The role of family firms in innovation and the question of whether family firms show differences in innovation investments and outcomes are intensely debated. To address these issues, Duran, Kammerlander, van Essen, and Zellweger (2016) published a meta-analytic structural equation model showing that family firms produce more innovation output with less innovation input. In the present article, we present the results of two empirical studies. Study 1 replicates the original methodological approach and study 2 provides an extension by using an updated and enlarged sample of 290 papers, adopting a more advanced multilevel approach, and controlling for firm age. The results show that while we could successfully replicate the original results of DKEZ in study 1, study 2 revealed only a weak negative effect of family firm status on innovation input and no effect on innovation output. Our results suggest that family firms are not producing more innovation output with less innovation input and that further research should focus on the heterogeneity within the group of family firms rather than simply comparing family to nonfamily firms. We close with a discussion of the methodological implications for meta-analyses in entrepreneurship research and a call for future research on family firm innovation. Our dataset and analytical procedures are publicly available.
AielloF.MannarinoL.PupoV. (2019). Innovation and productivity in family firms: evidence from a sample of European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 29(4), 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2019.1629533
2.
AielloF.CardamoneP.MannarinoL.PupoV. (2020). Does external R&D matter for family firm innovation? Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00379-z
3.
AldrichH. E.CliffJ. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00011-9
AndersonR. G.KichkhaA. (2017). Replication, meta-analysis, and research synthesis in economics. American Economic Review, 107(5), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171033
8.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. R. (2003). Founding family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00567
9.
ArregleJ. L.DuranP.HittM. A.Van EssenM. (2017). Why is family firms’ internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12246
10.
ArzubiagaU.KotlarJ.De MassisA.MasedaA.IturraldeT. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.03.002.
11.
AsabaS.WadaT. (2019). The contact-hitting R&D strategy of family firms in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Family Business Review, 32(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519852449
12.
BaekH. Y.FazioP. L (2015). The effect of family ownership and control on equity-based compensation: Evidence from S&P SmallCap firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 3(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-04-2014-0008
13.
BalasubramanianN.LeeJ. (2008). Firm age and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 1019–1047. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtn028
14.
BammensY.HünermundP. (2020). Nonfinancial Considerations in Eco-Innovation Decisions: The Role of Family Ownership and Reputation Concerns. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(5), 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12550
15.
BaùM.BlockJ.Discua CruzA.NaldiL. (2021). Bridging locality and internationalization – A research agenda on the sustainable development of family firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(7-8): 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2021.1925846
16.
BecerraM.CruzC.GravesC. (2020). Innovation in family firms: The relative effects of wealth concentration versus family-centered goals. Family Business Review, 33(4), 372–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520953700
17.
BendigD.FoegeJ. N.EndrißS.BrettelM. (2020). The effect of family involvement on innovation outcomes: the moderating role of board social capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12522
18.
BettisR. A.HelfatC. E.ShaverJ. M. (2016). The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2193–2203. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2580
19.
BiancoM.BontempiM. E.GolinelliR.ParigiG. (2013). Family firms’ investments, uncertainty and opacity. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 1035–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9414-3
20.
BijmoltT. H. A.PietersR. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011117103381
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513477454
23.
BoscoF. A.UggerslevK. L.SteelP. (2017). MetaBUS as a vehicle for facilitating meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.013
24.
BrinkerinkJ. (2018). Broad search, deep search, and the absorptive capacity performance of family and nonfamily firm R&D. Family Business Review, 31(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518775187
25.
BrinkerinkJ. (2021). When shooting for the stars becomes aiming for asterisks: P-hacking in Family Business Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211050354
26.
BroekaertW.AndriesP.DebackereK. (2016). Innovation processes in family firms: the relevance of organizational flexibility. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9760-7
27.
BrownS. P.PetersonR. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000106
28.
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(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2001.00037.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12192
30.
CanavatiS.LibaersD.WangT.HooshangiS.SarooghiH. (2021). Relationship between human capital, new venture ideas, and opportunity beliefs: A meta-analysis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(3), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1397
31.
