Our study investigated how multi-centenary family firms in the area of Kyoto – collectively known as shinise – maintain a high social status in the community. Our analysis unpacks the socio-cultural practices through which the ongoing interaction among these actors re-enacts and reproduces the social order that ascribes shinise a distinct social standing in exchange for their continued commitment to practices and structures that help the community preserve its cultural integrity and collective identity. By doing so, our findings trace a connection between status maintenance and the expressive function that a category of firms performs within a community. At the same time, our study reveals a dark side of high status, by showing how their commitments lock shinise in a position of ‘benign entrapment’ that may impose sacrifices on family members and severe limitations to their personal freedom.
AronoffC. (2004). Self-perpetuation family organization built on values: Necessary condition for long-term family business survival. Family Business Review, 17, 55–59.
3.
AshidaM. (1974). Shinise and family lesson, questioning the modern business way [in Japanese]. Kyoto: Toyo Bunka Ltd.
4.
AzoulayP.StuartT.WangY. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable?Management Science, 60, 92–109.
5.
BellandiM.SantiniE. (2017). Resilience and the role of arts and culture-based activities in mature industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 25, 88–106.
6.
BenjaminB. A.PodolnyJ. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 563–589.
7.
BergerJ.FişekM. H. (2006). Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1038–1079.
8.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82–113.
9.
BhappuA. D. (2000). The Japanese family: An institutional logic for Japanese corporate networks and Japanese management. Academy of Management Review, 25, 409–415.
10.
BianchiA. J.KangS. M.StewartD. (2012). The organizational selection of status characteristics: Status evaluations in an open source community. Organization Science, 23, 341–354.
11.
BinzC.HairJ. F.PieperT. M.BaldaufA. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 3–11.
12.
BoghossianJ. (2017). Artisans of authenticity: The emergence and growth of markets for artisan cheese and wine in Quebec. Unpublished PhD dissertation, McGill University, Canada.
13.
BothnerM. S.PodolnyJ. M.SmithE. B. (2011). Organizing contests for status: The Matthew effect vs. the Mark effect. Management Science, 57, 439–457.
14.
CastellucciF.ErtugG. (2010). What’s in it for them? Advantages of higher-status partners in exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 149–166.
15.
CennamoC.BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1153–1173.
16.
ChenY.PetersonRPhilipsD.PodolnyJ.RidgewayC. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table-attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23, 299–307.
17.
CirilloA.RomanoM.ArdovinoO. (2015). Does family involvement foster IPO value? Empirical analysis on Italian stock market. Management Decision, 53, 1125–1154.
18.
CraigJ. B.DibrellC.DavisP. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 351–371.
19.
DeephouseD. L.JaskiewiczP. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 337–360.
20.
DeephouseD. L.SuchmanM. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.Sahlin-AnderssonK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
21.
DelmestriG.GreenwoodR. (2016). How Cinderella became a queen: Theorizing radical status change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 507–550.
22.
DuguidM. M.LoydD. L.TolbertP. S. (2012). The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organization Science, 23, 386–401.
23.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
24.
FordJ. B.HoneycuttE. D. (1992). Japanese national culture as a basis for understanding Japanese business practices. Business Horizons, 35(6), 27–34.
25.
FreudenbergerH. J.FreedheimD. K.KurtzT. S. (1989). Treatment of individuals in family businesses. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(1), 47.
26.
GallucciC.SantulliR.CalabròA. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 155–165.
27.
GehmanJ.TrevinoL. K.GarudR. (2013). Values work: A process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 84–112.
28.
GeorgeG.DahlanderL.GraffinS. D.SimS. (2016). Reputation and status: Expanding the role of social evaluations in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1–13.
29.
GlynnM. A.NavisC. (2013). Categories, identities, and cultural classification: Moving beyond a model of categorical constraint. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1124–1137.
30.
GouldR. V. (2003). Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
GrabherG. (1993). The embedded firm: On the socio-economics of inter-firm networks. London: Routledge.
32.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.
33.
GreveH. R.RaoH. (2014). History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 27–41.
34.
HallettT.VentrescaM. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’sPatterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35, 213–236.
35.
HiramatsuY. (2004). Learn from this old Japanese company: The way to educate people in a firm with 100 years of history [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Forestshuppan.
36.
HobsbawmE. (1983). Mass producing traditions: Europe, 1870–1914. In HobsbawmE.RangerT. (Eds.), The invention of tradition (pp. 263–307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Imperial Data Bank Ltd, (2009). Conditions for a company to stand for 100 years [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Asahi Shibun Shuppan.
JaskiewiczP.DyerW. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30, 111–118.
41.
KandaM.IwasakiN. (1996). [in Japanese]. The Meiji Gakuin Review, (576), 59–85.
42.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A.ZellwegerT. M. (2012). Article commentary: Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark side. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1175–1182.
43.
KingB. G. (2015). Organizational actors, character, and Selznick’s theory of organizations. In KraatzM. S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (pp. 149–174). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
44.
KleinS. B.AstrachanJ. H.SmyrniosK. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 321–339.
45.
KoiranenM. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneurially active in business: Exploring the values and family characteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family Business Review, 15, 175–187.
46.
KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1263–1288.
47.
KraatzM. S.FloresR. (2015). Reinfusing values. In KraatzM. S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (pp. 353–381). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
48.
KumonS. (1982). Some principles governing the thought and behavior of Japanese (Contextualists). Journal of Japanese Studies, 8(1), 5–28.
49.
LazzerettiL.CaponeF. (2017). The transformation of the Prato industrial district: An organisational ecology analysis of the co-evolution of Italian and Chinese firms. Annals of Regional Science, 58(1), 135–158.
50.
LockwoodC. (2017). ‘New’ luxury: Examining the maintenance of elite status. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 14359).
51.
LounsburyM. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255–266.
52.
LymanA. R. (1991). Customer service: Does family ownership make a difference?Family Business Review, 4, 303–324.
53.
MackieV. (2014). Birth registration and the right to have rights: The changing family and the unchanging Koseki. In ChapmanD.JokobK. (Eds.), Japan’s household registration system and citizenship: Koseki, identification and documentation (pp. 201–220). London and New York: Routledge.
54.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.
55.
MalterD. (2014). On the causality and cause of returns to organizational status: Evidence from the Grands Crus classes of the Medoc. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 271–300.
56.
MarshallR. (2017). Gender inequality and family formation in Japan. Asian Anthropology, 16(4), 261–278.
57.
MarquisC.GlynnM. A.DavisG. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.
58.
MarquisC.LounsburyM. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 799–820.
59.
MatsuokaK.MuranishiK.BiK. (2011). Succession and managerial innovation at Kyoto’s shinise firms [in Japanese]. Annual Social Science Research, 41, 39–52.
60.
MelinL.NordqvistM. (2007). The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: The case of the family business. Strategic Organization, 5, 321–333.
61.
MenzelM. P.FornahlD. (2010). Cluster life cycles: Dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 205–238.
62.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
63.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
NaldiL.CennamoC.CorbettaG.Gómez-MejíaL. (2013). Preserving socioemotional wealth in family firms: Asset or liability? The moderating role of business context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1341–1360.
69.
NiehmL. SSwinneyJ.MillerN. J. (2008). Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 331–350.
70.
NeeleyT. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24, 476–497.
71.
ParadaM. J.NordqvistM.GimenoA. (2010). Institutionalizing the family business: The role of professional associations in fostering a change of values. Family Business Review, 23, 355–372.
72.
ParsonsT.BalesR. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
73.
PearceJ. L.XuQ. J. (2012). Rating performance or contesting status: Evidence against the homophily explanation for supervisor demographic skew in performance ratings. Organization Science, 23, 373–385.
74.
PettigrewA. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267–292.
75.
PiazzaA.CastellucciF. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315.
76.
PodolnyJ. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.
77.
PodolnyJ. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 33–60.
78.
RaffaelliR. L. (2015). The re-emergence of an institutional field: Swiss watchmaking. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 16–003, July.
79.
RaoH.MoninP.DurandR. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.
80.
ReayT.JaskiewiczP.HiningsC. B. (2015). How family, business, and community logics shape family firm behavior and ‘rules of the game’ in an organizational field. Family Business Review, 28(4), 292–311.
81.
RichardsM.ZellwegerT.GondJ. P. (2017). Maintaining moral legitimacy through worlds and words: An explanation of firms’ investment in sustainability certification. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 676–710.
82.
SatouT. (1993). Modernism, organization, and capitalism: Open field of Japanese and Western modernism [in Japanese]. Kyoto: Minerva Publications.
83.
SamuelsR. J. (2003). Machiavelli’s children: Leaders and their legacies in Italy and Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
84.
SauderM. (2008). Interlopers and field change: The entry of U.S. News into the field of legal education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 209–234.
85.
SauderM.LynnF.PodolnyJ. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 267–283.
86.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99–116.
87.
SelznickP. (1943). An approach to a theory of bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 8(1), 47–54.
88.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
89.
SharkeyA. J. (2014). Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 1380–1433.
90.
ShipilovA. V.LiS. X.GreveH. R. (2011). The prince and the pauper: Search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organization Science, 22, 1418–1434.
91.
StuartT. E.HoangH.HybelsR. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 315–349.
92.
TakashinaH.OonogiH. (2006). Craftsmanship of Kyoto: The hands of the artisan [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Suiyousha Ltd.
93.
TakeharaY. (2010). The true Kyoto firm: Why are they appreciated for hundreds of years [in Japanese]. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujyo Ltd.
94.
VoronovM.De ClercqD.HiningsC. R. (2013). Conformity and distinctiveness in a global institutional framework: The legitimation of Ontario fine wine. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 607–645.
95.
YinR. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
96.
YokozawaT. (2000). Research of the shinise firms [in Japanese]. Seisan shuppansha.
97.
WardJ. L.AronoffC. E. (1991). Trust gives you the advantage. Nation’s Business, 79(8), 42–45.
98.
WeberK.HeinzeK. L.DeSouceyM. (2008). Food for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 529–567.
99.
WashingtonM.ZajacE. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.
100.
ZellwegerT. M.EddlestonK. A.KellermannsF. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63.
101.
ZellwegerT. M.NasonR. S.NordqvistM.BrushC. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 229–248.
102.
ZwackM.KraiczyN. D.von SchlippeA.HackA. (2016). Storytelling and cultural family value transmission: Value perception of stories in family firms. Management Learning, 47, 590–614.
