Does family matter in corporate venturing? Converting the question, can a family firm survive without corporate venturing? Life cycle theory contends that it is normal for an organization to form, grow, mature, decline, and die. Long–term survival, especially through multiple generations, would require renewal through innovation to avoid decay and death. Strategic corporate venturing may be the answer for many family firms. To innovate and prosper, a family enterprise must contend with multiple life cycles, rarely synchronized, any one of which may be in a decline stage at any point in time. This commentary examines how life cycles complicate the ability of families to plan strategically for corporate entrepreneurship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdizesI. (1988). Corporate lifecycles: How and why corporations grow and die and what to do about it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
ArthurJ.B. & HuntleyC.L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1159–1170.
3.
BansalP. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.
4.
BlockZ. & MacMillanI.C. (1995). Corporate venturing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
5.
ChandlerA. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
GersickK.E., DavisJ.A., HamptonM.M., & LansbergI. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
HamelG. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
HanksS.H., WatsonC.J., JansenE., & ChandlerG.N. (1993). Tightening the life–cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high–technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 5–29.
9.
HoyF. (1995). Researching the entrepreneurial venture. In KatzJ.A. & BrockhausR.H.Sr. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 2, pp. 145–174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
10.
HoyF., ReevesC., McDougallP., & SmithP. (1989). Transitions and second generation entrepreneurship. In BrockhausR.H.Sr., ChurchillN.C., KatzJ.A., KirchhoffB.A., VesperK.H., & WetzelW.E.Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 608–609). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
11.
KanterR.M. (1985). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
12.
KazanjianR.K. (1984). Operationalizing stages of growth: An empirical assessment of dominant problems. In HornadayJ.A., TarpleyF.Jr., TimmonsJ.A., & VesperK.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 144–158). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
13.
KellermannsF.W. & EddlestonK.A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 809–830.
14.
KuratkoD.F. & WelschH.P. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurial growth. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
15.
PinchotG.III. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row.
16.
PozaE.J. (1988). Managerial practices that support interpreneurship and continued growth. Family Business Review, 1, 339–360.
17.
PozaE.J. (2004). Family business. Mason, OH: Thomson South–Western.
18.
ScottB.R. (1971). Stages of corporate development—Part I. Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, Harvard University.
19.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17, 1–36.
20.
SonfieldM.C. & LussierR.N. (2004). First–, second–, and third–generation family firms: A comparison. Family Business Review, 17, 189–202.
21.
VeraD. & CrossanM. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222–240.
22.
WashingtonM. & ZajacE.J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.
