) theorizes that
the family firm’s internationalization process is constrained, in part, by the personal network
of key family members given the limitations for broader knowledge transfer that supports the
identification of foreign investment opportunities and also by the reluctance to hire outsiders
to run overseas operations. These constraints, however, may be overcome by involving
nonfamily members in the firm and engaging them in strategic decision-making.
Involving nonfamily members, though, is not a panacea given that the involvement of
nonfamily members creates agency-related and an assortment of other issues (Chrisman
et al., 2014;Stewart and Hitt, 2012;Tabor et al.,2018). Family firms, for example, can hire
nonfamily members who have values that (at least partially) align with those of the family
and/or hire individuals in (or based on recommendations from) their close social network to
increase trust (Verbeke and Kano, 2012). In fact, in their study of international joint ventures,
Debellis et al. (2021a) suggest that family firms (compared to nonfamily firms) have less
strategic sensitivity –owing, in part, to the family firm’s risk-averse posture in sharing
knowledge in an international joint venture –that prevents them from engaging in such
international alliances. A recommendation made for overcoming this strategic sensitivity is
to open the board to external directors who meet the aforementioned criteria of having
values that are (somewhat) aligned with the family and those with whom they have pre-
existing social ties and trust (Debellis et al., 2021a).
5.2.1.4 Financial performance and competitive advantage. As is common in firm-level
studies, a number of investigations examine effects on firm performance and/or competitive
advantage. Proper KM by the family firm, or any organization, has the potential to increase
performance and competitive advantage. Studies reviewed generally confirm that the collective
KM capabilities of the family firm positively influence firm performance in comparison to
competitors (Hern
andez-Perlines et al., 2017). More specifically, in a recent study by Santoro
et al. (2021), the behavioral dimension of employee-level resilience is found to enhance the
performance of small family firms because the owners are more likely to share their knowledge
and vision, which builds commitment and resilience among employees and leads to enhanced
knowledge application and, ultimately, increased competitiveness and performance.
Nonetheless, while the family firm has potentially valuable characteristics that enhance KM,
firm performance, and competitive advantage, some characteristics hinder firm
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
performance and competitive advantage. For example, from a resource orchestration
perspective, Chirico et al. (2011) note that when multiple generations are involved in a
family firm seeking to be entrepreneurial, knowledge transfer is met with conflict, causing
firm performance to suffer. To overcome such conflict, researchers find that when the family
firm has multi-generational family involvement, coordinating mechanisms, like a
participative strategy that increases involvement in knowledge transfer, can realize financial
performance gains (Chirico et al., 2011).
5.2.2 Family-centric outcomes. 5.2.2.1 Succession. Among the outcomes observed in this
review, most studies examine firm-centric outcomes, yet some studies focus on family-
centric outcomes. Among the family-centric outcomes studied, succession is one of the
most commonly examined. The choice of the family firm’s successor is partially attributed to
the idiosyncratic nature of knowledge in the firm and is also influenced by the successful
transfer of this knowledge across generations. For example, Lee et al. (2003) argue that
family-firm knowledge is often specific and may be accessible to family members only; as
such, the uniqueness of the family business and the transfer of such distinctive (tacit)
knowledge to the next generation encourages the selection of a family successor over an
outsider. Building on the work of Lee et al. (2003), research further shows the relative ease
of transferring family-business-specific knowledge to an internal successor can make a
family member a preferred successor over an external (nonfamily) successor (Royer et al.,
2008).
5.2.2.2 Transgenerational value creation and transgenerational entrepreneurship. Issues
related to succession are not relevant if the family firm does not survive long enough to allow
for the transfer of power. Thus, issues related to transgenerational value creation and
transgenerational entrepreneurship represent other family-centered outcomes investigated
in this literature. Family firms must create financial value over generations to survive long-
term, and the ability to do so largely depends on the extent to which they can use and
combine their current knowledge to generate new knowledge (Salvato and Melin, 2008).
Such an achievement requires knowledge transfer across generations, and interestingly, in
their study of transgenerational knowledge transfer and transgenerational entrepreneurship,
Dou et al. (2020) find that elements of knowledge transferred across generations include
moral values, competence values and cognitive heuristics, which highlight types of
knowledge that are foundational to the transgenerational success of the family firm.
In addition, Chirico and Nordqvist (2010), in their study of dynamic capabilities and
transgenerational value creation in family firms, suggest that knowledge and organizational
culture can enable or inhibit the recombination of resources through which transgenerational
value is created. Specifically, a closed and paternalistic family culture, in which knowledge
transfer is not encouraged, fosters family inertia and negatively affects resource recombination
and transgenerational value creation in family firms; whereas an open and entrepreneurial
culture that encourages knowledge transfer and innovativeness counteracts family inertia and
positively affects resource recombination and transgenerational value creation in family firms.
5.3 Moderators of knowledge management processes in family firms
Throughout the review, relationships between and among family-firm KM antecedents,
processes and outcomes are reported. These relationships, however, vary given an array of
contextual contingencies. Therefore, to offer insight into such contingencies, we note
examples of key moderating effects that have been used to better understand the
relationships between KM antecedents and processes, as well as the relationships between
KM processes and outcomes.
5.3.1 Moderators of antecedent-knowledge management process relationships. 5.3.1.1 Family
and nonfamily involvement. This review highlights a range of direct influences on the family
firm’s KM processes. However, the precise nature of these influences on KM processes are
jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
typically complex and difficult to predict given the effects of contingency-based factors
(Kotlar et al.,2020). One category of moderating effects includes factors related to family
and nonfamily involvement. Among family firms, the extent to which family are involved in
firm-level governance varies and the level of involvement is likely to affect the firm’s KM
processes. One form of involvement shown to have a significant moderating effect is the
family’s involvement in the firm’s management. Specifically, when the TMT is composed of a
greater number of family members, fewer formal mechanisms are typically instituted, which
enhances perceptions of empowerment and stewardship, leading to greater knowledge
sharing when kin have psychological ownership (Pittino et al., 2018).
Similarly, the involvement of nonfamily members varies across family firms. The result of
their involvement depends, in part, on the relative number of nonfamily employees and the
positions they hold. Nonetheless, involving nonfamily members can be instrumental to
offsetting the insular nature of the dominant coalition of family, yet nonfamily involvement
can have a hindering effect on the relationship between family social capital and knowledge
application, as the family-related benefits that enhance knowledge transfer are mitigated
when nonfamily members are involved (Daspit et al.,2019).
5.3.1.2 Generational involvement. Furthermore, when kin are involved and embedded in the
family firm, they are more likely to engage in stewardship behaviors that benefit the firm
and, likewise, the KM processes. However, the extent to which this occurs is influenced by
generational involvement. For example, Pittino et al. (2018) examine the psychological
ownership of kin and find that while this type of ownership is positively related to knowledge
transfer, the generation in control negatively moderates this effect. Specifically, the effect of
psychological ownership on knowledge transfer is weaker in later-generation family firms
while the same relationship is strengthened in earlier-generation family firms due to the
closer, more informal relationships that facilitate knowledge transfer (Pittino et al.,2018).
Furthermore, based on insights from the KBV and family dynamics, Chirico and Salvato
(2016) show that family firms run by later generations increase the positive effect of family
social capital on knowledge application owing to the professionalization that manifests
during later generations.
5.3.1.3 Environmental factors. Additionally, environmental factors affect the KM processes
of the family firm. A recent study by Soluk et al. (2021) finds that the family’s involvement in
the firm is positively related to its knowledge application ability. Further, in this study, the
dynamism of the environment is hypothesized to have a positive effect, thus strengthening
the relationship between family influence and knowledge application given that when the
environment is rapidly changing, the family-influenced firm is likely to dedicate “extra effort”
toward knowledge application processes to survive uncertain times. Interestingly, though,
the results suggest the opposite: when the environment is rapidly changing, the involvement
of the family results in a weaker knowledge-application ability. Additionally, De Massis and
Rondi (2020)