Content uploaded by Thomas Henschel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Henschel on Aug 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Knowledge sharing in family SMEs:
the role of communities of practice
Francesca Rossignoli
School of Business and Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Andrea Lionzo
Faculty of Banking Finance and Insurance, Catholic University of Sacred Heart,
Milano, Italy
Thomas Henschel
HTW Berlin, Berlin, Germany, and
B€
orje Boers
School of Business, University of Sk€
ovde, Sk€
ovde, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The aim of this paper is to analyse the role of communities of practice (CoP) as knowledge-sharing
tools in family small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this context, CoPs that jointly involve family and
non-family members are expected to act as knowledge-sharing tools.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper employs a multiple case study methodology, analysing the
cases of six small companies in different sectors and countries over a period of 8 years. Both primary and
secondary data are used.
Findings –The results show the role CoPs play in involving family and non-family members in empowering
knowledge-sharing initiatives. A CoP’s role in knowledge sharing depends on the presence (or lack) of a family
leader, the leadership approach, the degree of cohesion around shared approaches and values within the CoP,
and the presence of multiple generations at work.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to the literature on knowledge sharing in family businesses, by
exploring for the first time the role of the CoP as a knowledge-sharing tool, depending on families’involvement
in the CoP.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Community of practice, Family firms, SMEs, Italy, Germany, Scotland,
Sweden
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Knowledge sharing is key in organisations’strategic development (Cunningham et al., 2016),
as strong links have been claimed between knowledge sharing and performance (Geiger and
Schrey€
ogg, 2012;Huang et al., 2013). In family SMEs, knowledge-sharing initiatives are a
particularly important resource due to constraints on resources (Dotsika and Patrick, 2013).
The ways in which family SMEs manage their knowledge resources are strongly affected by
the presence of the family in the business (Duh et al., 2010).
As most studies focus on larger non-family organisations (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004),
knowledge sharing in family SMEs remains little explored (Cunningham et al., 2016), despite
the potential of investigating knowledge sharing in an empirical setting, where the challenges
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
© Francesca Rossignoli, Andrea Lionzo, Thomas Henschel and B€
orje Boers. Published by Emerald
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and
authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/
legalcode
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2043-6238.htm
Received 21 March 2023
Revised 24 July 2023
Accepted 25 July 2023
Journal of Family Business
Management
Emerald Publishing Limited
2043-6238
DOI 10.1108/JFBM-03-2023-0038
of family members’involvement might trigger knowledge initiatives (Seaman, 2015;
Giovannoni et al., 2011;Tagiuri and Davis, 1996). Studies on knowledge sharing within family
firms have reported contradictory results, while some find that families boost business due to
the altruistic nature of familial influence (Karra et al., 2006;Zahra et al., 2007), others reveal
more challenging behavioural issues that prevent knowledge sharing in family firms
(Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006;Poza et al., 2004).
Taking the tension between these contradictory results as its starting point, this study
contributes to the literature on knowledge sharing in family SMEs by revealing the role of
communities of practice (CoP) in the context of family firms. Some researchers emphasise that
‘the family business must function as a community of practice”(Fotea et al., 2012, p. 30). For
example, Konopaski et al. (2015) argue that a family business can be viewed as a CoP, where
family members learn about the firm’s continuity. More recently, McAdam et al. (2019)
adopted Wenger’s (1998) CoP framework to investigate how individuals involved in family
businesses collectively learn and develop competencies to support decision-making
processes. They explored a three-generation family business and illustrated how a family-
based CoP centralises social and learning-based practices.
While prior studies view CoPs as a conceptual lens through which knowledge
management is interpreted within the whole family firm, this study aims to understand
how CoPs might function as knowledge-sharing tools in family SMEs involving sub-groups
of employees, including both family and non-family members. This study uses a social
identity approach (Biscotti et al., 2018;Frank et al., 2017;Cunningham, 2020) to conceptualise
the family firm as a complex context in which family and firm identities overlap: the
coexistence of family and business shapes CoPs’social context, such that individuals’identity
within a CoP –regardless of whether they are family or non-family –becomes defined by how
their CoP membership influences knowledge-sharing processes. This approach makes it
possible to investigate how CoPs, as groups of people including both family and non-family
members, contribute to knowledge-sharing initiatives within family firms.
2. Literature review
2.1 Knowledge sharing in a family business
While knowledge is currently viewed as the most critical resource in gaining a competitive
advantage, the plurality of business actors emphasises the need to manage knowledge flows
successfully within and outside an organisation (Bagnoli et al., 2020;Secundo et al., 2019a,b;
Simeone et al., 2017,2018). The sharing of resources through interaction is critical in
reinforcing or transforming existing knowledge within an organisation (Sanchez-Famoso
and Maseda, 2014). For such sharing to take place, individuals must share their knowledge
with each other (Carrasco-Hern
andez and Jim
enez-Jim
enez, 2013;Patel and Fiet, 2011).
Knowledge sharing is the process of transferring individuals’wisdom, skills and
technologies in order to generate greater knowledge resource (Tsai, 2002). It is expected to
ease knowledge mobilisation in reciprocal and meaningful exchanges. The need for efficient
knowledge sharing is especially pivotal in family firms and, among these, in family SMEs,
where limited resources lead to knowledge sharing on an ad hoc basis, particularly in relation
to more tacit forms of knowledge, such as know-how and experiential wisdom (Durst and
Edvardsson, 2012). Family SMEs have been found to have rich knowledge sources held by
individuals within the organisation (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003); therefore, knowledge sharing is
essential for knowledge management.
Family influence has divergent effects on a firm’s capacity for knowledge-sharing
activities. On the one hand, family ties ease the relational flow between organisational
members (Sanchez-Famoso and Maseda, 2014), which is particularly relevant for tacit-to-tacit
knowledge sharing. On the other hand, the coexistence of family and non-family members
JFBM
fosters challenges that might prevent knowledge sharing. For example, non-family members
have been found to be at disadvantage in knowledge sharing in a family-firm context,
because relational familiarity between family members generates an idiosyncratic
communication style that excludes non-family members (Marret et al., 2015). Furthermore,
family members are commonly reluctant to share knowledge with non-family employees
(Matlay, 2002;Neckebrouck et al., 2017), as they fear expropriation of the firm’s specific skills
(Chrisman et al., 2014;Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011).
These mixed results regarding family influence in knowledge-sharing initiatives indicate
that there is still a research gap about how family SMEs manage knowledge sharing
(Salojarvi et al., 2005). Scholars have called for empirical evidence (Cunningham et al., 2016)on
such phenomena. This paper contributes to addressing this call by providing an empirical
analysis of how CoPs that jointly involve family and non-family members can act as
knowledge-sharing tools.
The findings show that a CoP’s role in knowledge sharing depends on the presence (or
lack) of a family leader, the leadership approach, the degree of cohesion around shared
approaches and values within the CoP, and the presence of multiple generations at work. This
study offers several contributions to the stream of research about knowledge sharing in
family SMEs.
