Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploratory and exploitative innovation in family businesses: the moderating role of the family firm image and family involvement in top management

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on innovation and family business literature, this study examines the largely overlooked family effect in exploratory and exploitative innovation–performance processes via the moderating impact of the family firm image and family involvement in the top management team (TMT). Based on a sample of 91 Spanish small and medium family firms (family SMEs), our results show some interesting findings. First, we find that while family firm image is beneficial to the exploitative innovation–firm performance relationship, it has a negative impact on the exploratory innovation–performance link. Second, we find that different forms of family involvement in the TMT have different effects on the results of exploratory and exploitative innovation processes. A higher proportion of family members in the TMT negatively impacts the positive effect that both exploratory and exploitative innovation have on firm performance. We also find that a higher number of generations involved in the TMT has a positive effect on exploratory innovation–firm performance, but a detrimental effect on exploitative innovation–firm performance. Thus, our study deepens the current understanding of exploratory and exploitative innovation in family SMEs, highlighting previously overlooked effects of family firm image and two forms of family involvement in the TMT on exploration– and exploitation–firm performance relationships. Furthermore, our findings have meaningful managerial implications for the development of an attractive family firm image and an effective TMT composition in order to improve the outcomes of exploratory and exploitative innovation processes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexiev AS, Jansen JJ, Van den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2010) Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. J Manage Stud 47(7):1343–1364

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison TH, McKenny AF, Short JC (2013) Integrating time into family business research: using random coefficient modeling to examine temporal influences on family firm ambidexterity. Fam Bus Rev 27(1):20–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersén J (2015) The absorptive capacity of family firms: how familiness affects potential and realized absorptive capacity. J Fam Bus Manag 5(1):73–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Marketing Res 14:396–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Arosa B, Iturralde T, Maseda A (2010) Ownership structure and firm performance in non-listed firms: evidence from Spain. J Fam Bus Strategy 1(2):88–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle JL, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG, Very P (2007) The development of organizational social capital: attributes of family firms. J Manage Stud 44(1):73–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan JH, Klein SB, Smyrnios KX (2002) The F-PEC scale of family influence: a proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Fam Bus Rev 15(1):45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Azim MI (2012) Corporate governance mechanisms and their impact on company performance: a structural equation model analysis. Aust J Manage 37(3):481–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkema HG, Shvyrkov O (2007) Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Manage J 28(7):663–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Basco R (2013) The family’s effect on family firm performance: a model testing the demographic and essence approaches. J Fam Bus Strategy 4(1):42–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Basco R (2014) Exploring the influence of the family upon firms performance: does strategic behaviour matter? Int Small Bus J 32:967–995

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manage Rev 28(2):238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Block JH, Jaskiewicz P, Miller D (2011) Ownership versus management effects on performance in family and founder companies: a Bayesian reconciliation. J Fam Bus Strategy 2(4):232–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert J, Burton S (2011) Towards a better understanding of factors affecting transfer of brand associations. J Consum Mark 28(1):57–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannon DL, Wiklund J, Haynie JM (2013) The varying effects of family relationship in entrepreneurial teams. Entrep Theory Pract 37(1):107–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Brettel M, Rottenberger JD (2013) Examining the link between entrepreneurial orientation and learning processes in small and medium-sized enterprises. J Small Bus Manage 51(4):471–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA, Hitt MA (2007) Entrepreneurial actions, innovation, and appropriability. Strateg Entrep J 1(3–4):349–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyl T, Boone C, Hendriks W, Matthyssens P (2011) Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: the moderating role of CEO characteristics. J Manage Stud 48(1):151–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Capital FS (2009) Family capital, family business and free enterprise. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):193–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment, vol 17. Sage, California

