This study examines family firms’ propensity to protect their intellectual property through patents. Building on the mixed gamble logic of the behavioral agency model, we theorize that family ownership has a U-shaped relationship with firm propensity to patent. Specifically, we argue that family firms’ desire to prevent losses of current socioemotional wealth (SEW) inhibits their propensity to patent until a threshold level of family ownership, beyond which the family’s SEW is secured and a greater focus on prospective financial gains attainable through patents is possible. We also suggest that environmental munificence moderates this nonlinear relationship such that a low-munificent environment accentuates the potentially detrimental (beneficial) effects of low-to-medium (medium-to-high) levels of family ownership on patents. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 4,198 small- and medium-sized family firms.
AhujaG.KatilaR. (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal22(3): 197–220.
2.
AndersonR. C.DuruA.ReebD. M. (2012) Investment policy in family controlled firms. Journal of Banking & Finance36(6): 1744–1758.
3.
ArundelA. (2001) The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy30(4): 611–624.
4.
BannòM. (2016) Propensity to patent by family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy7(4): 238–248.
5.
BarneyJ. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120.
6.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012) Socioemotional wealth in family firms theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review25(3): 258–279.
7.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010) Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly55(1): 82–113.
8.
BlindK.EdlerJ.FrietschR.SchmochU. (2006) Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy35(5): 655–672.
9.
BlockJ.MillerD.JaskiewiczP.SpiegelF. (2013) Economic and technological importance of innovations in large family and founder firms an analysis of patent data. Family Business Review26(2): 180–199.
10.
BlockJ. H. (2012) R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing27(2): 248–265.
11.
BloomN.Van ReenenJ. (2002) Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal112(478): C97–C116.
12.
BradleyS. W.ShepherdD. A.WiklundJ. (2011) The importance of slack for new organizations facing ‘tough’ environments. Journal of Management Studies48(5): 1071–1097.
13.
BrauerM. F.WiersemaM. F. (2012) Industry divestiture waves: How a firm’s position influences investor returns. Academy of Management Journal55(6): 1472–1492.
14.
Cabrera-SuárezK.De Saá-PérezP.García-AlmeidaD. (2001) The succession process from a resource- and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review14(1): 37–46.
15.
Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2018). Innovation in family firms: a systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12192.
16.
CasillasJ. C.MorenoA. M.BarberoJ. L. (2010) A configurational approach of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth of family firms. Family Business Review23(1): 27–44.
17.
CastrogiovanniG. J. (1991) Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review16(3): 542–565.
18.
ChenW.-R. (2008) Determinants of firms’ backward- and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organization Science19(4): 609–622.
19.
ChiricoF.SalvatoC. (2016) Knowledge internalization and product development in family firms: When relational and affective factors matter. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice40(1): 201–229.
20.
ChiricoF.SirmonD. G.SciasciaS.MazzolaP. (2011) Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal5(4): 307–326.
21.
ChrismanJ. J.MemiliE.MisraK. (2014) Nonfamily managers, family firms, and the winner’s curse: The influence of noneconomic goals and bounded rationality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(5): 1103–1127.
22.
ChrismanJ. J.PatelP. C. (2012) Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal55(4): 976–997.
23.
ClassenN.CarreeM.Van GilsA.PetersB. (2014) Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: An exploratory analysis. Small Business Economics42(3): 595–609.
24.
CohenW. M.NelsonR. R.WalshJ. (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why manufacturing firms patent (or not) (Working paper No. 7552), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
25.
CruzC. C.Gómez-MejiaL. R.BecerraM. (2010) Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal53(1): 69–89.
26.
CzarnitzkiD.KraftK. (2009) Capital control, debt financing and innovative activity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization71(2): 372–383.
27.
De MassisA.ChiricoF.KotlarJ.NaldiL. (2014a) The temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The horizontal S-curve hypothesis. Family Business Review27(1): 35–50.
28.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.PizzurnoE.CassiaL. (2015) Product innovation in family versus nonfamily firms: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Small Business Management53(1): 1–36.
29.
De MassisA.KotlarJ.ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J. (2014b) Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: Implications for theory and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management52(2): 344–364.
30.
De RassenfosseG. (2012) How SMEs exploit their intellectual property assets: Evidence from survey data. Small Business Economics39(2): 437–452.
31.