The first contribution is related to the presence (or absence) of a family leader around
whom a consensus of family and non-family members is established. The path-goal theory
shows that heterogeneity of the leadership approach inevitably has implications for
knowledge sharing (Cunningham et al., 2016). The socialisation literature emphasises that
family leaders may engage in certain behaviours and practices that contribute to enhancing
or preventing employees’sense of commitment (Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2005). This
study contributes to the socialisation literature by showing that family leader involvement in
CoPs may produce opposite effects on the effectiveness of the knowledge-sharing process,
depending on the leadership approach.
This paper’s second contribution involves the relation between knowledge sharing and
the level of cohesiveness in CoPs –that is, “the degree of closeness and emotional bonding
experienced by the members of the family”(Lee, 2006). According to Zahra (2012), cohesion
defines how information is shared and used and how the firm acquires knowledge. According
to the social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), individuals’identity is defined by their
membership in groups. Cunningham (2020) extends the identity perspective to illuminate
identity formation among non-family employees in family firms. This study contributes to
this stream of research by showing that cohesion among individuals belonging to a CoP –
both family and non-family members –can strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of a CoP in
knowledge sharing.
The third contribution of this work is related to the multiple generations involved in a
family business, which allow for different levels of cooperation and thus different levels of
knowledge sharing (Lawrence et al., 2005). The literature has widely investigated the effects
of the presence of several family generations in a family firm (Miller et al., 2003;Mussolino
and Calabr
o, 2014) and the intergenerational processes of knowledge transfer that they
activate (Murphy et al., 2019). The simultaneous presence of several generations in a business
stimulates a greater openness to new things, as well as a greater willingness to innovate and
invest in the company’s future (Frank et al., 2019;Zahra, 2012). Previous evidence has shown
that, when more generations are involved, the firm’s points of contact with the outside world
increase, encouraging the internalisation of new knowledge (Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013).
However, a wider intergenerational presence could also strengthen the company’s attitude
against innovating and trying new paths, to the extent that family members close themselves
off to protect their privileges and identities (Konopaski et al., 2015). Still, as in several other
contexts, the presence of family members with contrasting features and aims in a family firm
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
can create a powerful barrier to the effective sharing and creation of new knowledge, unless
appropriately dedicated managerial practices are embraced to facilitate the translation
process. This study contributes to this stream of research by showing that an
intergenerational presence among individuals belonging to a CoP that includes both
family and non-family members can affect the role of the CoP in knowledge sharing.
2.2 The CoP as a knowledge-sharing tool in a family business
Prior studies have explored how family firms manage knowledge sharing. Zahra et al. (2007)
suggest that family firms seek to formalise their knowledge-sharing processes, which may
cause the knowledge sharing to be less fluid than it could be. Lin (2013) find that family firms
have low preference for incentivised knowledge-sharing tools, preferring instead to leverage
spontaneous networks in which the intention to share relies on a reciprocal and multi-
directional flow of interaction. Networks have been found to be managerial tools that allow
SMEs to gain new knowledge from the outside (Rossignoli, 2017).
We argue that CoPs in family SMEs, as spontaneous group of people that jointly involves
family and non-family members, can act as effective knowledge-sharing tools. A CoP is a
group of people who share similar interests and collaborate over time to exchange ideas, find
solutions, share knowledge and build innovations based on ability rather than hierarchical
position (Brown and Duguid, 1998;Lave and Wenger, 1991;Wenger, 1998). According to
Cross et al. (2006, p. 33), people within CoPs are individuals who “share a passion for
something that they know how to do, and who regularly interact with learning how to do it
better”.Lave’s (1992) theory of socially situated learning argues that knowledge and learning
are embedded in the activities, interactions and relationships of a CoP. According to this
theory, knowledge sharing can begin and develop through informal relationships and
proximity to others in a specific social context that is the CoP.
Studies have investigated the existence of CoPs within family firms (Fotea et al.,2012;
Konopaski et al.,2015;McAdam et al.,2019) and family SMEs (Hamilton, 2011;Zahra,
2012). These studies draw from Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory and assert that a family
business can be viewed and function as a CoP (Konopaski et al., 2015). Such studies provide
evidence on how CoPs in a family business foster trans-generational entrepreneurial
learning and entrepreneurial decision-making (Fotea et al.,2012), support family members’
learning about firm continuity (Konopaski et al.,2015), and centralise social and learning-
based practices (McAdam et al.,2019). We contribute to this stream of research by
providing empirical evidence of how CoPs can act as knowledge-sharing tools in family
SMEs. Our evidence shows that, in family SMEs, CoPs consist of a set of social relations
between family and non-family members and become an authentic context that enables
knowledge sharing.
Within these CoPs, people play different roles, regardless of whether they are family or
non-family members. The key role is played by the community leader –the individual
responsible for ensuring that the community functions as a knowledge-sharing mechanism.
Another important role is that of the community sponsor, to whom the CoP’s leader responds.
Lastly, the facilitators are the people in the CoP who build membership, maintain the activity
and energy, establish the behavioural style of the community, manage discussions and
relationships, create contacts and liaise with the sponsor. Understanding which roles are
played by the family and non-family members involved in a CoP is key to understanding how
the CoP functions as a knowledge-sharing tool.
This study aims to answer the following research question:
RQ. How do CoPs that jointly involve family and non-family members act as knowledge-
sharing tools in family SMEs?
JFBM
3. Method
We perform an in-depth case study to address our research question. This choice was made
due to the theory-building aims of this paper, which made an inductive methodology with a
multiple case study the best choice (Yin, 2009). The cases we examine can be considered polar
cases (Yin, 2003), in the sense that they involve SMEs operating in German, Scottish, Swedish
and Italian contexts. The following subsections describe the research context, the data
collection and the data analysis steps.
3.1 Research context
To develop our research, we sample cases characterised by different family impacts on the
process of translating knowledge for decision-making (Eisenhardt, 1989). We chose family
SMEs with the following characteristics: (1) the family is present in the business, through
ownership, governance and/or management; (2) the firm is small or medium sized; (3) both
primary and secondary data are available; (4) a CoP is managed within the firm, whether it
began intentionally or not (Zieba et al., 2016); and (5) the firms are located in different
countries (i.e. Germany, Italy, Scotland and Sweden).
3.2 Data collection
To develop our study, we employed both primary and secondary data. The primary data
consists of a series of semi-structured interviews that followed a common format for all cases,
along with a second group of more in-depth, unstructured interviews (Miles et al., 2013;
Wengraf, 2001). All interviewees agreed a priori to participate in the study and be recorded.
We anonymised the names of the companies and interviewees to maintain confidentiality.
The secondary data consists of the companies’press releases, brochures and archived data, to
identify the specific characteristics of the cases.
We studied the firms over a period of 8 years (2014–2021). To improve our
understanding of the studied phenomenon, we chose cases that were located in a
variety of countries. The interviews lasted 1–3 h and were audiotaped; we then produced
transcripts from the tapes. The interviews began with open conversational questions to
encourage the participants to feel at ease and to respond freely, allowing them to tell their
ownstoryanddescribehowtheyrelatetoparentsandcolleaguesduringworkingandnon-
working hours. Table 1 lists the interviewees and type of information gathered. Notes were
also taken during the interviews, making it possible to contextualise the answers given
during the interviews.