  • Carnes CM, Ireland RD (2013) Familiness and innovation: resource bundling as the missing link. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1399–1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Casillas JC, Moreno AM, Barbero JL (2011) Entrepreneurial orientation of family firms: family and environmental dimensions. J Fam Bus Strategy 2(2):90–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H (2003) The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. Calif Manage Rev 45(3):33–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation. Mod Methods Bus Res 295(2):295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirico F, Sirmon DG, Sciascia S, Mazzola P (2011) Resource orchestration in family firms: investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strateg Entrep J 5(4):307–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Sharma P (2005) Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrep Theory Pract 29(5):555–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, De Massis A, Frattini F, Wright M (2015) The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. J Prod Innovat Manag 32(3):310–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua JH, Chrisman JJ, Sharma P (1999) Defining the family business by behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 23(4):19–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen N, Van Gils A, Bammens Y, Carree M (2012) Accessing resources from innovation partners: the search breadth of family SMEs. J Small Bus Manage 50(2):191–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen N, Carree M, Van Gils A, Peters B (2014) Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: an exploratory analysis. Small Bus Econ 42(3):595–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM (2010) Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. In: Hall BN, Rosenberg N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 129–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo MG, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C (2015) Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrep Theory Pract 39(1):75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper MJ, Upton N, Seaman S (2005) Customer relationship management: a comparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. J Small Bus Manage 43(3):242–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig JB, Dibrell C, Davis PS (2008) Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. J Small Bus Manage 46(3):351–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz C, Nordqvist M (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: a generational perspective. Small Bus Econ 38(1):33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2003) Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Manage J 24(6):559–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes J (2008) Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? Int J Market Res 50(1):61–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson A, Mussolino D (2014) Exploring what makes family firms different: discrete or overlapping constructs in the literature? J Fam Bus Strategy 5(2):169–183

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq D, Belausteguigoitia I (2015) Intergenerational strategy involvement and family firms’ innovation pursuits: the critical roles of conflict management and social capital. J Fam Bus Strategy 6(3):178–189

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq D, Dimov D, Thongpapanl NT (2010) The moderating impact of internal social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. J Bus Ventur 25(1):87–103

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Frattini F, Lichtenthaler U (2013) Research on technological innovation in family firms: present debates and future directions. Fam Bus Rev 26(1):10–31

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Kotlar J, Chua JH, Chrisman JJ (2014) Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies. J Small Bus Manage 52(2):344–364

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Di Minin A, Frattini F (2015a) Family-driven innovation. Calif Manage Rev 58(1):5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Frattini F, Pizzurno E, Cassia L (2015b) Product innovation in family versus nonfamily firms: an exploratory analysis. J Small Bus Manage 53(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Kotlar J, Frattini F, Chrisman JJ, Nordqvist M (2016) Family governance at work organizing for new product development in family SMEs. Fam Bus Rev 29(2):189–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse DL, Jaskiewicz P (2013) Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional walth and social identity theories. J Manag Stud 50(3):337–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Robinson RB (1984) Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strateg Manage J 5(3):265–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Diéguez-Soto J, López-Delgado P, Rojo-Ramírez A (2015) Identifying and classifying family businesses. Rev Manag Sci 9(3):603–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Discua-Cruz A, Howorth C, Hamilton E (2013) Intrafamily entrepreneurship: the formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrep Theory Prac 37(1):17–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer WG (2003) The family: the missing variable in organizational research. Entrep Theory Pract 27:401–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer WG, Whetten DA (2006) Family firms and social responsibility: preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrep Theory Pract 30(6):785–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Pearson AW (2005) An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepr Theory Pract 29(3):267–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk RF, Miller NB (1992) A primer for soft modelling. University of Akron Press, Akron

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun C, Shanley M (1990) What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Acad Manage J 33(2):233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama F (1996) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Álvarez E, López-Sintas J, Gonzalvo PS (2002) Socialization patterns of successors in first-to second-generation family businesses. Fam Bus Rev 15(3):189–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(7):1–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisser S (1975) The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 70(350):320–328

    Google Scholar 

  • George G (2005) Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad Manage J 48(4):661–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manage J 47(2):209–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey PC (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Acad Manage Rev 30(4):777–798

