This study examines the interplay between two influential yet opposing shareholder types—family blockholders and hedge funds—in relation to corporate innovation output. Using panel data on U.S. publicly traded firms listed in the S&P 1500, we find that family blockholders have a negative effect on radical innovation output in the form of citation-weighted patents and that this negative effect is intensified in the presence of activist hedge funds. Our study advances insight into the implications of ownership heterogeneity for innovation output choices in family-influenced firms.
AcharyaV. V.SubramanianK. V. (2009). Bankruptcy codes and innovation. Review of Financial Studies, 22(12), 4949–4988.
2.
AghionP.Van ReenenJ.ZingalesL. (2013). Innovation and institutional ownership. American Economic Review, 103(1), 277–304.
3.
AlexanderL.Van KnippenbergD. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423–438.
4.
AllcockD.FilatotchevI. (2010). Executive incentive schemes in initial public offerings: The effects of multiple-agency conflicts and corporate governance. Journal of Management, 36(3), 663–686.
5.
AllenM. P.PanianS. K. (1982). Power, performance, and succession in the large corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 538–547.
6.
AndersonR. C.DuruA.ReebD. M. (2012). Investment policy in family controlled firms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(6), 1744–1758.
7.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
8.
ArthursJ. D.HoskissonR. E.BusenitzL. W.JohnsonR. A. (2008). Managerial agents watching other agents: Multiple agency conflicts regarding underpricing in IPO firms. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 277–294.
9.
BammensY.HünermundP.AndriesP. (2022). Pursuing gains or avoiding losses: The contingent effect of transgenerational intentions on innovation investments. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6), 1493–1530.
10.
BammensY.VoordeckersW.Van GilsA. (2011). Boards of directors in family businesses: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 134–152.
11.
BarkerV. L.MuellerG. C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48(6), 782–801.
12.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
13.
BauerR.MoersF.ViehsM. (2015). Who withdraws shareholder proposals and does it matter? An analysis of sponsor identity and pay practices. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(6), 472–488.
14.
BaysingerB.HoskissonR. E. (1989). Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 310–332.
15.
BechtM.FranksJ.MayerC.RossiS. (2009). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3093–3129.
16.
BenartziS.ThalerR. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92.
17.
BenartziS.ThalerR. (1999). Risk aversion or myopia? Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. Management Science, 45(3), 364–381.
18.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.
19.
BlindK.CremersK.MuellerE. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.
20.
BlockJ.MillerD.JaskiewiczP.SpiegelF. (2013). Economic and technological importance of innovations in large family and founder firms: An analysis of patent data. Family Business Review, 26(2), 180–199.
21.
BoysonN. M.MooradianR. M. (2011). Corporate governance and hedge fund activism. Review of Derivatives Research, 14(2), 169–204.
22.
BravA. (2009). Hedge fund activism: A review. Foundations and Trends in Finance, 4(3), 185–246
23.
BravA.JiangW.MaS.TianX. (2018). How does hedge fund activism reshape corporate innovation?Journal of Financial Economics, 130(2), 237–264.
24.
BravA.JiangW.PartnoyF.ThomasR. (2008). Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. The Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1729–1775.
25.
BriggsT. W. (2007). Corporate governance and the new hedge fund activism: An empirical analysis. Journal of Corporation Law, 32(4), 681–738.
26.
BrinkerinkJ.BammensY. (2018). Family influence and R&D spending in Dutch manufacturing SMEs: The role of identity and socioemotional decision considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(4), 588–608.
BusheeB. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3), 305–333.
29.
CalabròA.VecchiariniM.GastJ.CampopianoG.De MassisA.KrausS. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 317–355
30.
CannellaA.JonesC.WithersM. (2015). Family- versus lone-founder-controlled public corporations: Social identity theory and boards of directors. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 436–459.
31.
CarneyM.Van EssenM.GedajlovicE. R.HeugensP. P. (2015). What do we know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513–544.
32.
CarneyM.ZhaoJ.ZhuL. (2019). Lean innovation: Family firm succession and patenting strategy in a dynamic institutional landscape. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(4), Article 100247.
33.
CarreeM.LokshinB.Alvarez-AlvarezH. (2019). Technology partnership portfolios and firm innovation performance: Further evidence. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 54, 1–11.
34.
ChaneyP. K.DevinneyT. M. (1992). New product innovations and stock price performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19(5), 677–695.
35.
ChangX.DasguptaS. (2009). Target behavior and financing: How conclusive is the evidence?The Journal of Finance, 64(4), 1767–1796.
36.
ChenH.-L.HsuW.-T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22(4), 347–362.
37.