3.3 Data analysis
We collected the data through observations, meetings, interviews and site visits to the
selected firms over an 8-year period. In the six analysed firms, we interviewed the CoPs’
members, including both family and non-family members. In the majority of interviews,
two researchers participated: one managed the inquiries, while the other recorded the
answers. When discrepancies occurred among our data sources, we questioned the
respondents further. Each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed for the analysis.
To analyse the data, we coded the retrieved information into a database to reconstruct
each company’s history, map its business areas and roles, identify the ownership and
governance characteristics, and understand in detail the activities people engage in within
the firm’s daily operations. We interpreted the transcribed interviews and observation notes
carefully. From the transcriptions, we identified recurring keywords in the quotations. By
grouping the keywords, we were able to classify patterns of recurring topics into empirical
categories: leadership, cohesiveness and multiple generations at work.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
CoP details Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta
Members 18 members: the
founder’s three
nephews þtop
technicians of the
three company
plants
19 members: the
family leader and his
two sons þfive
managers þtop
technicians þone
external consultant
37 members: the
founder’s two
sons þcommercial
forces (seven
directors þ16
supervisors þ10
external exclusive
agents)
Seven members
The owning family
(mother, father, two
daughters) þone sales
representative þtwo
production
representatives
10 members: the late
father, his wife and
daughter þfour top
technicians and sales
managers
Six members: the
father, mother
and two children
(son and
daughter), two
nonfamily
members
Sponsor Family leader Family leaders’sons Non-family CEO Mother and daughter Family leader’s
daughter
Family leader’s
son
Frequency of
sharing
opportunities
Daily (informal
call), weekly
(formal meeting)
and monthly (3-day
meeting)
Daily (informal call),
weekly (formal and
informal meeting) and
monthly (formal
meeting)
Weekly (informal call),
monthly (periodic formal
meeting)
Daily, weekly (formal
meetings)
Weekly (informal)
meeting with directors
and top technicians,
biannual strategy
workshop with top
management team
members (head of sales,
head of services)
Monthly meeting
of family
directors
Gender Male and female Male and female Male and female Female and male Male and female Male and female
Average age 43 48 43 Not available 56 45
CoP’s
experience
(years)
15 23 14 21 20 10
Task domain Plant performance Company strategy and
performance
Commercial practices Production performance Company strategy and
performance
Commercial
practices
Main
objective
Plants’
“constructive”
competition
Continuous
manufacturing
process improvement
Renewal and
development of
company commercial
practices
Production planning for
the coming period;
improving production
performance
Continuous distribution
and services
improvement
Further
development of
commercial
practices
Source(s): Authors’own creation
Table 1.
Details of the CoPs
in the studied
family SMEs
JFBM
To ensure that a good match resulted between the findings and the interviewers’
perspectives, we first submitted the findings to firm members for checks, asking for their
feedback, and sometimes requested a further interview. Moreover, we triangulated multiple
sources of evidence (i.e. archival analysis, participant observations and interview results) to
improve the quality of the study.
4. Empirical setting
Herein, we refer to the companies as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon and Zeta. Alpha was
founded in 1970 and holds a leadership position in the European market in manufacturing
tooling for punch presses. It has had a regular and organic growth path since 1990. In 2021,
Alpha had a turnover of V135 million, with 160 employees. The firm now counts 13 family
owners; of these, four family members are involved in the business.
Beta has been active in the speciality chemicals industry since 1984; it is a leader in
integrated chemical and geological services. Beta has a turnover of V68 million, with 70
employees. At present, the firm has five family owners, while nine family members are
involved in the business.
Gamma was founded in 1974 to produce automation technology for pharmaceutical
companies. It specialises in designing and producing automation systems for the machinery
used in vaccine production. After years of high growth, Gamma adopted a narrow
diversification in 1985, buying a competitor that produced automation technology for
antibiotics sterilisation. Due to its competitors’large scale, the difficulties of managing two
business units, and –importantly –conflicts in the family regarding the firm’s strategies, the
family sold the manufacturing unit in 2000 and continued to design and trade automation
systems for pharmaceutical companies. In 2008, the family completely retired from the
business and appointed an experienced CEO. The firm is currently owned by the two
founders and their two sons, who participate on the board of directors as non-executives.
Gamma now has a turnover of V190 million, with 130 employees.
Delta is a second-generation family business located in the south of Sweden. The company
was founded by one family in 1947 and was then taken over by a different family in 1974. The
firm is currently run by the second generation of the second family. Two members of the
second generation lead the company as the CEO and vice-CEO. The company specialises in
automatic product lathing and is a subcontractor in the automobile industry. However, the
first-generation members, who purchased the company in 1974, are still active on the board
and act as advisors to the company. The company has 69 employees and a turnover of V12
million at present. The current CEO took over the position 10 years ago and has doubled the
turnover since then. The company continuously invests in its employees by training them.
Epsilon was founded in 1950 to sell office furniture and equipment to business customers.
After years of growth, the company suffered from the advent of online furniture in 2010, with
its office equipment stores suffering and its sales going down. There were also some conflicts
between the late father and his daughter regarding the direction and strategy of the business
for sustaining itself in the long run. After the death of the father in 2011, the company
completely reorganised its strategy and introduced a new business segment. Due to its ageing
workforce, the company was facing a knowledge drain and had difficulty finding new
employees with relevant qualifications. The family firm is now run by the second (mother)
and third (daughter) generations. It has 10 full-time employees and an annual turnover of
V1.5 million.
Zeta is a small architectural business. The firm was founded in 1999 by a sole proprietor,
the father of the family, and is now managed by the son (the second generation). In 2005, Zeta
became a limited company. The son took over from his father, who was 64 at that time. The
business focuses on domestic building projects, and their customers are mostly private
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
clients. The company is a typical family business. The mother and sister are directors, and the
father is further involved in the company as an advisor. The managing director (the son)
recognises the need for improvement in his risk- and knowledge-management system. The
firm is also a member of the Scottish Family Business association, and the son finds it useful
to discuss and share ideas and thoughts with like-minded CEOs of other family firms –
particularly to observe what other family firms have been doing regarding risk assessment
and knowledge accumulation. This is important, as the son’s objective is growth and the
business aims to grow by more than 20% in terms of its sales and workforce. In addition, the
CEO plans to concentrate more on sophisticated building projects that require better project
monitoring and control. For this reason, the CEO is very interested to see how other family
firms handle project monitoring and set up project knowledge databases. The company
employs 10 full-time employees and has an annual turnover of V1.2 million.
A CoP has been identified in each of the six family businesses, in which family and non-
family members compare ideas, translate and transfer knowledge, identify problems and find
solutions. Table 2 describes these CoPs, their functioning, the people involved, and the roles
determined during the first round of interviews.
5. Findings
5.1 The family’s impact on the ability to translate knowledge
This analysis combines the observations obtained from the data and frames the CoPs’
contribution to the translation of knowledge through the family features of leadership,
cohesiveness and multiple generations at work, as shown in Table 3. The results discussed in
the following subsections compare findings from different sources, thereby providing a
“chain of evidence”(Yin, 2009).