DesaG.BasuS. (2013) Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal7(1): 26–49.
32.
DessG. G.BeardD. W. (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly29(1): 52–73.
33.
DosiG. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy11(3): 147–162.
34.
DoughertyD.HardyC. (1996) Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal39(5): 1120–1153.
35.
DuranP.KammerlanderN.Van EssenM.ZellwegerT. (2016) Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal59(4): 1224–1264.
36.
DyerW. G.MortensenS. P. (2005) Entrepreneurship and family business in a hostile environment: The case of Lithuania. Family Business Review18(3): 247–258.
37.
ErnstH. (2001) Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: Evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy30(1): 143–157.
38.
FaccioM.LarryH. P. L.YoungL. (2001) Dividends and expropriation. American Economic Review91(1): 54–78.
39.
FernhaberS. A.PatelP. C. (2012) How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal33(13): 1516–1539.
40.
FossK.FossN. J. (2005) Resources and transaction costs: How property rights economics furthers the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal26(6): 541–553.
41.
GalliniN. T. (2002) The economics of patents: Lessons from recent US patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives16(2): 131–154.
42.
GeorgeG. (2005) Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal48(4): 661–676.
43.
GickW. (2008) Little firms and big patents: A model of small-firm patent signaling. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy17(4): 913–935.
44.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CampbellJ. T.MartinG.HoskissonR. E.MakriM.SirmonD. G. (2014) Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(6): 1351–1374.
45.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011) The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals5(1): 653–707.
46.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.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 Quarterly52(1): 106–137.
47.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM.MakriM. (2003) The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal46(2): 226–237.
48.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.MakriM.KintanaM. L. (2010) Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies47(2): 223–252.
49.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Neacsu, I., & Martin, G. (2017). CEO risk-taking and socioemotional wealth: The behavioral agency model, family control, and CEO option wealth. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206317723711.
50.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.Nunez-NickelM.GutierrezI. (2001) The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal44(1): 81–95.
51.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.PalichL. (1997) Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies17(3): 420–441.
52.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.PatelP. C.ZellwegerT. M. (2018) In the horns of the dilemma socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management44(4): 1369–1397.
53.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.TosiH.HinkinT. (1987) Managerial control, performance, and executive compensation. Academy of Management Journal30(1): 51–70.
54.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.WelbourneT. M.WisemanR. M. (2000) The role of risk sharing and risk taking under gainsharing. Academy of Management Review25(3): 492–509.
55.
GreeneW. H. (2012) Econometric analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
56.
GreenwoodR.SuddabyR. (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal49(1): 27–48.
57.
GreveH. R. (1998) Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly43(1): 58–86.
58.
GreveH. R.TehD. (2018) Goal selection internally and externally: A behavioral theory of institutionalization. International Journal of Management Reviews20(S1): S19–S38.
59.
GrubeC. (2009) Exploiting patent protection of knowledge-based competitive advantages through market transactions. In: GolemanD.BradenG. (eds) Measuring the immeasurable: The scientific case for spirituality, Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler, pp. 173–206.
60.
GuellecD.PotterieB. P. (2000) Applications, grants and the value of patent. Economics Letters69(1): 109–114.
61.
HaansR. F. J.PietersC.HeZ. L. (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal37(7): 1177–1195.
62.
HallR. (1992) The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal13(2): 135–144.
63.
HanelP. (2008) The use of intellectual property rights and innovation by manufacturing firms in Canada. Economics of Innovation and New Technology17(4): 285–309.
64.
HansenG. S.HillC. W. L. (1991) Are institutional investors myopic? A time-series study of four technology-driven industries. Strategic Management Journal12(1): 1–16.
65.
HauckJ.PrüglR. (2015) Innovation activities during intra-family leadership succession in family firms: An empirical study from a socioemotional wealth perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy6(2): 104–118.
66.
HeeleyM. B.JacobsonR. (2008) The recency of technological inputs and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal29(7): 723–744.
67.
HelfatC. E. (1997) Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal18(5): 339–360.
68.
HieblM. R. (2012) Risk aversion in family firms: What do we really know?Journal of Risk Finance14(1): 49–70.
69.
HirshleiferD.LowA.TeohS. H. (2012) Are overconfident CEOs better innovators?Journal of Finance67(4): 1457–1498.
70.
