دانلود مقاله بررسی دلایل نوآور نبودن برخی از شرکت های خانوادگی
چکیده
مقدمه
پیشینه نظری
روش های پژوهش
یافته ها و گزاره ها
بحث
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Theoretical background
Research methods
Findings and propositions
Discussion
References
چکیده
اگرچه محققان اهمیت نوآوری در شرکت‌های خانوادگی را تشخیص داده‌اند، ادبیات مربوط به نوآوری شرکت‌های خانوادگی معمولاً شرکت‌های خانوادگی را به عنوان «خوب» یا «بد» برای نوآوری به تصویر می‌کشد، یا بر روی عواملی با پتانسیل برای تحریک مثبت نوآوری شرکت‌های خانوادگی تمرکز می‌کند. . این مطالعه با تکیه بر نظریه وابستگی مسیر، به طور خاص بر روی موانع خاص خانواده در برابر نوآوری در شرکت‌های خانوادگی تمرکز دارد. برای این منظور، به دلیل محدود بودن نظریه موجود، از رویکرد نظریه‌سازی کیفی پیروی می‌کنیم و نمونه‌ای از چهار کسب‌وکار خانوادگی که دفتر مرکزی آنها در اسپانیا و اروگوئه است را مطالعه می‌کنیم. گزاره های مرتبط و مشارکت های نظری ناشی از مطالعه ما در بخش نتیجه گیری به اشتراک گذاشته شده است.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
Although scholars have recognized the importance of innovation in family firms, the literature on family firm innovation tends to generally depict family firms as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for innovation, or focus on the factors with the potential to positively stimulate family firm innovation. Drawing on path dependence theory, this study focuses specifically on what family-specific barriers work against innovation in family firms. To that end, we follow a qualitative theory-building approach due to the limited amount of extant theory, and study a sample of four family businesses headquartered in Spain and Uruguay. The related propositions and theoretical contributions emerging from our study are shared in the concluding section.
Introduction
Why are some family firms not innovative? This is an important question and the central focus of this study. Research indicates that innovation is important for the competitiveness, performance, and growth of firms (Lohe & Calabro, ` 2017; Rosenbusch et al., 2011; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2019), including family firms (De Massis et al., 2015; Eddleston et al., 2008). Family ownership—defined by the involvement of a family in both ownership and management (Chua et al., 2012; Ling & Kellermanns, 2010)—is the most common form of firm ownership worldwide (Arregle et al., 2007; La Porta et al., 1999; Neckebrouck et al., 2018). Estimates suggest that over one third of the companies in the S&P 500 still have a significant family influence (Cruz et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2003). However, although “innovation in family firms is a relevant and promising research area because there are strong theoretical reasons to believe that the antecedents and effects of […] innovation are different in family and nonfamily firms” (De Massis et al., 2013: 10), most existing family business research tends to generally depict family firms as either ‘good’ (Chin et al., 2009; Rogoff & Heck, 2003) or ‘bad’ (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2014; Patel & Chrisman, 2014) for innovation or focus on the factors that may positively stimulate family firm innovation (e.g., Chirico & Salvato, 2014; Werner et al., 2018).
Findings and propositions
The iterative process between the data and the analysis revealed the findings shown in the data structure (Fig. 1). The results are organized following the data structure of Fig. 1 from which we derived four aggregate dimensions: (1) a reduction of managerial discretion, (2) family lock-in, (3) the conservative attitude of the family, and (4) inefficient paths.
4.1. Reduction of managerial discretion
Family business owners select and incorporate historically specific elements during the founding phase. These elements may become routinized and may consequently come to influence the organization’s structure and behaviour long after the founding phase (Schreyogg ¨ & Sydow, 2011). When these routines appear, the behaviour of the organization becomes standardized through the use of repetitive patterns, which contribute alone or are combined with others in creating organizational persistence. These are cognitive schemes and interpretative frameworks that are constructed during the period managed by the founder, and they become dominant in management actions (Gioia & Sims, 1986; Schwenk, 1988).