5.1.1 Alpha. The family leader is the main sponsor of the CoP at Alpha. Over time, he
shaped the business and the CoP’s identity around his ideas and values. His leadership of
family and non-family members is sustained by the trust he has gained on a daily basis due to
his charisma and ability to manage the firm. People with different views are excluded from
the CoP; only those that identify with the family leader’s orientation and thoughts are
involved. Over time, the more the CoP identified with the family leader, the less open were the
discussions between the CoP members about the business. As one of the founder’s
nephews noted:
During our meeting, it is quite impossible to suggest something different from what my uncle has in
mind ...I mean, this is not only due to my uncle’s way of living the conflict but also because of the
trust that all members give him ...they truly think that what he believes is always the best for the
company.
The family members’active participation in Alpha’s CoP and the strong leadership has led to
a sort of competition among the three plants’representatives to gain approval from the family
and the other plants’representatives.
This plant competition is the engine of the team functioning. When we meet personally every
5 weeks, the best plant representatives are awarded and win a symbolic prize. However, what makes
a plant representative proud is ... being in charge of transferring the learning to other plants,
explaining to the other site plants how they reached that kind of improvement, transferring to them
the new things they learned, so that the others are able to do the same.
The deep focus of the CoP members, the systematic meetings and the strong cohesion among
the CoP members favour the development of a common language and a mutual
understanding of problems, which leads the members to assist one another in gathering
and interpreting incoming knowledge. However, this process of translation and knowledge
JFBM
Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta
Date company was
founded
1970 1984 1974 1947 1950 1990
Generations currently
involved
3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd and 3rd 1st and 2nd
Respondents Owner managers,
employees
Owner manager,
employees
Owner managers,
employees
Owner managers,
employees
Owner
managers,
employees
Owner managers,
employees
Period of data
collection
2014–2021 2014–2021 2014–2021 2014–2021 2014–2021 2014–2021
Industry sector Manufacturing Chemicals Manufacturing Manufacturing
(automotive sector)
Office
equipment
Architecture
Number of employees 160 70 130 69 10 10
Annual turnover in
thousand EUR in
2021
135,000 68,000 190,000 12,000 1,166 1,253
Main products Tooling for punch
presses
Integrated chemical
and geological services
Automatic technologies for
pharmaceutical producers
Automatic product
lathing
Office
equipment
Domestic
building projects
Main customers Mechanic
manufacturers
Real estate
manufacturers
Pharmaceutical
manufacturers
Automobile
manufactures
Business
customers
Private clients
Source(s): Authors’own creation
Table 2.
Details of the
companies taken as
case studies
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
Item Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta
Leadership Strong family leader
and CoP members
aligned with him
Observations
•Context-specific
CoP member
experiences and
learning
•Competition
among CoP
members limited
to predefined
topics
•This favours
exploitation but
impedes
exploration
Leadership and sense
of belonging based on
reciprocal trust
Observations
•Constructive
debates with
conflict
•Freedom to
propose new ideas
without fear of
judgement
•Incoming
proposals taken
into account
•Open debate feeds
exploration
Lack of a family leader
and appointment of an
external CEO
Observations
•Free debate
incentivises new
ideas for customer
satisfaction
•CEO fosters the
exploration of
innovative solutions
Strong family
leadership; aim to
reach “zero
mistakes”, even
though mistakes
happen; company
sponsors events off
the job to
incentivise learning
and cohesion
With the new
managing director
(daughter), leadership
and sense of belonging
is now based on
reciprocal trust
Observations
•Constructive
debates with
conflict
•Freedom to
propose new ideas
without fear of
judgement
•Open debate feeds
exploration
Leadership and sense
of belonging based on
reciprocal trust
Observations
•Constructive
debates with
conflict among
the managing
board
•The managing
board acts as a
sounding board
for the incoming
son and daughter
and provides
guidance for
steering the firm
•Open debate
feeds exploration
Cohesiveness Strong cohesiveness
and uniform thinking
patterns
•Common
language and
mutual
understanding
•Limited
innovation
competences
•CoP members act
as problem
solvers
Strong cohesiveness
around an open and
forward-looking
culture
•Proactive debates
to develop new
skills
•External expert
participation
•Fast decision
processes
Strong Strong; knowledge
sharing is
facilitated through
formal and
informal
procedures and
meetings
Strong cohesiveness
around an open-minded
and forward-looking
culture
•Proactive debates
to develop new
skills
•External expert
participation
Strong cohesiveness
around an open-
minded and forward-
looking culture
•External expert
participation
(continued )
Table 3.
Family and knowledge-
sharing outcomes
JFBM
Item Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta
Multiple
generations
Links between
generations driven
by the family leader
•Only existing
knowledge is
transferred
•Directors stretch
to exploit actual
knowledge to
meet the family’s
expectations
•Short-term
investment and
orientation
Links between the two
generations take place
in an open-culture
context
•Experiential
learning among
older and younger
generations
working together
•The second
generation is one
of the main
sources of new
knowledge
•Encouragement to
pursue
innovativeness
and long-term
results
Weak link between
generations
•Limited
intergenerational
learning
•Family steers the
CEO to explore
innovation to
maintain the firm’s
long-term
reputation
•Family does not
pursue company
entrepreneurship
Strong link
between
generations as first
and second
generation actively
participate;
continuous
improvement
through knowledge
sharing is aimed for
within the family
and the company
Until the death of the
father (only managing
director), links between
generations driven by
the family leader
•Only existing
knowledge is
transferred
•With the new
managing director
(daughter), there is
encouragement to
pursue new ideas
Links between the
two generations take
place in an open-
culture context
•Experiential
learning among
older and
younger
generations
working together
•The second
generation is one
of the main
sources of new
knowledge
Source(s): Authors’own creation
Table 3.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
sharing is context-specific; that is, it occurs within the boundaries defined by the family
members. The family members aligned with the leader select the topic to discuss, address the
debate and decide on the final solution. Even if they favour open and broad debates, the
dialogue and knowledge exchange are limited by the precise boundaries they define. That is,
the CoP’s contribution is oriented towards improving the current systems, structures and
mechanisms in each plant, while the family overrules any other ideas and suggestions.
The simultaneous presence of two generations helps the CoP to remain committed to the
company’s goals and influences the overall decision-making process. As a founder’s nephew
explained:
During our meetings, we always felt and touched passion and enthusiasm for the company. This is
because we all grew up identifying ourselves with the family and the company. We are all part of it
and need to contribute to its success.
5.1.2 Beta. In Beta, only two family members participate in the CoP. The oldest son leads the
CoP, while both sons maintain contact with customers and identify market needs and
expectations. The CoP is led democratically, and open debates among family and non-family
members are encouraged to be constructive, even during conflict discussions. The trust and
cohesiveness around the family have grown over time, thanks to the family’s ability to
involve people: they foster positive conflicts in the CoP and constructive relationships among
members. A non-family member of the CoP stated:
We always compare ideas and opinions in our group. Each one takes into account the others’
observations, because we value each other and we know that everyone works for the common good.
In Beta’s CoP, the sense of belonging leads the top managers to trust one another and the
family members involved in the CoP. This sense of belonging encourages managers to
propose new ideas without judgment or criticism, leading to an open debate that feeds the
exploration of new avenues. The family also allows external experts, such as consultants or
customers, to participate in CoP meetings. Family members encourage intense exchanges
with outsiders, and the members perceive these as a valuable source of fresh ideas and new
insights into the knowledge-translation and -transfer processes. As a CoP member remarked:
I’m always inspired by the new perspectives from the external experts we invite each week, which
keeps me from being overwhelmed by the rigorous schemes when leading my R&D team.