CarlsonK. D.JiF. X. (2011). Citing and building on meta-analytic findings: A review and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110384272
32.
Casado-BelmonteM. D.Capobianco-UriarteM. D.Martínez-AlonsoR.Martínez-RomeroM. J. (2021). Delineating the path of family firm innovation: Mapping the scientific structure. Review of Managerial Science, 15(5), 2455–2499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00442-3
33.
CascioW. F. (2007). Evidence-based management and the marketplace for ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27151942
34.
CeipekR.HautzJ.De MassisA.MatzlerK.ArditoL. (2021). Digital transformation through exploratory and exploitative internet of things innovations: The impact of family management and technological diversification. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12551
35.
ChenH. L.HsuW. T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509341062
36.
CheungM. W. L. (2014a). Fixed-and random-effects meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Examples and analyses in RBehavior Research Methods, 46(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0361-y
37.
CheungM. W. L. (2014b). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968
38.
CheungM. W. L. (2015). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521.
39.
CheungM. W. L.ChanW. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40
40.
CheungM. W. L.CheungS. F. (2016). Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: review, issues, and illustrations. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1166
41.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.De MassisA.FrattiniF.WrightM. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12207
42.
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 Journal, 55(4), 976–997. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0211
43.
CoadA. (2018). Firm age: A survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(1), 13–43.10.1007/s00191-016-0486-0
CombsJ. G.CrookT. R.RauchA. (2019). Meta-analytic research in management: Contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and rising standards. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12427
46.
CrawfordG. C.SkorodziyevskiyV.FridC. J.NelsonT. E.BooyaviZ.HechavarriaD. M.LiXReynoldsP.TeymourianE. (2022). Advancing entrepreneurship theory through replication: A case study on contemporary methodological challenges, future best practices, and an entreaty for communality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211057422.
CzarnitzkiD.DelanoteJ. (2013). Young innovative companies: the new high-growth firms?Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(5), 1315–1340. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts039
50.
CzarnitzkiD.KraftK. (2004). An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2003.01.008
51.
DaspitJ. J.ChrismanJ. J.AshtonT.EvangelopoulosN. (2021). Family firm heterogeneity: A definition, common themes, scholarly progress, and directions forward. Family Business Review, 34(3), 296-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211008350.
52.
De MassisA.AudretschD.UhlanerL.KammerlanderN. (2018a). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 35(1), 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12373.
53.
De MassisA.Di MininA.FrattiniF. (2015). Family-driven innovation: resolving the paradox in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.5
54.
De MassisA.DingS.KotlarJ.WuZ. (2018b). Family involvement and R&D expenses in the context of weak property rights protection: an examination of non-state-owned listed companies in China. The European Journal of Finance, 24(16), 1506–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847x.2016.1200994
55.
De Saá-PérezP.Díaz-DíazN. L.Luis Ballesteros-RodriguezJ. (2012). The role of training to innovate in SMEs. Innovation: Organization & Management, 14(2), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.2.218
56.
DeckerC.GüntherC. (2017). The impact of family ownership on innovation: evidence from the German machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9775-0
57.
Diéguez-SotoJ.ManzanequeM.Rojo-RamírezA. A. (2016). Technological innovation inputs, outputs and performance: the moderating role of family involvement in management. Family Business Review, 29(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516646917
58.
Diéguez-SotoJ.Garrido-MorenoA.ManzanequeM.(2018). Unravelling the link between process innovation inputs and outputs: the moderating role of family management. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.11.007
59.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0424
60.
DyerW. G. (2018). Are family firms really better? Reexamining “examining the ‘family effect’ on firm performance”. Family Business Review, 31(2), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518776516
61.
EllisP. D. (2010). Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9), 1581–1588. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.39
62.
EisendM. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0288.
63.
ElliottJ. H.SynnotA.TurnerT.SimmondsM.AklE. A.McDonaldS.PearsonL. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010
64.
FeranitaF.KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2017). Collaborative innovation in family firms: Past research, current debates and agenda for future research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(3), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.07.001
65.