HittM. A.IrelandR. D.SirmonD. G.TrahmsC. A. (2011) Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Academy of Management Perspectives25(2): 57–75.
71.
HolgerssonM. (2013) Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs: A literature review and an empirical study of innovation appropriation, patent propensity, and motives. R&D Management43(1): 21–36.
72.
HoskissonR. E.ChiricoF.ZyungJ. D.GambetaE. (2017) Managerial risk taking a multitheoretical review and future research agenda. Journal of Management43(1): 137–169.
73.
HsuD. H.ZiedonisR. H. (2013) Resources as dual sources of advantage: Implications for valuing entrepreneurial-firm patents. Strategic Management Journal34(7): 761–781.
IyerD. N.MillerK. D. (2008) Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal51(4): 808–822.
79.
JansenJ. J.Van Den BoschF. A.VolberdaH. W. (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science52(11): 1661–1674.
80.
JaskiewiczP.CombsJ. G.KetchenD. J.IrelandR. D. (2016) Enduring entrepreneurship: Antecedents, triggering mechanisms, and outcomes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal10(4): 337–345.
81.
JaskiewiczP.CombsJ. G.RauS. B. (2015) Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing30(1): 29–49.
82.
JellF.BlockJ. H.HenkelJ.SpiegelF.ZischkaH. (2015) Cross-functional patent management in family firms. Journal of Business Economics85(2): 181–203.
83.
JungH. J.LeeJ. J. (2016) The quest for originality: A new typology of knowledge search and breakthrough inventions. Academy of Management Journal59(5): 1725–1753.
84.
KapoorR.LimK. (2007) The impact of acquisitions on the productivity of inventors at semiconductor firms: A synthesis of knowledge-based and incentive-based perspectives. Academy of Management Journal50(5): 1133–1155.
85.
KaraevliA. (2007) Performance consequences of new CEO ‘outsiderness’: Moderating effects of pre-and post-succession contexts. Strategic Management Journal28(7): 681–706.
86.
KeatsB. W.HittM. A. (1988) A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal31(3): 570–598.
87.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A.BarnettT.PearsonA. (2008) An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm. Family Business Review21(1): 1–14.
88.
KennedyP. (2008) A guide to econometrics, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
89.
KothaR.ZhengY.GeorgeG. (2011) Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal32(9): 1011–1024.
90.
KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2013) Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice37(6): 1263–1288.
91.
KotlarJ.De MassisA.FrattiniF.BianchiM.FangH. (2013) Technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms: A longitudinal analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(6): 1073–1088.
92.
KotlarJ.SignoriA.De MassisA.VismaraS. (2018) Financial wealth, socioemotional wealth, and IPO underpricing in family firms: A two-stage gamble model. Academy of Management Journal61(3): 1073–1099.
93.
KulttiK.TakaloT.ToikkaJ. (2006) Simultaneous model of innovation, secrecy, and patent policy. American Economic Review96(2): 82–86.
94.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC.NeterJ. (2004) Applied linear regression models, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
95.
La PortaR.Lopez-de-SilanesF.ShleiferA. (1999) Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance54(2): 471–517.
96.
LeiponenA.BymaJ. (2009) If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Research Policy38(9): 1478–1488.
97.
LevinR. C.KlevorickA. K.NelsonR.WinterS. (1987) Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity18(3): 783–832.
98.
LiangQ.LiX.YangX.LinD.ZhengD. (2013) How does family involvement affect innovation in China?Asia Pacific Journal of Management30(3): 677–695.
99.
LindJ. T.MehlumH. (2010) With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics72(1): 109–118.
100.
LongC. (2002) Patent signals. University of Chicago Law Review69: 625–679.
101.
LongJ. S. (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
102.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, College Station, TX: Stata Press Books.
103.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H. (2011) Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35(6): 1149–1169.
104.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H.MossT. W. (2010) Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development22(3–4): 241–264.
105.
MakriM.HittM. A.LaneP. J. (2010) Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal31(6): 602–628.
106.
MakriM.LaneP. J.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2006) CEO incentives, innovation, and performance in technology-intensive firms: A reconciliation of outcome and behavior-based incentive schemes. Strategic Management Journal27(11): 1057–1080.
107.
MannR. J.SagerT. W. (2007) Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups. Research Policy36(2): 193–208.
108.