The CoP is in favour of new ideas, and its members are incredibly open to acquiring
knowledge from external stakeholders. Therefore, the translation process appears to be
relatively easy and smooth. Even disagreements are seen as a constructive way to improve
knowledge.
5.1.3 Gamma. In Gamma, family members play a marginal role in the CoP. As a family
member, one of the board of directors said:
There are too many personal issues between us. It is quite impossible to speak about business issues,
regardless of these personal problems.
While the family team is in conflicting relationships, the business follows the path determined
by the non-family CEO. The CEO leads the CoP and gives individuals the freedom to debate
new ideas for customer satisfaction and to generate new solutions and practices. The wide
commercial domain of the CoP helps motivate individuals to come up with new ideas and
proposals. As the commercial company director explained:
Our team is always looking for new solutions to improve current processes. Everyone appreciates
and considers each idea. This motivates everybody to give his specific contribution, and we thus
interpret each problem from different points of view.
JFBM
The new solutions come from integrating different knowledge domains (i.e. each agent’s
different technical and product knowledge), which is essential in continuously producing
innovative solutions for customers. The new solution is then “placed”in a repository for any
member to access and use. Nevertheless, the lack of a family leader and the separation
between family and business strongly reduce the family’s role in promoting and ensuring the
CoP learning process.
The family is not a cohesive group that shares common goals; rather, it is in conflict and is
neutral on firm issues; it does not pursue company entrepreneurship and is completely
disinterested in promoting new innovative solutions. The lack of family cohesion and the
family’s distance from the business limit –or even impede –knowledge sharing and transfer
between generations.
Despite the family’s low involvement and the wide room for discretion left to the team,
family members in Gamma act to keep the CoP’s focus on family values, which are mainly to
increase the firm’s reputation. Family members intervene when a team decision could diverge
from this aim, which is the only case where the family monitoring function leads to an
effective decision. As the CEO explained:
Sometimes, family members leave their silent position and intervene to stress the solution or the
investment they prefer. They usually promote a choice because of the reputation it may produce.
5.1.4 Delta. In 1995, Delta became ISO-certified, making high quality and precision guiding
principles in the company.
Being a family business, it becomes natural that all family members are involved in it, no matter if it
is a farm, restaurant or a supplier in the automotive industry.
In this region, cooperation between the mostly family businesses is common. Sharing orders
with neighbouring companies is also common, if a firm’s own capacity is insufficient. In this
way, the companies become CoPs themselves, which leads to joint product development at
times or to offers for bigger projects in the automotive industry.
During the financial crisis of 2008–2009, the company lost almost half of its turnover, as
many customers from the automotive industry cancelled their orders. Instead of reducing its
workforce, the company kept all its employees and invested in training them instead. The
company used the same strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second-generation
family CEO explained:
...we invested in training and running small volumes to test the machines and so on. But we came
out the other side really battered, but still on track –and, above all, with pretty much all the
production staff left.
Owning families are usually the hubs in these networks, as they meet other family owners in
the community, such as at Church or the sports club. The boundaries between family life and
business life become very fluent and intertwined. As one female business owner put it:
The day has 24 hours. That’s quite a lot of time to do things together as a family. Me and my daughter
[the CEO] work together and, on the weekend, we occasionally have time for our hobby, motorsport.
The company also uses databases to store the employees’knowledge. However, as much of
the knowledge is tacit, such as how to operate machines, intensive training on the job is
needed for new employees. In total, all four members of the owning family (both first and
second generation) are working in the business, making it a vital part of their family life.
Regarding the employees, the family is present in the factory and the company almost daily,
so, as one family member commented:
... [the employees] are learning and contributing all the time.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
5.1.5 Epsilon. In Epsilon, the daughter is the main sponsor of the CoP. Over the years, she has
shaped the business and the CoP identity around her ideas and values. Her leadership of the
family firm is sustained by the trust she has gained from her ability to manage the firm,
especially in terms of driving and supporting the transition of the business strategy. As she
pointed out:
After the sudden death of my father, the workforce didn’t trust me and couldn’t imagine that I have
the capabilities to bring the company on track and make the changes happen.
Another challenge was that the daughter had no industry experience in this sector, as she was
a tax advisor by training. At first, in order to gain some knowledge about the office furniture
sector, she joined several trade organisations to speak to industry experts in this field. Later,
she organised weekly CoP meetings at her firm. At these meetings, key employees from
different company functions and processes sit together to share their knowledge and discuss
how to develop new services for the customers. As she noted:
At the beginning, my employees were afraid to speak to the boss and tell him how we can develop
new ideas and services. When my father was alive, this would never have happened, due to his
authoritative leadership style.
With the help of a change-management consultant, the daughter made the necessary changes
happen. She stressed:
Now, our salespeople talk regularly to our customers to get feedback on how satisfied they are. Then
we sit together and discuss what we can improve. This is a new learning experience for my
employees.
These changes have helped the daughter and the employees to gain a mutual understanding
of problems and to assist in gathering and interpreting information. In the next step, to
further improve the CoP, the daughter and managing director has implemented a knowledge-
management system in the company to share ideas among the workforce and get everyone
involved in the CoP.
5.1.6 Zeta. In Zeta, four family members participate in the CoP. While the son leads the
CoP, he maintains contact with his clients and identifies market needs and expectations. The
other two directors –the mother and daughter –support the son. The father (the founder of
the business) now works as a freelancer and joins the board meetings from time to time. The
CoP is currently led democratically among the family members and the workforce to support
a constructive and fruitful discussion of issues and practices in the firm. This trust and
commitment has grown over time; as the son recalled:
Before joining the firm, I had worked for larger architectural businesses and learned to value the
open discussions with management. I tried to implement such an open-minded culture and
knowledge sharing in our small firm. Now, our workforce and other directors find it beneficial to
have regular CoP meetings in the firm.
To summarise, the CoP is in favour of new ideas, and the members are more open to acquiring
new knowledge from external stakeholders. To support this open-minded culture and
knowledge transfer, the son invites external experts from his former business practices to lift
the knowledge of the firm. As he pointed out:
When I joined the firm, we had difficulties in managing sophisticated construction projects. There
was no sound project management and cost control. Some of my former colleagues were helping me
to implement such a system for my small firm and to convince our employees that it would pay off.
Over the years, Zeta has developed a good dialogue with these former colleagues and has
developed a strong CoP practice among internal and external CoP members.
JFBM
6. Discussion
Our results demonstrate the role CoPs play as knowledge-sharing tools in family SMEs. In
both Beta and Gamma, our results confirm the role of CoPs in encouraging discussions and
knowledge sharing, and thus new knowledge generation. The cases of Delta, Epsilon and
Zeta further highlight the crucial role played by the owning family in supporting
the knowledge-acquisition process from non-family members while simultaneously fostering
the alignment process around selected ideas. These results make it possible to show how
CoPs help to empower the knowledge-sharing process for decision-making, which is usually
challenging in family firms (Duarte Alonso and Kok, 2018;Coyte et al., 2012;Desouza and
Awazu, 2006;Dotsika and Patrick, 2013).