Geyer-KlingebergJ.HangM.RathgeberA. (2020). Meta-analysis in finance research: Opportunities, challenges, and contemporary applications. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101524.
Gómez-MejíaL. 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 Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
68.
Gómez-MejíaL. 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 Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1397
69.
GraceJ. B. J.BollenK. A. (2005). Interpreting the results from multiple regression and structural equation models. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 86(October), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623(2005)86[283:itrfmr]2.0.co;2
70.
GreenlandS.SchlesselmanJ. J.CriquiM. H. (1986). The fallacy of employing standardized regression coefficients and correlations as measures of effect. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123(2), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114229
71.
HaltiwangerJ.JarminR. S.MirandaJ. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00288
HansenC.BlockJ. (2020). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A replication and extension meta-analysis. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00158.
74.
HansenC.BlockJ. (2021). Public family firms and capital structure: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 29(3), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12354.
75.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
76.
HeiderA.HülsbeckM.von Schlenk-BarnsdorfL. (2022). The role of family firm specific resources in innovation: an integrative literature review and framework. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00256-3.
77.
HendersonR.CockburnI. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555791
78.
HigónD. A. (2012). The impact of ICT on innovation activities: Evidence for UK SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 30(6), 684-699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610374484.
79.
HsiehT.-J.YehR.-S.ChenY.-J. (2010). Business group characteristics and affiliated firm innovation: The case of Taiwan. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 560–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.12.018
HussingerK.IssahA.-B. (2019). Firm acquisitions by family firms: A mixed gamble approach. Family Business Review, 32(4), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519885544
82.
IngramA. E.LewisM. W.BartonS.GartnerW. B. (2016). Paradoxes and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(1), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12113
83.
JaskiewiczP.DyerW. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517700469
84.
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 Management, 30(6), 1073–1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12046
85.
KosmidouV.AhujaM. K. (2019). A configurational approach to family firm innovation. Family Business Review, 32(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519827738
86.
KubotaK.TakeharaH. (2019). Firm-level innovation by Japanese family firms: Empirical analysis using multidimensional innovation measures. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 57, 101030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.05.012.
87.
LakensDHilgardJStaaksJ (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC psychology, 4, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3.
88.
LeH.OhI.-S.ShafferJ.SchmidtF. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.26421233
89.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE.
90.
LoignonA. C.WoehrD. J. (2018). Social class in the organizational sciences: A conceptual integration and meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 44(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317728106
91.
López-Cózar-NavarroC.Priede-BergaminiT.Benito-HernándezS. (2020). The role of family character in cooperation agreements. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 22, 2, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i2.4047
92.
LorenzoD.Núñez-CachoP.AkhterN.ChiricoF. (2022). Why are some family firms not innovative? Innovation barriers and path dependence in family firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38(1), 101182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101182
93.
LuoX. R.JeongY.-C.ChungC.-N. (2019). In the eye of the beholder: Global analysts’ coverage of family firms in an emerging market. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1830–1857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317734899
94.
LynskeyM. J. (2004). Determinants of innovative activity in Japanese technology-based start-up firms. International Small Business Journal, 22(2), 159–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242604041312
95.
ManzanequeM.RamírezY.Diéguez-SotoJ. (2017). Intellectual capital efficiency, technological innovation and family management. Innovation Organization & Management, 19(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1272828
96.
Martínez-AlonsoR.Martínez-RomeroM. J.Rojo-RamírezA. A. (2020). The impact of technological innovation efficiency on firm growth: The moderating role of family involvement in management. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(1), 134-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2018-0210.
97.
MatzlerK.VeiderV.HautzJ.StadlerC. (2015). The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12202
98.
MaxwellS. E.LauM. Y.HowardG. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?American Psychologist, 70(6), 487, 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400
99.
McNeishD.StapletonL. M.SilvermanR. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000078
100.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2021) Family firms: a breed of extremes?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720964186
101.
MillerD.WrightM.Breton-MillerI. L.ScholesL. (2015). Resources and innovation in family businesses: The Janus-face of socioemotional preferences. California Management Review, 58(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.20
102.
MillerK. D.FoltaT. B. (2002) Option value and entry timing. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.244
103.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.004
104.
Muñoz-BullónF.Sanchez-BuenoM. J. (2011) The impact of family involvement on the R&D intensity of publicly traded firms. Family Business Review, 24(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486510396870
105.
ObengB. A.RobsonP.HaughH. (2014). Strategic entrepreneurship and small firm growth in Ghana. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612463946
106.
Ortega-ArgilésR.MorenoR.CaraltJ. S. (2005). Ownership structure and innovation: Is there a real link?The Annals of Regional Science, 39(4), 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-005-0026-6
107.
PatelP. C.ChrismanJ. J. (2014). Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2119
108.
PatersonT. A.HarmsP. D.SteelP.CredéM. (2016). An assessment of the magnitude of effect sizes: Evidence from 30 years of meta-analysis in management. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(1), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815614321.
109.
PatsopoulosN. A.AnalatosA. A.IoannidisJ. P. (2005). Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA, 293(19), 2362–2366. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2362
110.
PolaninJ. R.HennessyE. A.TsujiS. (2020). Transparency and reproducibility of meta-analyses in psychology: A meta-review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1026–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906416
111.
PucciT.BrumanaM.MinolaT.ZanniL. (2020). Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: The role of proximity and family involvement. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9591-y
112.
RödI. (2016). Disentangling the family firm’s innovation process: A systematic review. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2016.08.004
113.
RondiE.De MassisA.KotlarJ. (2019). Unlocking innovation potential: A typology of family business innovation postures and the critical role of the family system. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(4), 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.12.001
114.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
115.
SchmidT.AchleitnerA.-K.AmpenbergerM.KasererC. (2014). Family firms and R&D behavior–New evidence from a large-scale survey. Research Policy, 43(1), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.006
116.
ShojaniaKGSampsonMAnsariMTJiJDoucetteSMoherD. (2007). How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(4), 224-233. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179.
117.
SirmonD. G.ArregleJ. L.HittM. A.WebbJ. W. (2008). The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 979–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00267.x
118.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A.2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00013
119.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998946
120.
SørensenJ. B.StuartT. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666980
121.
SchwabA. (2015). Why all researchers should report effect sizes and their confidence intervals: Paving the way for meta–analysis and evidence–based management practices. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12158
122.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. London, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111710.
123.
SteelP.BeugelsdijkS.AguinisH. (2021). The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00385-z
124.
TsaoS.-M.LienW.-H. (2013). Family management and internationalization: The impact on firm performance and innovation. Management International Review, 53(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0125-9
125.
Van den NoortgateWLópez-LópezJAMarín-MartínezFSánchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 576–94. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
126.
Van WitteloostuijnA.DejardinM.PollackJ. M. (2021). Replication in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 16, e00271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00271.
127.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
128.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x
129.
WagnerD.BlockJ. H.MillerD.SchwensC.XiG. (2015). A meta-analysis of the financial performance of family firms: Another attempt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.01.001
130.
WernerA.SchröderC.ChlostaS. (2018). Driving factors of innovation in family and non-family SMEs. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9884-4
131.
WilsonN.WrightM.ScholesL. (2013). Family business survival and the role of boards. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1369–1389. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12071
132.
WilsonS. J.PolaninJ. R.LipseyM. W. (2016). Fitting meta-analytic structural equation models with complex datasets. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1199.
WuS.LevitasE.PriemR. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 859–873. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803927
135.
YangJ.MaJ.ZhaoH.CaterJ.ArnoldM. (2019). Family involvement, environmental turbulence, and R&D investment: evidence from Listed Chinese SMEs. Small Business Economics, 53(4), 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0113-6
136.
YooT. (2017). The performance dimension in symbolic management revisited: the functional role of traditional mechanisms in large Korean firms. Asia Pacific Business Review, 23(1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2015.1120418
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.