MarkmanG. D.EspinaM. I.PhanP. H. (2004) Patents as surrogates for inimitable and non-substitutable resources. Journal of Management30(4): 529–544.
109.
MartinG.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2016) The pursuit of Socioemotional Wealth (SEW) and financial wealth in family firms: Are these competing or complementary objectives?Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management14(3): 215–233.
110.
MartinG. P.Gomez-MejiaL. R.WisemanR. M. (2013) Executive stock options as mixed gambles: Revisiting the behavioral agency model. Academy of Management Journal56(2): 451–472.
111.
MatzlerK.VeiderV.HautzJ.StadlerC. (2015) The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management32(3): 319–333.
112.
McArthurA. W.NystromP. C. (1991) Environmental dynamism, complexity, and munificence as moderators of strategy-performance relationships. Journal of Business Research23(4): 349–361.
113.
MemiliE.FangH. C.WelshD. H. (2015) Value creation and value appropriation in innovation process in publicly-traded family firms. Management Decision53(9): 1921–1952.
114.
MihalacheO. R.JansenJ. J.Van Den BoschF. A.VolberdaH. W. (2012) Offshoring and firm innovation: The moderating role of top management team attributes. Strategic Management Journal33(13): 1480–1498.
115.
MillerD.MinichilliA.CorbettaG. (2013) Is family leadership always beneficial?Strategic Management Journal34(5): 553–571.
116.
MossT. W.PayneG. T.MooreC. B. (2014) Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review27(1): 51–71.
117.
NelsonR. R.WinterS. G. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
118.
NietoM. J.SantamariaL.FernandezZ. (2015) Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management53(2): 382–399.
119.
NordqvistM.HabbershonT.MelinL. (2008) Transgenerational entrepreneurship: Exploring entrepreneurial orientation in family firms. In: LandstrmH.CrijnsH.LaverenE.SmallboneD. (eds) Entrepreneurship, sustainable growth and performance: Frontiers in European entrepreneurship research, London, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 384.
120.
O’BoyleE. H.PollackJ. M.RutherfordM. W. (2012) Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing27(1): 1–18.
121.
PatelP. C.ChrismanJ. J. (2014) Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strategic Management Journal35(4): 617–627.
122.
PearceI.JohnA.FritzD. A.DavisP. S. (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(1): 219–248.
123.
PeetersC.PotterieB. P. (2006) Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics16(1): 109–135.
124.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, New York, NY: Harper & Row.
125.
RajagopalanN.RasheedA. M.DattaD. K. (1993) Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management19(2): 349–384.
126.
ReitzigM.PuranamP. (2009) Value appropriation as an organizational capability: The case of IP protection through patents. Strategic Management Journal30(7): 765–789.
127.
SasabuchiS. (1980) A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika67(2): 429–439.
128.
SchererF. M. (1965) Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review55(5): 1097–1125.
129.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003) Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing18(4): 473–490.
130.
ShanW.WalkerG.KogutB. (1994) Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal15(5): 387–394.
131.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A. (2009) Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal30(13): 1375–1394.
132.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A.IrelandR. D. (2007) Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review32(1): 273–292.
133.
SomayaD. (2012) Patent strategy and management an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 1084–1114.
134.
SullivanD. (1994) Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies25(2): 325–342.
135.
TerziovskiM. (2010) Innovation practice and its performance implications in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal31(8): 892–902.
136.
TognazzoA.DestroF.GubittaP. (2013) Patenting in family firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management17(1–3): 84–104.
137.
VerbekeA.KanoL. (2012) The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family-based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(6): 1183–1205.
138.
VillalongaB.AmitR. (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?Journal of Financial Economics80(2): 385–417.
139.
WalesW. J.PatelP. C.ParidaV.KreiserP. M. (2013) Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal7(2): 93–121.
140.
WardJ. L. (2016) Keeping the family business healthy: How to plan for continuing growth, profitability, and family leadership, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
141.
WisemanR. M.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (1998) A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review23(1): 133–153.
142.
WrightM.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SteierL. P. (2014) Family enterprise and context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(6): 1247–1260.
143.
Yasai-ArdekaniM. (1989) Effects of environmental scarcity and munificence on the relationship of context to organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal32(1): 131–156.
144.
ZahraS. A. (2005) Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review18(1): 23–40.
145.
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 Science23(3): 851–868.