The leader’s approach appears to be fundamental in driving the overall business process
within the CoP, in the cases of both strong or weak involvement from the family. If the leader
is on board, the translation and transfer processes are smoother, and the engagement and
contribution of other members (whether younger family members, managers or external
consultants) promote knowledge sharing. These results are consistent with those of Miller
and Le Breton-Miller (2005), who emphasise the relevance of the leader’s engagement and
support in promoting effective cultural knowledge sharing among staff. In Beta, the family
leader’s approach within the CoP drives members to prioritise the development of
innovations and the continuous search for new products, processes and customer
solutions. In this case, we perceived a longer time perspective within the CoP knowledge
sharing, which motivates members to explore new solutions with a long payback period,
thereby establishing tools to effectively share knowledge within the CoP. Beta’s CoP benefits
from the participation of external collaborators, who bring new skills and knowledge that
further stimulate debate and knowledge sharing in the CoP. This is also apparent in Delta,
Epsilon and Zeta, where the family drives the knowledge sharing. Particularly in Delta, the
surrounding community plays a vital role supporting these processes. Accordingly, we
suggest that a CoP can expand beyond single organisations and include multiple
stakeholders in a community (Johannisson and Wigren, 2006). In contrast, the family in
Alpha has shaped a social context that is biased towards a short-term orientation that limits
the CoP’s ability to pursue solutions with a long time span. In this case, the family requires
short-term results from the business, favouring the exploitation of current solutions and
avenues. The CoP is thus used with a different aim, and consensus from non-family members
is reached more by relying on a power game than through real knowledge-sharing processes,
which limits the firm’s ability to develop a long-term perspective and the engagement
dynamics within the group. Moreover, the families in Delta and Zeta illustrate how important
strong family members are when guiding the firm in knowledge-sharing initiatives.
Cohesiveness appears to play an important role in knowledge sharing within family firms
(Lee, 2006). Interestingly, when family members have personal issues, as in the case of
Gamma, the engagement of non-family members in the CoPs drives the knowledge sharing
towards a professional path. In this case, the non-family CoP members create a professional
context based on an exploration approach that leads to debate and innovation through
knowledge sharing. These results contribute to explain how and why some family firms may
distance themselves from family beliefs, the family’s history of previous success or family ties
(Eddleston et al., 2012), leaving room for non-family members to generate commitment among
CoP members.
Finally, our results show how an intergenerational presence fosters innovations (Frank
et al., 2019;Konopaski et al., 2015), due to the different skills, culture and aims of the
stakeholders involved. For example, in the cases of Beta and Delta, the results reveal an
experiential learning process among older and younger generations working together, as well
as a gradual integration of the company vision, with new ideas coming from the new
members of the family. An understanding of the different visions can only happen if
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
knowledge is shared. Obviously, this can be challenging, especially as different generations
“value”knowledge differently.
Taken together, our empirical evidence shows that the CoP’s role as a knowledge-sharing
tool is affected by the family shaping the social context. In sum, the role of the CoP as a
knowledge-sharing tool depends on the presence (or lack) of a family leader, the leader’s
approach, the degree of cohesion around shared approaches and values within the CoP (that
the family may –or may not –foster), the presence of multiple generations at work and the
level of intergenerational learning among them.
As a result, the family affects the speed of the execution process by introducing pressure
into the social context of the CoP. During discussions and debates in open contexts, it can take
time to reach a shared agreement. Still, members can acquire more awareness and knowledge
about the topic under discussion. As recent studies have highlighted (Bagnoli et al., 2020),
tensions and paradoxes can contribute to translating knowledge and not only affect the
decision-making process but also shape the company’s business model through innovation.
In this regard, a closed context avoids debates and conflicts, with little need to reach an
agreement, which speeds up both the decision-making process and the execution of decisions,
as we observed in the cases of Alpha, Beta and Zeta. In Gamma, however, the family’s
distance from the CoP reduces the pressure to embrace new ideas and thus the speed of
execution. This comparative analysis shows that, as this pressure increases, so does the
speed of learning and execution.
7. Conclusion
Studies about knowledge sharing within family firms have reported contradictory results.
Taking the tension between these contradictory results as its starting point, this study
contributes to the literature on knowledge sharing in family SMEs by revealing the role CoPs
play in knowledge sharing. We provide empirical evidence on how CoPs can act as
knowledge-sharing tools in family SMEs.
While prior studies have viewed CoPs as a conceptual lens through which knowledge
management is interpreted within the whole family firm, this study aims to understand how
CoPs might work as knowledge-sharing tools in family SMEs, while involving a subgroup of
employees that includes both family and non-family members. The findings show that a
CoP’s role in knowledge sharing depends on the presence (or lack) of a family leader,
the leadership approach, the degree of cohesion around shared approaches and values within
the CoP, and the presence of multiple generations at work. This study offers several
contributions to the stream of research on knowledge sharing in family SMEs.
Our study has some implications for practice. First, it focuses attention on the importance
of the leadership approach, the degree of cohesion around shared approaches and values, the
presence of multiple generations, and the level of intergenerational learning between
generations for knowledge sharing. However, these results should be interpreted with the
study’s limitations in mind. First, industry, size, governance mechanisms and geographical
location can affect the social behaviour of a CoP’s members. Second, some of the information
came from the interviewees’perspectives, although our findings also rely on direct
observations. Furthermore, although we collected the data over a long period, social relations
inside the CoPs may have changed over time or could have been influenced by specific events
during those years. The family characteristics could also have changed over time, causing
different studies carried out with a different sample to produce different results.
This study’s results raise some potentially fruitful directions for future research. First,
despite the limitations, we shed light on the importance of the family in the CoP’sroleasa
knowledge-sharing tool within a family SME. Further research should thus investigate the
influence of family-related traits (e.g. degree of ownership, family values, trust level among
JFBM
family members, governance tools and mechanisms, personal traits, gender heterogeneity,
etc.). We contend that multiple CoPs are likely to coexist in a single-family firm, depending
on firm and/or family size, which future research could investigate. Finally, we call for
further studies on knowledge sharing in single- and multiple-generation family firms.
Multiple-generation family firms are particularly interesting in regards to internal
knowledge sharing between generations, as well as external knowledge sharing with other
stakeholders.
References
Bagnoli, C., Dal Mas, F., Lombardi, R. and Nucciarelli, A. (2020), “Translating knowledge through
business model tensions. A case study”,International Journal of Management and Decision
Making, In Press. doi: 10.1504/IJMDM.2021.10033712.
Biscotti, A.M., D’Amico, E. and Monge, F. (2018), “Do environmental management systems affect the
knowledge management process? The impact on the learning evolution and the relevance of
organisational context”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 603-620.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1998), “Organizing knowledge”,California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 90-111.
Carrasco-Hern
andez, A. and Jim
enez-Jim
enez, D. (2013), “Can family firms innovate? Sharing internal
knowledge from a social capital perspective”,Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Chrisman, J.J., Memili, E. and Misra, K. (2014), “Nonfamily managers, family firms, and the winner’s
curse: the influence of non-economic goals and bounded rationality”,Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 38, pp. 1103-1127.
Coyte, R., Ricceri, F. and Guthrie, J. (2012), “The management of knowledge resources in SMEs: an
Australian case study”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 789-807.
Cross, R., Laseter, T., Parker, A. and Velasquez, G. (2006), “Using social network analysis to improve
communities of practice”,California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 32-60.
Cunningham, J. (2020), “Identifying as an outsider: implications for nonfamily in small family firms”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 22, pp. 2785-2807, doi: 10.
1080/09585192.2018.1469160.
Cunningham, J., Seaman, C. and McGuire, D. (2016), “Knowledge sharing in small family firms: a
leadership perspective”,Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Desouza, K.C. and Awazu, Y. (2006), “Knowledge management at SMEs: five peculiarities”,Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Dotsika, F. and Patrick, K. (2013), “Collaborative KM for SMEs: a framework evaluation study”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 368-382.
Duarte Alonso, A. and Kok, S. (2018), “Adapting through learning and knowledge acquisition: the
cases of four global family firms”,Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 274-292, doi: 10.1108/JFBM-01-2018-0005.
Duh, M., Belak, J. and Milfelner, B. (2010), “Core values: culture and ethical climate as constitutional
elements of ethical behaviour: exploring differences between family and non-family
enterprises”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97, pp. 473-489.
Durst, S. and Edvardsson, I.R. (2012), “Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature review”,Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 879-903.
Eddleston, K.A., Kellermanns, F.W. and Zellweger, T.M. (2012), “Exploring the entrepreneurial
behavior of family firms: does the stewardship perspective explain differences?”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 347-367.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”,The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
Fotea, I.S., Fotea, S., Vaduva, S. and Pop, I. (2012), “Fostering entrepreneurial learning in family
business through a community of practice approach –a case study of a Romanian family
business”,Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. XXXI No. 2, pp. 25-38.
Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J. and Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2017), “Capturing the
familiness of family businesses: development of the family influence familiness scale (FIFS)”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 709-742.
Frank, H., Kessler, A., Bachner, C., Fuetsch, E. and Suess-Reyes, J. (2019), “Principles for innovation
management in family firms: an analysis of long-term successful good practices with a
practitioner validation of the principles”,Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 319-348.
Geiger, D. and Schrey€
ogg, G. (2012), “Narratives in knowledge sharing: challenging validity”,Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Giovannoni, E., Maraghini, M.P. and Riccaboni, A. (2011), “Transmitting knowledge across
generations: the role of management accounting practices”,Family Business Review, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 126-150.
Gomez-Mejia,L.R.,Cruz,C.,Berrone,P.andDeCastro,J.(2011),“The bind that ties: socioemotional wealth
preservation in family firms”,The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 653-707.
Hamilton, E. (2011), “Entrepreneurial learning in family business: a situated learning perspective”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 8-26.
Huang, M., Chiu, Y. and Lu, T. (2013), “Knowledge governance mechanisms and repatriate’s
knowledge sharing: the mediating roles of motivation and opportunity”,Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 677-694.
Johannisson, B. and Wigren, C. (2006), “The dynamics of community identity making in an industrial
district: the spirit of Gnosj€
o revisited”,Entrepreneurship As Social Change, pp. 188-209.
Karra, N., Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2006), “Altruism and agency in the family firm: exploring the
role of family, kinship, and ethnicity”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 861-877.
Konopaski, M., Jack, S. and Hamilton, E. (2015), “How family business members learn about
continuity”,Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 347-364.
Lave, J. (1992), “Learning as participation in communities of practice”,paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1992,
University of California, Berkeley.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K., Dyck, B. and Kleysen, R.F. (2005), “The politics of organizational
learning: integrating power into the 4I framework”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 180-191.
Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D. (2006), “Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance,
long-term orientations, and sustainable capability”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 731-746.
Lee, J. (2006), “Impact of family relationships on attitudes of the second generation in family business”,
Family Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 175-191.
Lin, W.-B. (2013), “Research on knowledge sharing and interpersonal relationships: empirical study of
family firms and non-family firms”,Quality and Quantity, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 151-166.
Lionzo, A. and Rossignoli, F. (2013), “Knowledge integration in family SMEs: an extension of the 4I
model”,Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 583-608.
Marett, K., Marett, E.G. and Litchfield, S.R. (2015), “The role of relational familiarity when interpreting
family business communication”,IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 58
Nos 1-2, pp. 69-85.
JFBM
Matlay, H. (2002), “Training and HRD strategies in family and non-family owned small businesses: a
comparative approach”,Education and Training, Vol. 44, pp. 357-369.
McAdam, M., Clinton, E., Gamble, J. and Gartner, W.B. (2019), “The family business as a community of
practice”,Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2019 No. 1, 14915.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldana, J. (2013), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,
3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005), “Management insights from great and struggling family
businesses”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 517-530.
Miller, D., Steier, L. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003), “Lost in time: intergenerational succession, change,
and failure in family business”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 513-531.
Murphy, L., Huybrechts, J. and Lambrechts, F. (2019), “The origins and development of socioemotional
wealth within next-generation family members: an interpretive grounded theory study”,Family
Business Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 396-424.
Mussolino, D. and Calabr
o, A. (2014), “Paternalistic leadership in family firms: types and implications
for intergenerational succession?”,Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 197-210.
Neckebrouck, J., Schulze, W. and Zellweger, T. (2017), “Are family firms good employers?”,Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 553-585, doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0765.
Patel, P.C. and Fiet, J.O. (2011), “Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms
in searching for opportunities”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1179-1197.
Poza, E.J., Hanlon, S. and Kishida, R. (2004), “Does the family business interaction factor represent a
resource or a cost?”,Family Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 99-118.
Rossignoli, F. (2017), “Network for knowledge sharing: an empirical investigation within SMEs”,
European Conference on Knowledge Management, Academic Conferences International,
Kidmore End, pp. 841-847.
Salojarvi, S., Furu, P. and Sveiby, K.E. (2005), “Knowledge management and growth in Finnish SMEs”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 103-122.
Sanchez-Famoso, V. and Maseda, A. (2014), “The role of social capital in family firms to explain the
innovation capabilities in recession time: an empirical study”,R
€
udiger, K., Ortiz, M.P. and
Gonz
alez, A.B. (Eds), Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Crisis, Springer International
Publishing, Switzerland, pp.77-84.
Seaman, C. (2015), “Creating space for the business family: networks, social capital and family
businesses in rural development”,Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 182-191.
Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Simeone, L. and Schiuma, G. (2019a), “Creativity and stakeholders’
engagement in open innovation: design for knowledge translation in technology-intensive
enterprises”,Journal of Business Research, April 2018, pp. 0-1.
Secundo, G., Toma, A., Schiuma, G. and Passiante, G. (2019b), “Knowledge transfer in open
innovation: a classification framework for healthcare ecosystems”,Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 144-163.
Simeone, L., Secundo, G. and Schiuma, G. (2017), “Adopting a design approach to translate needs and
interests of stakeholders in academic entrepreneurship: the MIT Senseable City Lab case”,
Technovation, Vols 64-65 July 2016, pp. 58-67.
Simeone, L., Secundo, G. and Schiuma, G. (2018), “Arts and design as translational mechanisms for
academic entrepreneurship: the metaLAB at Harvard case study”,Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 85, pp. 434-443.