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel S, Jones RJ (2016) Entrepreneurial exploration and exploitation in family business: a systematic review and future directions. Fam Bus Rev 29(1):94–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal R, Chakravarty A, Saini A (2010) Governance mechanisms in business-to-business electronic markets. J Marketing 74(4):45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Güttel WH, Konlechner SW, Trede JK (2015) Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Rev Manag Sci 9(2):261–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon TG, Williams M, MacMillan IC (2003) A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. J Bus Ventur 18(4):451–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Market Sci 40:414–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad Manage Rev 32(2):334–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman HH (1967) Modem factor analysis. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • He Z, Wong P (2004) Exploration versus exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Heavey C, Simsek Z (2013) Top management compositional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating role of perceived technological uncertainty. J Prod Innovat Manage 30(5):837–855

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler J, Ringle C, Sinkovics R (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Mar 20:277–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl MRW (2013) Risk aversion in family firms: what do we really know? J Risk Finance 14(1):49–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl MRW (2015) Family involvement and organizational ambidexterity in later-generation family businesses: a framework for further investigation. Manage Decis 53(5):1061–1082

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede GH, Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manage J 20(2):195–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts J, Voordeckers W, Lybaert N, Vandemaele S (2011) The distinctiveness of family-firm intangibles: a review and suggestions for future research. J Manag Organ 17(2):268–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen A, Tsang EW (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manage Rev 30(1):146–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, Lundvall BA (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Res Policy 36(5):680–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammerlander N, Burger D, Fust A, Fueglistaller U (2015) Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: the effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. J Bus Ventur 30(4):582–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashmiri S, Mahajan V (2010) What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. Int J Res Mark 27(3):271–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns FW, Eddleston KA (2006) Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 30(6):809–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen M, Lee N, Wetzels M (2009) An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. J Econ Psychol 30:344–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein SB, Astrachan JH, Smyrnios KX (2005) The F-PEC scale of family influence: construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrep Theory Pract 29(3):321–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmann T, Stöckmann C (2014) Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: the mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrep Theory Pract 38(5):1001–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • König A, Kammerlander N, Enders A (2013) The family innovator’s dilemma: how family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Acad Manage Rev 38(3):418–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortmann S (2014) The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. J Prod Innovat Manage 32(5):666–684

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlar J, Fang H, De Massis A, Frattini F (2014a) Profitability goals, control goals, and the R&D investment decisions of family and nonfamily firms. J Prod Innovat Manage 31(6):1128–1145

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlar J, De Massis A, Fang H, Frattini F (2014b) Strategic reference points in family firms. Small Bus Econ 43(3):597–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy ND, Hack A, Kellermanns FW (2014) New product portfolio performance in family firms. J Bus Res 67(6):1065–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Pohjola M, Koponen A (2012) Innovation in family firms: an empirical analysis linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success. Rev Manag Sci 6(3):265–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller I, Miller D (2006) Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrep Theory Pract 30(6):731–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. Manag Informat Syst 31(1):59–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling Y, Kellermanns FW (2010) The effects of family firm specific sources of TMT diversity: the moderating role of information exchange frequency. J Manage Stud 47(2):322–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Litz RA, Kleysen RF (2001) Your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: toward a theory of family firm innovation with help from the Brubeck family. Fam Bus Rev 14(4):335–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Chen J, Tao Y (2015) Innovation performance in new product development teams in china’s technology ventures: the role of behavioral integration dimensions and collective efficacy. J Prod Innovat Manage 32(1):29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manage 32(5):646–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (2001) Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. J Bus Ventur 16(5):429–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin GT, Steier L, Wright M (2011) Strategic entrepreneurship in family business. Strateg Entrep J 5(4):285–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Machold S, Huse M, Minichilli A, Nordqvist M (2011) Board leadership and strategy involvement in small firms: a team production approach. Corp Gov 19(4):368–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahto RV, Davis PS, Pearce II, John A, Robinson RB Jr (2010) Satisfaction with firm performance in family businesses. Entrep Theory Pract 34(5):985–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchisio G, Mazzola P, Sciascia S, Miles M, Astrachan J (2010) Corporate venturing in family business: the effects on the family and its members. Entrep Reg Dev 22(3–4):349–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Romero MJ, Rojo-Ramirez AA (2015) Socioemotional wealth’s implications in the calculus of the minimum rate of return required by family businesses’ owners. Rev Manag Sci. doi:10.1007/s11846-015-0181-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzler K, Veider V, Hautz J, Stadler C (2015) The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation. J Prod Innovat Manage 32(3):319–333