ChiricoF.CriacoG.BaùM.NaldiL.Gomez-MejiaL. R.KotlarJ. (2020). To patent or not to patent: That is the question. Intellectual property protection in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 339–367.
38.
ChrismanJ.PatelP. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997.
39.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.De MassisA.FrattiniF.WrightM. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation: Family firm innovation future agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 310–318.
40.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
41.
CirilloA.OssorioM.PennacchioL. (2019). Family ownership and R&D investment: The moderating role of banks and private equity. Management Decision, 57(7), 1675–1694.
42.
CliffordC. P. (2008). Value creation or destruction? Hedge funds as shareholder activists. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(4), 323–336.
43.
ColesJ. L.DanielN. D.NaveenL. (2006). Managerial incentives and risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(2), 431–468.
44.
ConnellyB.HoskissonR.TihanyiL.CertoS. (2010). Ownership as a form of corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1561–1589.
45.
ConnellyB.TihanyiL.CertoS.HittM. (2010). Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 723–742.
46.
CraigJ. B.MooresK. (2006). A 10-year longitudinal investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on innovation in family firms. Family Business Review, 19(1), 1–10.
47.
CroceA.MartiJ. (2016). Productivity growth in private-equity-backed family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 657–683.
48.
CucculelliM.Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD. (2016). Product innovation, firm renewal and family governance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(2), 90–104.
49.
DahlinK. B.BehrensD. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.
50.
DailyC. M.DollingerM. J. (1993). Alternative methodologies for identifying family-versus nonfamily-managed businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(2), 79–90
51.
DavidP.O’BrienJ. P.YoshikawaT. (2008). The implications of debt heterogeneity for R&D investment and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 165–181.
52.
DeckerC.GüntherC. (2017). The impact of family ownership on innovation: Evidence from the German machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 199–212.
53.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.LichtenthalerU. (2013). Research on technological innovation in family firms: Present debates and future directions. Family Business Review, 26(1), 10–31.
54.
DuranP.KammerlanderN.van EssenM.ZellwegerT. (2016). Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1224–1264.
55.
FernandoG.SchneibleR.SuhS. (2014). Family firms and institutional investors. Family Business Review, 27(4), 328–345.
56.
FilatotchevI.ZhangX.PiesseJ. (2011). Multiple agency perspective, family control, and private information abuse in an emerging economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1), 69–93.
57.
GilsonR. J.GordonJ. N. (2013). The agency costs of agency capitalism: Activist investors and the revaluation of governance rights. Columbia Law Review, 113(4), 863–927.
58.
GoelR. K. (1999). Economic models of technological change: Theory and application. Quorum Books.
59.
Gomez-MejiaL.CampbellJ.MartinG.HoskissonR.MakriM.SirmonD. (2014). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374.
60.
Gomez-MejiaL.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.
61.
Gomez-MejiaL.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.
62.
Gomez-MejiaL.Larraza-KintanaM.MakriM. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 226–237.
63.
Gomez-MejiaL.NeacsuI.MartinG. (2019). CEO risk-taking and socioemotional wealth: The behavioral agency model, family control, and CEO option wealth. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1713–1738.
64.
Gomez-MejiaL.PatelP.ZellwegerT. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1369–1397.
65.
GrabowskiH.VernonJ. (1990). A new look at the returns and risks to pharmaceutical R&D. Management Science, 36(7), 804–821.
66.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1990). Institutional ownership and control: Implications for long-term corporate strategy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 4(1), 75–83.
67.
GreeneW. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed). Prentice Hall.
68.
HallB. H.JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.
69.
HarhoffD.NarinF.SchererF. M.VopelK. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.
70.
HeZ. L.QiuJ.TangT. (2014). Hedge fund activism and corporate innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal.
71.
HoskissonR. E.ArthursJ. D.WhiteR. E.WyattC. (2013). Multiple agency theory. In WrightM.SiegelD. S.KeaseyK.FilatotchevI. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate governance. Oxford University Press, 673—702.
72.
HoskissonR. E.HittM.JohnsonR.GrossmanW. (2002). Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 697–716.
73.
HuQ.HughesM. (2020). Radical innovation in family firms: A systematic analysis and research agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(6), 1199–1234.
74.
JacobsM. T. (1991). Short-term America: The causes and cures of our business myopia. Harvard Business School Press.
75.
JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.
76.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
77.
KatilaR. (2000). Using patent data to measure innovation performance. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 2(1–3), 180–193.
78.
KeaseyK.MartinezB.PindadoJ. (2015). Young family firms: Financing decisions and the willingness to dilute control. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 47–63.
79.
KleinA.ZurE. (2009). Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. The Journal of Finance, 64(1), 187–229.
80.
KleinA.ZurE. (2011). The impact of hedge fund activism on the target firm’s existing bondholders. Review of Financial Studies, 24(5), 1735–1771.
81.
KoganL.PapanikolaouD.SeruA.StoffmanN. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 665–712.
82.
KönigA.KammerlanderN.EndersA. (2013). The family innovator’s dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 418–441.
83.
KotlarJ.SignoriA.De MassisA.VismaraS. (2018). Financial wealth, socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing in family firms: A two-stage gamble model. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1073–1099.
84.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC.NeterJ.LiW. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (Vol. 4). Irwin.
85.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.
86.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD.LesterR. (2011). Stewardship or agency? A social embeddedness reconciliation of conduct and performance in public family businesses. Organization Science, 22(3), 704–721.
87.
LeeP. M.O’NeillH. M. (2003). Ownership structures and R&D investments of U.S. and Japanese firms: Agency and stewardship perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 212–225.
88.
LeppäahoT.RitalaP. (2022). Surviving the coronavirus pandemic and beyond: Unlocking family firms’ innovation potential across crises. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(1), Article 100440.
89.
LernerJ. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.
90.
LossL.SeligmanJ. (2004). Fundamentals of securities regulation (5th ed.). Aspen Publishers.
91.
LumpkinG.BrighamK. (2011). Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169.
92.
MarkowitzH. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.
93.
MartinG.Gomez-MejiaL.WisemanR. (2013). Executive stock options as mixed gambles: Revisiting the behavioural agency model. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 451–472.
94.
MatzlerK.VeiderV.HautzJ.StadlerC. (2015). The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation: Family influence on innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 319–333.
95.
MauryB.PajusteA. (2005). Multiple large shareholders and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1813–1834.
96.
McCaheryJ. A.SautnerZ.StarksL. T. (2016). Behind the scenes: The corporate governance preferences of institutional investors. The Journal of Finance, 71(6), 2905–2932.
97.
MemiliE.FangH. C.WelshD. H. (2015). Value creation and value appropriation in innovation process in publicly-traded family firms. Management Decision, 53(9), 1921–1952.
98.
MichelA.AhlersO.HackA.KellermannsF. (2020). Who is the king of the hill? On bargaining power in private equity buyouts. Long Range Planning, 53(2), Article 101859.
99.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI.LesterR. H. (2013). Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science, 24(1), 189–209.
100.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI.ScholnickB. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.
101.
MunariF.OrianiR.SobreroM. (2010). The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms. Research Policy, 39(8), 1093–1104.
102.
NeckebrouckJ.MeulemanM.ManigartS. (2021). Governance implications of attracting external equity investors in private family firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(1), 25–44.
103.
NietoM.SantamariaL.FernandezZ. (2015). Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 382–399.
PástorĽ.VeronesiP. (2009). Technological revolutions and stock prices. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1451–1483.
106.
PatelP.ChrismanJ. (2014). Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 617–627.
107.
PoppD.JuhlT.JohnsonD. K. N. (2004). Time in purgatory: Examining the grant lag for U.S. patent applications. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(1), 1–45.
108.
PorterM. E. (1992). Capital disadvantage: America’s failing capital investment system. Harvard Business Review, 70(5), 65–82.
109.
RödI. (2016). Disentangling the family firm’s innovation process: A systematic review. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 185–201.
110.
Sacristán-NavarroM.Cabeza-GarciaL.Gomez-AnsonS. (2015). The company you keep: The effect of other large shareholders in family firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(3), 216–233.
111.
Sacristán-NavarroM.Gomez-AnsonS.Cabeza-GarciaL. (2011). Family ownership and control, the presence of other large shareholders, and firm performance: Further evidence. Family Business Review, 24(1), 71–93.
112.
SekerciN.JaballahJ.van EssenM.KammerlanderN. (2022). Investors’ reactions to CSR news in family versus nonfamily firms: A study on signal (in)credibility. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(1), 82–116.
113.
SolukJ.MiroshnychenkoI.KammerlanderN.De MassisA. (2021). Family influence and digital business model innovation: The enabling role of dynamic capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 867–905
114.
TeeceD. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.
115.
ThalerR.TverskyA.KahnemanD.SchwartzA. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 647–661.
116.
TsaoS.LienW. (2013). Family management and internationalization: The impact on firm performance and innovation. Management International Review, 53, 189–213.
117.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
ZennerM.GosebruchH.BerkovitzT. (2010). Hedge fund activists 2.0: They are back. Creating value through pro-active strategies in response to hedge fund activism. JP Morgan.
122.
ZennerM.JunekE.VentrescaC.HunkerD. (2015). The activist revolution: Understanding and navigating a new world of heightened investor scrutiny. JP Morgan