Sirmon, D.G. and Hitt, M.A. (2003), “Managing resources: linking unique resources, management, and
wealth creation in family firms”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 339-358.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
Tagiuri, R. and Davis, J. (1996), “Bivalent attributes of the family firm”,Family Business Review, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 199-208.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, Worchel, S. and
Austin, W.G. (Ed. s), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed.), Nelson-Hall, Chicago, pp.7-24.
Tsai, W. (2002), “Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization: coordination,
competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing”,Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 179-190.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2004), “Characterizing knowledge management in the small business
environment”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 44-61.
Yin, R.K. (2003), “Designing case studies”,Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 5 No. 14, pp. 359-386.
Yin, R.K. (2009), “Case study research: design and methods”, Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. (Eds), Essential
Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Applied Social Research Methods
Series, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Ca, Vol. 5, doi:10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e.
Zahra, S.A. (2012), “Organizational learning and entrepreneurship in family firms: exploring the
moderating effect of ownership and cohesion”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Zahra, S., Neubaum, D. and Larraneta, B. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities:
the moderating role of family involvement”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 10,
pp. 1070-1079.
Zieba, M., Bolisani, E. and Scarso, E. (2016), “Emergent approach to knowledge management by small
companies: multiple case-study research”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 292-307.
Further reading
Bj€
ornberg,
A. and Nicholson, N. (2007), “The family climate scales—development of a new measure
for use in family business research”,Family Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 229-246.
Chirico, F. and Salvato, C. (2008), “Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaptation in
family firms”,Family Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 169-181.
Cobianchi, L., Dal Mas, F. and Angelos, P. (2021), “Onesizedoesnotfitall–translating knowledge to
bridge the gaps to diversity and inclusion of surgical teams”,Annals of Surgery, Vol. 273 No. 2,
pp. e34-e36.
Cope, J. (2005), “Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship”,Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 373-397.
Dal Mas, F., Biancuzzi, H., Massaro, M. and Miceli, L. (2020a), “Adopting a knowledge translation
approach in healthcare co-production. A case study”,Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 9,
pp. 1841-1862.
Dal Mas, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Sousa, M.J., Lopes da Costa, R. and Cobianchi, L. (2020b), “Knowledge
translation in the healthcare sector. A structured literature review”,Electronic Journal Of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 198-211.
DalMas,F.,Bagarotto,E.M.andCobianchi,L.(2021),“Soft skills’effects on knowledge translation in
healthcare. Evidence from the field”, in Lepeley, M.T., Beutell, N., Abarca, N. and Majluf, N. (Eds),
Soft Skills for Human Centered Management and Global Sustainability, Routledge, London, pp.95-109.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge
management within inter-firm networks: a global view”,Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 841-846.
JFBM
Discua Cruz, A., Howorth, C. and Hamilton, E. (2013), “Intrafamily entrepreneurship: the formation
and membership of family entrepreneurial teams”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 17-46.
Eckrich, C.J. and Loughead, T.A. (1996), “Effects of family business membership and psychological
separation on the career development of late adolescents”,Family Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 369-386.
Foss, N.J., Klein, P.G. and Bjørnskov, C. (2019), “The context of entrepreneurial judgment:
organizations, markets, and institutions”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 56 No. 6,
pp. 1197-1213.
Friberger, M.G. and Falkman, G. (2013), “Collaboration processes, outcomes, challenges and enablers
of distributed clinical communities of practice”,Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 32
No. 6, pp. 519-531.
Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., Hampton, M.M. and Lansberg, I. (1997), Generation to Generation: Life Cycles
of the Family Business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Graham, I.D., Logan, J., , M.B.H., Straus, S.E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. and Robinson, N. (2006), “Lost in
knowledge translation: time for a map?”,Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, Vol. 26, pp. 13-24.
Hall, A. and Nordqvist, M. (2008), “Professional management in family businesses: toward an
extended understanding”,Family Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Hutchinson, V. and Quintas, P. (2008), “Do SMEs do knowledge management? Or simply manage
what they know?”,International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 131-154.
Johnson, C.M. (2001), “A survey of current research on online communities of practice”,The Internet
and Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Lemire, N., Souffez, K. and Laurendeau, M.C. (2013), Facilitating a Knowledge Translation Process:
A Knowledge Review and Facilitation Tool, Institut Publique de Sant
e du Quebec, QC.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product
development”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. S1, pp. 111-125.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”,Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. S2, pp. 95-112.
Ljungkvist, T., Boers, B. and Anders
en, J. (2022), “Family firm versus non-family firm: the role of
resource orchestration in fast-growing high-tech SMEs”,Journal of Family Business
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JFBM-11-2021-0137.
Massaro, M., Handley, K., Bagnoli, C. and Dumay, J. (2016), “Knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises: a structured literature review”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 258-291.
Massaro, M., Dal Mas, F., Bontis, N. and Gerrard, B. (2019), “Intellectual capital and performance in
temporary teams”,Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 410-427.
McKelvie, A., Haynie, J.M. and Gustavsson, V. (2011), “Unpacking the uncertainty construct:
implications for entrepreneurial action”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 273-292.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. and Scholnick, B. (2008), “Stewardship vs. stagnation: an empirical
comparison of small family and non-family businesses”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 51-78.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. and Lester, R.H. (2011), “Family and lone founder ownership and
strategic behaviour: social context, identity, and institutional logics”,Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Moilanen, S. (2007), “Knowledge translation in management accounting and control: a case study of a
multinational firm in transitional economies”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 757-789.
Knowledge
sharing in
family SMEs
Nunes, M.B., Annansingh, F., Eaglestone, B. and Wakefield, R. (2006), “Knowledge management issues
in knowledge-intensive SMEs”,Journal of Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 101-119.
Oborn, E., Barrett, M. and Racko, G. (2013), “Knowledge translation in healthcare: incorporating
theories of learning and knowledge from the management literature”,Journal of Health
Organization and Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-431.
Renaudin, M., Dal Mas, F., Garlatti, A. and Massaro, M. (2018), “Knowledge management and cultural
change in a knowledge-intensive public organization”, in Remeniy, D. (Ed.), 4th Knowledge
Management and Intellectual Capital Excellence Awards, Academic Conferences and Publishing
International, pp. 85-96.
Sandhu, G., Garcha, I., Sleeth, J., Yeates, K. and Walker, G.R. (2013), “AIDER: a model for social
accountability in medical education and practice”,Medical Teacher,Vol.35No.8,
pp. e1403-e1408.
Savory, C. (2006), “Translating knowledge to build technological competence”,Management Decision,
Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1052-1075.
Savory, C. (2009), “Building knowledge translation capability into public-sector innovation processes”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 149-171.
Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2001), “Agency relationships in family
firms: theory and evidence”,Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T.A. and Patzelt, H. (2015), “Thinking about entrepreneurial decision
making: review and research agenda”,Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 11-46.
Straus, S.E., Graham, I.D., Taylor, M. and Lockyer, J. (2008), “Development of a mentorship strategy:
a knowledge translation case study”,Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 117-122.
Taylor, D.W. and Thorpe, R. (2004), “Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-participation”,Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-211.
Yang, C.-L. and Wei, S.-T. (2010), “Modelling the performance of CoP in knowledge management”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1033-1045.
Corresponding author
B€
orje Boers can be contacted at: borje.boers@his.se
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JFBM
