Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is market learning the missing link between family involvement – firm performance relationship? A resource-based perspective

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on previous literature on proposing that there exists a positive relationship between family involvement and firm performance, this study refines the explanatory role of market learning in explaining the relationship between family involvement and firm performance to be conditional to firm age and environmental turbulence. The data from 344 small-medium enterprises show that family involvement is positively related to market exploitation while family involvement is negatively related to market exploration as family firms age. Also, we provide empirical evidence that family involvement is positively related to firm performance in turbulent environments through market exploration irrespective of the firm’s age. Conversely, family involvement is positively related to firm performance through market exploitation in less turbulent environments irrespective of firm age. This study provides empirical evidence of the market exploration and exploitation capabilities may be the capabilities that glue family involvement to firm performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). Integrating time into family business research: using random coefficient modeling to examine temporal influences on family firm ambidexterity. Family Business Review, 27(1), 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allouche, J., Amann, B., Jaussaud, J., & Kurashina, T. (2008). The impact of family control on the performance and financial characteristics of family versus nonfamily businesses in Japan: a matched-pair investigation. Family Business Review, 21(4), 315–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately held family businesses: advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business Review, 21(2), 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses' contribution to the U.S. economy: a closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: a proposal forsolving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003). The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: how does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Hu¨ lsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). Families as active monitors of firm performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(2), 118–130.

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J. S. (1968). Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basco, R. (2014). Exploring the influence of the family upon firm performance: does strategic behavior matter? International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 967–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjuggren, C. M., Johansson, D., & Sjögren, H. (2011). A note on employment and gross domestic product in Swedish family-owned businesses: a descriptive analysis. Family Business Review, 24(4), 362–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, C. G., & Saleh, S. D. (1995). A model of family owned small business performance. Family Business Annual, 1(1), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugra, A. (1994). State and business in modern Turkey: a comparative study. SUNY Press.

  • Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saá-Pérez, P., & García-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlock, R. S., & Ward, J. L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business: parallel planning to unify the family and business. Houndsmill, NY: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, C. M., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Familiness and innovation: resource bundling as the missing link. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1399–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. (2013). What do we know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casillas, J. C. & Moreno, A., M. (2010). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth: the moderating role of family involvement. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22: 265–291.

  • Chandler Jr., A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: the dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: an extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Fmily involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W. (2009). The influence of family ownership on SME performance: evidence from public firms in Taiwan. Small Business Economics, 33(3), 353–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Steier, L. P. (2003). Extending the theoretical horizons of family business research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(4), 331–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J. P. H., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 27(6), 2741–2771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: a commentary on “comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., & Loy, J. T. C. (2007). Family business performance: the effects of gender and management. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1058–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G., & Amarapurkar, S. S. (2009). Family capital of family firms: bridging human, social, and financial capital. Family Business Review, 22(3), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D'Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1093–1116.

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, J. C., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., Depaire, B., & Mercken, R. (2012). Family firm types based on the professionalization construct: exploratory research. Family Business Review, 26(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Discua-Cruz, A., Howorth, C., & Hamilton, E. (2012). Intrafamily entrepreneurship: the formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 17–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D. (2006). Adaptation and performance in foreign markets: evidence of systematic under-adaptation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2), 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreux IV, D. R., & Brown, B. M. (1994). Marketing private banking services to family businesses. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 12(3), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the “Family Effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19(4), 253–273.

  • Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC press.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., & Lang, L. (2002). The ultimate ownership of western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci, C., Santulli, R., & Calabro, A. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic, E., Cao, Q., & Zhang, H. (2012a). Corporate shareholdings and organizational ambidexterity in high-tech SMEs: evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 652–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012b). The adolescence of family firm research: taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1010–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., & Costa, J. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, S., & Jones, R. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial exploration and exploitation in family business: a systematic review and future directions. Family Business Review, 29(1), 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunduz, L., & Tatoglu, E. (2003). A comparison of the financial characteristics of group affiliated and independent firms in Turkey. European Business Review, 15(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Jr J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R., & Tathum, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1155–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, A. D. (1999). Firm strategy and age dependence: a contingent view of the liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 281–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59.

  • Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm. Family Business Review, 21, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P. N. (1974). Mass output orientation of operations technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Gao, F. Y. (2013). Does family involvement increase business performance? Family-longevity goals’ moderating role in Chinese family firms. Journal of Business Research, 66, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: construction, validation, and further implication for theory.Entrepreneurship. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 321–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1263–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in market exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54, 471–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2006). Family firm performance: further evidence. Family Business Review, 19(2), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. -S., & Rogoff, E. G. (1996). Research note: comparison of small businesses with family participation versus small businesses without family participation: an investigation of differences in goals, attitudes, and family/business conflict. Family Business Review, 9(4), 423–437.

  • Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., & Pitts, R. A. (2000). Designing organizations for competitive advantage: the power of unlearning and learning. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litz, R. A. (1995). The family business: toward definitional clarity. Family Business Review, 8(2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Bruton, G., & Li, W. (2009). Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Brigham, K. H. (2011). Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madanoglu, M., Altinay, L., & Wang, X. L. (2015). Disentangling the effect of family involvement on innovativeness and risk taking: the role of decentralization. Journal of Business Research. management and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manor, O., Matthews, S., & Power, C. (2000). Dichotomous or categorical response? Analyzing self-rated health and lifetime social class. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29, 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. L., & Lumpkin, T. (2003). From entrepreneurial orientation to family orientation: generational differences in the management of family businesses. In Paper presented at the 22nd Babson college entrepreneurship research conference, Babson college, in Wellesley. MA: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Management insights from great and struggling family businesses. Long Range Planning, 38(6), 517–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholnick, B. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: an empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, C. S., Randoy, T., & Jenssen, J. I. (2001). The effect of founding family influence on firm value and corporate governance. Journal of International Financial Management Accounting, 12(3), 235–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A. (2011). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. W., Payne, G. T., & Moore, C. B. (2014). Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 27(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Relational and contractual governance in family firms: effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., & Wasserman, W. Kutner M. (1985). Applied Linear Statistical Models, Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Design. Homewood Illinois: Richard D. 1rwin Inc.

  • Nordqvist, M. (2005). Familiness in top management teams: commentary on Ensley and Pearson’s an exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms' financial performance: a meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozsomer, A., & Gencturk, E. (2003). A resource-based model of market learning in the subsidiary: the capabilities of exploration and exploitation. Journal of International Marketing, 11(3), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Gonzalez, F. (2006). Inherited control and firm performance. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1559–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poza, E. (1995). Global competition and the family-owned business in Latin America. Family Business Review. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1995.00301.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, D. M. (1990). A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W. S., & Gedajlovic, E. R. (2010). Whither family business? Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2008). Family involvement in ownership and management: exploring nonlinear effects on performance. Family Business Review, 21(4), 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing. Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. (2012). Twenty five years of family business review: reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinnar, R. S., Cho, S., & Ragoff, E. G. (2013). Outcomes of family involvement in minority owned family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., & Broberg, J. C. (2009). Family firms and entrepreneurial orientation in publicly traded firms: a comparative analysis of the S&P 500. Family Business Review, 22(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D.G. & Hitt, M.A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L. (2003). Variants of agency contracts in family-financed ventures as a continuum of familial altruistic and market rationalities. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 597–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokarczyk, J., Hansen, E., Green, M., & Down, J. (2007). A resource-based view and market orientation theory examination of the role of “familiness” in family business success. Family Business Review, 20(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton, N., Teal, E. J., & Felan, J. T. (2001). Strategic and business planning practices of fast growth family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., Block, J. H., Miller, D., Schwens, C., & Xi, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of the financial performance of family firms: another attempt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Strategic entrepreneurship within family-controlled firms: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1989). From critical resources to corporate strategy. Journal of General Management, 14(3), 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P. (1999). Factors associated with the employment of non-executive directors by unquoted companies. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(1), 81–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., Cowling, M., & Storey, D. J. (1997). The management and performance of unquoted family companies in the United Kingdom. UK: Center for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Warwick Business School.

  • Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The internationalization of new and small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2011). What can family firm research learn from management and entrepreneurship? Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(4), 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xi, et al. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., Gilbert, B. A., & Oviatt, B. M. (2011). Effects of alliances, time, and network cohesion on the initiation of foreign sales by new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4), 424–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., J.C. Hayton, and C. Salvato. 2004. Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28, no. 4: 363–81.

  • Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: the moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1035–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehir, C., Altindag, E., & Acar, A. Z. (2011). The effects of relationship orientation through innovation orientation on firm performance: an empirical study on Turkish family-owned firms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 896–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2011). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Sharjah, College of Business Administration, P.O. Box 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Volkan Yeniaras

  2. EDC Paris Business School, OCRE-Lab, 70 Galerie des Damiers, Paris La Defense 1, 92415, Courbevoie, France

    Pinar Sener

  3. Istanbul Bilgi University, Business School, Eski Silahtaraga Elektrik Santrali Kazim Karabekir Caddesi, 34060, Istanbul, Turkey

    Suheyl Unver

Authors
  1. Volkan Yeniaras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pinar Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suheyl Unver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkan Yeniaras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeniaras, V., Sener, P. & Unver, S. Is market learning the missing link between family involvement – firm performance relationship? A resource-based perspective. Int Entrep Manag J 13, 575–604 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0417-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0417-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation