This article discusses the challenges of knowledge management within intrafamily succession against the background of the knowledge-based view. As a knowledge transfer is crucial for a successful business continuation, factors that promote the interpersonal knowledge transfer are identified. Since the quality of the relationship between successor and predecessor is considered a key determinant of knowledge transfer, the role of relational competence in the knowledge transfer process is analyzed. A laboratory experiment (N = 107) was conducted to test the derived hypotheses. In its conclusion, the article presents the empirically confirmed strong relationship between relational competence and knowledge transfer within intrafamily succession.
ArregleJ.-L.HittM. A.SirmonD. G.VeryP. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms, Journal of Management Studies, 44, 73-95.
4.
BarachJ. A.GanitskyJ. B. (1995). Successful succession in family business. Family Business Review, 8, 131-155.
5.
BarnesL. B.HershonS. A. (1976). Transferring power in the family business. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 105-114.
6.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
7.
BeckerG. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BennedsenM.Perez-GonzalezF.WolfenzonD. (2010). The governance of family firms. In BakerK. H.AndersonR. (Eds.), Corporate governance (pp. 371-390). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9.
BierlyP.ChakrabartiA. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U. S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 123-136.
10.
BrockhausR. H. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business research: Comparisons, critique, and lessons. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 25-38.
11.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40, 90-111.
12.
Cabrera-SuárezK.De Saá-PérezP.García-AlmeidaD. (2001). The succession process from a resource- and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14, 37-47.
13.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
14.
ChiricoF.SalvatoC. (2008). Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaption in family firms. Family Business Review, 21, 169-181.
15.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.PearsonA. W.BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 267-293.
16.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SharmaP. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 11, 19-34.
17.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
CostaA. C. (2000). A matter of trust: Effects on the performance and effectiveness of teams in organizations. Tilburg, Netherlands: Riddekerk Print.
19.
DailyC. M.DollingerM. J. (1992). An empirical examiniation of ownership structure in family and professionally-managed firms. Family Business Review, 5, 117-136.
20.
DavenportT. H.PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
21.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
22.
DeutschM. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 237-263.
23.
DyerW. G. (1994). Potential contributions of organizational behavior to the study of family-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 7, 109-131.
24.
EddlestonK. A.KellermannsF. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A steward-ship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 545-565.
25.
EdwardsM. R.EwenA. J. (1996). 360° feedback: The powerful new model for employee assessment & performance improvement. New York, NY: AMACOM.
26.
ErpenbeckJ.HeyseV. (2007). Die Kompetenzbiographie [The competence biography]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.
27.
European Union. (2009). Simplification of regulation on international succession. In European Union (Ed.), EU-MEMO-09-447 from 14th of October 2009 (p. 1). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
28.
FehrE.FischbacherU.SchuppJ.von RosenbladtB.WagnerG. G. (2003). A nationwide laboratory examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioural experiments into representative surveys. London, England: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
29.
FisherR. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
30.
FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
31.
FrankH.KesslerA.NoséL.SuchyD. (2011). Conflicts in family firms: State of the art and perspectives for future research. Journal of Family Business Management, 1, 130-153.
32.
GalinskyA. D.KrayL. J. (2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 606-618.
33.
GalloM. A. (1995). The role of family business and its distinctive characteristic behavior in industrial activity. Family Business Review, 8, 83-97.
34.
GlaeserE. L.LaibsonD. I.ScheinkmanJ. A.SoutterC. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 811-846.
35.
Gomez-MejiaL.R.Nuñez-NickelM.GutierrezI. (2002). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 81-95.
36.
GourlayS. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1415-1436.
37.
GranovetterM. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
38.
GrantR. (1991). A resource-based perspective of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 33, 114-135.
39.
GualaF. (2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HabbershonT. G.WilliamsM. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
41.
HabbershonT. G.WilliamsM.MacMillanI. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451-465.
42.
HandlerW. C. (1990). Succession in owner-managed and family firms: A mutual role adjustment between the entrepreneur and the next generation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(19), 37-51.
43.
HarréR.SecordP. F. (1972). The explanation of social behavior. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
44.
HarveyM.EvansR. E. (1994). Family business and multiple levels of conflict. Family Business Review, 7, 331-348.
45.
HelmichD. L.BrownW. (1972). Successor type and organizational change in the corporate enterprise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 371-381.
46.
HollingsheadA. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423-442.
47.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
48.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
49.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1995). Specific and general knowledge and organization structure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8, 4-18.
50.
KaneA. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21, 643-660.
51.
KauffeldS.GroteS.FrielingE. (2007). Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster. In ErpenbeckJ.von RosenstielL. (Eds.), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung [Handbook of competence measurement] (pp. 224-243). Stuttgart, Germany: Schaeffer-Poeschl.
52.
Kets de VriesM. F. R. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 59-71.
53.
KirkR. E. (2009). Experimental design. In MillsapR. E.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 23-45). London, England: Sage.
54.
KogutB.ZanderU. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.
55.
KransdorffA.WilliamsR. (2000). Managing organizational memory (OM): The new competitive imperative. Organization Development Journal, 18, 107-117.
56.
KruegerN.CarsrudA. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5, 315-330.
57.
LansbergI. S. (1988). The succession conspiracy: Resistance to succession planning in first generation family firms. Family Business Review, 1, 119-143.
58.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD.SteierL. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 305-328.
LevinD. Z.CrossR. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477-1490.
61.
LevittS. D.ListJ. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153-174.
62.
LuhmannN. (2000). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexitaet [Trust: A mechanism for reducing social complexity] (4th ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: Lucius & Lucius.
63.
MakadokR. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability view of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387-401.
64.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: New Science Library.
65.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanD. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
66.
MazzolaP.MarchisioG.AstrachanJ. H. (2008). Strategic planning in family business: A powerful developmental tool for the next generation. Family Business Review, 21, 239-258.
67.
McConaughyD. L. (2000). Family CEO vs. Non-family CEOs in the family controlled firm: An examination of the level and sensitivity of pay performance. Family Business Review, 13, 121-131.
68.
McGrathR. G.TsaiM.VenkataramanS.MacMillanI. C. (1996). Innovation, competitive advantage, and rent. Management Science, 42, 389-403.
69.
McGregorD. (1960). The human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
70.
MillerD. (1993). Some consequences of CEO succession. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 644-659.
71.
MillerD.SteierL.Le Breton-MillerI. (2003). Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 513-531.
72.
MishraA. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 261-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
NonakaI. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
74.
NonakaI.TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
O’ReillyC. A.IIIRobertsK. H. (1974). Information filtration in organizations: Three experiments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 253-265.
79.
OsterlohM.FreyB. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550.
80.
PenroseE. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Wiley.
81.
PhillipsK. W.MannixE. A.NealeM. A.GruenfeldD. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510.
RibeiroR.CollinsH. (2007). The bread-making machine: Tacit knowledge and two types of action. Organization Studies, 28, 1417-1433.
85.
RoesslD. (2005). Family businesses and inter-firm cooperation. Family Business Review, 18, 203-214.
86.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.
87.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
88.
ScanduraT. A.WilliamsE. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248-1264.
89.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 179-194.
90.
SchulzeW.LubatkinM.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 99-116.
91.
SharmaP. (2001). Stakeholder management concepts in family firms. In Proceedings of 12th annual conference of International Association of Business and Society, Sedona, Arizona (pp. 254-259).
92.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17, 1-36.
93.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2003). Succession planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16, 1-15.
94.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.GersickK. E. (2012). 25 years of Family Business Review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25, 5-15.
95.
SharmaP.ManikuttyS. (2005). Strategic divestments in family firms: Role of family structure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 293-312.
96.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 339-358.
97.
SitkinS. B.WeingartL. R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1573-1592.
98.
SpäthJ. F. (2008). Interpersonelles Vertrauen in Organisationen: Eine empirische Untersuchung der Einflussfaktoren und Verhaltenswirkungen [Interpersonnel trust in organizations: An empirical investigation of the factors and behavioral effects]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
99.
SpenderJ. C.GrantR. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 5-10.
100.
StavrouE. (1999). Succession in family businesses: Exploring the effects of demographic factors on offspring intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 37, 43-61.
101.
SteierL. (2001). Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital. Family Business Review, 14, 259-276.
102.
SwapW.LeonardD.ShieldsM.AbramsL. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 95-114.
103.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43.
104.
ThyeS. R. (2000). Reliability in experimental sociology. Social Forces, 78, 1277-1309.
105.
WeberS.CookT. (1972). Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 273-295.
106.
WernerfeltB. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
107.
WestheadP.CowlingM. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23, 31-56.
108.
WiklundJ.ShepherdD. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1307-1313.
109.
WrightsmanL. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 373-412). New York: Academic Press.
110.
ZahraS.SharmaP. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-346.
111.
Zellmer-BruhnM. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49, 514-528.
112.
ZellwegerT. M.KellermannsF. W.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23, 851-868.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