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath RG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Acad Manage J 44(1):118–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Memili E, Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW, Zellweger TM, Barnett T (2010) The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and image. J Fam Bus Strategy 1(4):200–209

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I, Scholnick B (2008) Stewardship versus stagnation: an empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. J Manage Stud 45(1):51–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I, Lester RH (2013) Family firm governance, strategic conformity and performance: institutional versus strategic perspectives. Organ Sci 24:189–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli A, Corbetta G, MacMillan IC (2010) Top management teams in family-controlled companies: ‘Familiness’, ‘faultlines’, and their impact on financial performance. J Manage Stud 47(2):205–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss TW, Payne GT, Moore CB (2014) Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Fam Bus Rev 27(1):51–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Naldi L, Nordqvist M, Sjöberg K, Wiklund J (2007) Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Fam Bus Rev 20(1):33–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth UR, Green MT (2009) Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business: the roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. J Retail Consum Serv 16(4):248–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel PC, Chrisman JJ (2014) Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strateg Manage J 35(4):617–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel PC, Fiet JO (2011) Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract 35(6):1179–1197

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel PC, Kohtamäki M, Parida V, Wincent J (2015) Entrepreneurial orientation-as-experimentation and firm performance: the enabling role of absorptive capacity. Strateg Manage J 36(11):1739–1749

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng DX, Lai F (2012) Using partial least squares in operations management research: a practical guideline and summary of past research. J Oper Manag 30(6):467–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manage 12(4):531–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–891

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manage 34(3):375–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20(4):685–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Rego A, Oliveira P, Rosado P, Habib N (2014) Product innovation in resource-poor environments: three research streams. J Prod Innovat Manage 31(2):202–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger S, Lehner JM (2015) Navigating a family business through a changing environment: findings from a longitudinal study. Rev Manag Sci 9(2):411–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova VP, Williamson IO, Petkova AP, Sever JM (2005) Being good or being known: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Acad Manage J 48(6):1033–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). University of Hamburg, Germany

  • Robeson D, O’Connor GC (2013) Boards of directors, innovation, and performance: an exploration at multiple levels. J Prod Innovat Manag 30(4):608–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Sageder M, Mitter C, Feldbauer-Durstmüller B (2016) Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research. DOI, Rev Manag Sci. doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0216-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvato C, Melin L (2008) Creating value across generations in family-controlled businesses: the role of family social capital. Fam Bus Rev 21(3):259–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Famoso V, Maseda A, Iturralde T (2014) The role of internal social capital in organisational innovation. An empirical study of family firms. Eur Manag J 32(6):950–962

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster T, Holtbrügge D (2014) Resource dependency, innovative strategies, and firm performance in BOP markets. J Prod Innovat Manage 31(S1):43–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia S, Mazzola P, Chirico F (2013) Generational involvement in the top management team of family firms: exploring nonlinear effects on entrepreneurial orientation. Entrep Theory Pract 37(1):69–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia S, Mazzola P, Kellermanns FW (2014) Family management and profitability in private family-owned firms: introducing generational stage and the socioemotional wealth perspective. J Fam Bus Strategy 5(2):131–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia S, Nordqvist M, Mazzola P, De Massis A (2015) Family ownership and R&D intensity in small-and medium-sized firms. J Prod Innovat Manage 32(3):349–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma P (2004) An overview of the field of family business studies: current status and directions for the future. Fam Bus Rev 17(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma P, Irving PG (2005) Four bases of family business successor commitment: antecedents and consequences. Entrep Theory Prac 29(1):13–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma P, Salvato C (2011) Commentary: exploiting and exploring new opportunities over life cycle stages of family firms. Entrep Theory Prac 35(6):1199–1205

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu C, Page AL, Gao S, Jiang X (2012) Managerial ties and firm innovation: is knowledge creation a missing link? J Prod Innovat Manage 29(1):125–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieger P, Bernhard F, Frey U (2011) Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-family employees: investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership. J Fam Bus Strategy 2(2):78–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon M, Shrader RC (2012) Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: the role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions. J Bus Ventur 27(3):291–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon DG, Hitt MA (2003) Managing resources: linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrep Theory Pract 27(4):339–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson RL, Goodpaster KE, Hedberg PR, Yu A (2009) The family point of view, family social capital, and firm performance an exploratory test. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):239–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler C, Rajwani T, Karaba F (2014) Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: networks as a new level of analysis. Int J Manag Rev 16(2):172–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger T, Duller C, Hiebl MRW (2015) No consensus in sight: an analysis of ten years of family business definitions in empirical research studies. J Enterp Cult 23(01):25–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc 36(2):111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubner S, Blarr WH, Brands C, Wulf T (2012) Organizational ambidexterity and family firm performance. J Small Bus Entrep 25(2):217–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy C, Kreiner GE (2008) Governing by managing identity boundaries: the case of family businesses. Entrep Theory Pract 32(3):415–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Talke K, Salomo S, Rost K (2010) How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Res Policy 39(7):907–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin YM, Lauro C (2005) PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):159–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallejo-Martos MC (2011) The organizational culture of family firms as a key factor of competitiveness. J Bus Econ Manage 12(3):451–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Veider V, Matzler K (2015) The abiltiy and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity. J Fam Bus Strategy 7(2):106–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman NU, Ramanujam V (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. J Manage 13(1):109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga B, Amit R (2009) How are US family firms controlled? Rev Financ Stud 22(8):3047–3091

    Google Scholar 

  • Voordeckers W, Van Gils A, Van den Heuvel J (2007) Board composition in small and medium-sized family firms. J Small Bus Manage 45(1):137–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Phelps C, Steensma HK (2010) Learning from what others have learned from you: the effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Acad Manage J 53(2):371–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, Filatotchev I (2004) Governance of the entrepreneurial threshold firm: a knowledge-based perspective. J Manage Stud 41(5):885–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev 27(2):185–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, Neubaum DO, Larrañeta B (2007) Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities: the moderating role of family involvement. J Bus Res 60(10):1070–1079

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Astrachan JH (2008) On the emotional value of owning a firm. Fam Bus Rev 21(4):347–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW (2010) Exploring the concept of familiness: introducing family firm identity. J Fam Bus Strategy 1(1):54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Nason RS, Nordqvist M, Brush CG (2013) Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 37(2):229–248

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We highly appreciate the financial support received from the Family Business Centre of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU for financial support (DFB/BFA and European Social Fund). This research has received financial support from the UPV/EHU (Project UPV/EHU 12/22).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Financial Economic I, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Elcano 21, 48008, Bilbao, Spain

    Unai Arzubiaga

  2. Department of Financial Economic I, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Avda. Lehenadakari Agirre 83, 48015, Bilbao, Spain

    Amaia Maseda

  3. Department of Financial Economic II, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Avda. Lehenadakari Agirre 83, 48015, Bilbao, Spain

    Txomin Iturralde

Authors
  1. Unai Arzubiaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amaia Maseda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Txomin Iturralde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Unai Arzubiaga.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Common method bias analysis
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arzubiaga, U., Maseda, A. & Iturralde, T. Exploratory and exploitative innovation in family businesses: the moderating role of the family firm image and family involvement in top management. Rev Manag Sci 13, 1–31 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0239-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0239-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation