This study investigates how online and offline shareholder activism influences a firm’s innovation focus—on exploration or exploitation—in family and non-family firms. We theorize, from a mixed gamble perspective, that such activisms pose distinctive threats to a firm’s economic and non-economic interests. We analyze 7,887 firm-year observations from Chinese listed firms (2012–2022) and find that non-family firms are more likely than family firms to shift toward exploitation in response to offline activism, and family firms are more inclined to focus on exploration when facing online activism. Additionally, second-generation family firms are found to be more responsive than first-generation firms to both forms of shareholder activism.
AhlstromD.ChenS.YehK. S. (2010). Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture, institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3), 341–354.
2.
AlessandriT. M.CerratoD.EddlestonK. A. (2018). The mixed gamble of internationalization in family and nonfamily firms: The moderating role of organizational slack. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 46–72.
3.
AluchnaM.Roszkowska-MenkesM.KamińskiB.Bosek-RakD. (2022). Do institutional investors encourage firm to social disclosure? The stakeholder salience perspective. Journal of Business Research, 142, 674–682.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
BelderbosR.FaemsD.LetenB.LooyB. V. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 869–882.
7.
BellstamG.BhagatS.CooksonJ. A. (2021). A text-based analysis of corporate innovation. Management Science, 67(7), 4004–4031.
8.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.
9.
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(1), 82–113.
10.
BornhausenA. M.WulfT. (2024). Digital innovation in family firms: The roles of non-family managers and transgenerational control intentions. Small Business Economics, 62(4), 1429–1448.
11.
BravA.JiangW.MaS.TianX. (2018). How does Hedge fund activism reshape corporate innovation?Journal of Financial Economics, 130(2), 237–264.
12.
Cabrera-SuárezK. (2005). Leadership transfer and the successor’s development in the family firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 71–96.
13.
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.
14.
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.
15.
CaoJ.WangH.ZhouS. (2022). Soft activism and corporate dividend policy: Evidence from institutional investors site visits. Journal of Corporate Finance, 75, Article 102221.
16.
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(6), 1153–1173.
17.
ChangS. J. (2003). Ownership structure, expropriation, and performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 238–253.
18.
ChenS.ChenY.JebranK. (2021). Trust and corporate social responsibility: From expected utility and social normative perspective. Journal of Business Research, 134, 518–530.
19.
ChiricoF.KellermannsF. W. (2024). When does time enhance family firm performance? Examining family generation in control and family control dispersion through a mixed-gamble logic. Long Range Planning, 57(1), Article 102272.
20.
ChoJ.De MassisA.KotlarJ. (2025). The mixed gamble of competitive dynamics in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13218
21.
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.
22.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.KellermannsF. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, and performance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 739–760.
23.
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(2), 267–293.
24.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SharmaP. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–575.
25.
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.
26.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
27.
CraneA. D.KochA.MichenaudS. (2019). Institutional investor cliques and governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 133(1), 175–197.
28.
CundillG. J.SmartP.WilsonH. N. (2018). Non-financial shareholder activism: A process model for influencing corporate environmental and social performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 606–626.
29.
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.
30.
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(3), 337–360.
31.
DenesM. R.KarpoffJ. M.McWilliamsV. B. (2017). Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research. Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 405–424.
32.
DesJardineM. R.ShiW.SunZ. (2022). Different horizons: The effects of Hedge fund activism versus corporate shareholder activism on strategic actions. Journal of Management, 48(7), 1858–1887.
33.
Diaz-MorianaV.ClintonE.KammerlanderN.LumpkinG. T.CraigJ. B. (2020). Innovation motives in family firms: A transgenerational view. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 256–287.
34.
DuS.MaL.LiZ. (2022). Non-family shareholder governance and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from Chinese family-controlled businesses. Journal of Business Research, 145, 156–170.
35.
DyckA.LinsK. V.RothL.WagnerH. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3), 693–714.
36.
DyerW. G.WhettenD. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.
37.
EberleD.BerensG.LiT. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731–746.
38.
EddlestonK. A.KellermannsF. W.FloydS. W.CrittendenV. L.CrittendenW. F. (2013). Planning for growth: Life stage differences in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1177–1202.
39.
ElsbachK. D.KramerR. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476.
40.
FangH. C.KotlarJ.MemiliE.ChrismanJ. J.De MassisA. (2018). The pursuit of international opportunities in family firms: Generational differences and the role of knowledge-based resources. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 136–157.
41.
FangH. C.SinghK.KimT.MarlerL.ChrismanJ. J. (2022). Family business research in Asia: Review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(4), 1215–1256.
42.
FeldmanE. R.AmitR.ChenS. (2024). Hedge fund activism in family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 45(7), 1273–1299.
43.
FlammerC.ToffelM. W.ViswanathanK. (2021). Shareholder activism and firms’ voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management Journal, 42(10), 1850–1879.
44.
FoxM.NilakantV.HamiltonR. T. (1996). Managing succession in family-owned businesses. International Small Business Journal, 15(1), 15–25.
45.
FuR.TangY.ChenG. (2020). Chief sustainability officers and corporate social (Ir) responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 656–680.
46.
GarciaP. R. J. M.SharmaP.De MassisA.WrightM.ScholesL. (2019). Perceived parental behaviors and next-generation engagement in family firms: A social cognitive perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 224–243.
47.
GiffordE. J. M. (2010). Effective shareholder engagement: The factors that contribute to shareholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 79–97.
48.
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 Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374.
49.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.
50.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J. L.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.
51.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.MakriM.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223–252.
52.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.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.
53.
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 Management, 44(4), 1369–1397.
54.
GoranovaM.RyanL. V. (2014). Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1230–1268.
55.
GuimarãesP.PortugalP. (2010). A simple feasible procedure to fit models with high-dimensional fixed effects. The Stata Journal, 10(4), 628–649.
56.
HadaniM.GoranovaM.KhanR. (2011). Institutional investors, shareholder activism, and earnings management. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1352–1360.
57.
HainmuellerJ.XuY. (2013). Ebalance: A Stata package for entropy balancing. Journal of Statistical Software, 54(7), 1–18.
58.
HarrisonJ. S.BoivieS.SternI.PoracJ. (2024). Inventor CEO involvement and firm exploitative and exploratory innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 45(11), 2227–2256.
59.
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 Strategy, 6(2), 104–118.
60.
HeaveyC.SimsekZ. (2017). Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43(3), 919–945.
61.
HongA. S. (2024). Beyond the finish line: How losing in patent race drives post-race innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 45(5), 968–993.
62.
HussingerK.IssahA. B. (2019). Firm acquisitions by family firms: A mixed gamble approach. Family Business Review, 32(4), 354–377.
63.
JaskiewiczP.DyerW. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 111–118.
64.
JiangF.ShiW.ZhengX. (2020). Board chairs and R&D investment: Evidence from Chinese family-controlled firms. Journal of Business Research, 112, 109–118.
65.
JiangL.LiuJ.YangB. (2019). Communication and comovement: Evidence from online stock forums. Financial Management, 48(3), 805–847.
66.
JiangX.YuanQ. (2018). Institutional investors’ corporate site visits and corporate innovation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 48, 148–168.
67.
JinC.MonfortA.ChenF.XiaN.WuB. (2024). Institutional investor ESG activism and corporate green innovation against climate change: Exploring differences between digital and non-digital firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, Article 123129.
68.
KangJ.KimS. (2020). Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6), 1083–1111.
69.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830.
70.
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 Review, 21(1), 1–14.
71.
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.
72.
LavieD.StettnerU.TushmanM. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.
73.
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.
74.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD. (2016). Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(1), 26–33.
75.
LeeC. M. C.ZhongQ. (2022). Shall we talk? The role of interactive investor platforms in corporate communication. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 74(2–3), Article 101524.
76.
LeongC.PanS. L.BahriS.FauziA. (2019). Social media empowerment in social movements: Power activation and power accrual in digital activism. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(2), 173–204.
77.
LetenB.BelderbosR.Van LooyB. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567–579.
78.
LevinthalD. A.MarchJ. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.
79.
LiL.ZhangY.WuB. (2024). Asking for more than answers: Online shareholder activism and corporate green innovation. Management and Organization Review, 20(6), 988–1024.
80.
LiS. (2018). Increased non-family ownership in family-owned firms: How does it affect CEO turnover-performance sensitivity?Strategic Management Journal, 39(13), 3434–3457.
81.
LiY.WangP.ZhangW. (2022). Does online interaction between firms and investors reduce stock price crash risk?The British Accounting Review, 55(4), Article 101168.
82.
LiY.ZhangW. (2023). The power of retail investor voice: The effect of online discussions on corporate innovation. British Journal of Management, 34(4), 1811–1831.
83.
LiaoZ.LiuY. (2024). Confucian culture, environmental innovation, and family firms’ performance: The moderating role of market competition. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 8900–8910.
84.
LiuY.XingY.Vendrell-HerreroF.BustinzaO. F. (2024). Setting contextual conditions to resolve grand challenges through responsible innovation: A comparative patent analysis in the circular economy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(2), 449–472.
85.
LouD. (2014). Attracting investor attention through advertising. Review of Financial Studies, 27(6), 1797–1829.
86.
LugerJ.RaischS.SchimmerM. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449–470.
87.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H. (2011). Long–term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169.
88.
LuoX. R.ZhangJ.MarquisC. (2016). Mobilization in the internet age: Internet activism and corporate response. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2045–2068.
89.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
90.
MartinG. P.Gomez-MejiaL. R.WisemanR. M. (2013). Executive stock options as mixed gambles: Revisiting the behavioral agency model. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 451–472.
91.
Martínez-AlonsoR.Martínez-RomeroM. J.Rojo-RamírezA. A. (2024). Unveiling new opportunities: A mixed gamble approach to external search breadth within family firms. Technovation, 129, Article 102896.
92.
MeierO.SchierG. (2022). Lone founders, family founders, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 148, 149–160.
93.
MillerD.Breton-MillerI. LLesterR. H. (2011). Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: Social context, identity, and institutional logics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 1–25.
94.
MillerD.Breton-MillerI. L.LesterR. H. (2013). Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science, 24(1), 189–209.
95.
MillerD.Breton-MillerI. LLesterR. H.CannellaA. A. (2007). Are family firms really superior performers?Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5), 829–858.
96.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
97.
MorckR.YeungB. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 367–382.
98.
MorckR.WolfenzonD.YeungB. (2005). Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 655–720.
99.
MossT. W.PayneG. T.MooreC. B. (2014). Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 27(1), 51–71.
100.
MudambiR.SwiftT. (2014). Knowing when to leap: Transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 126–145.
101.
MurtazashviliI.WooldridgeJ. M. (2016). A control function approach to estimating switching regression models with endogenous explanatory variables and endogenous switching. Journal of Econometrics, 190(2), 252–266.
102.
NasonR.MazzelliA.CarneyM. (2019). The ties that unbind: Socialization and business-owning family reference point shift. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 846–870.
103.
NavisC.GlynnM. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499.
104.
QuerbachS.WaldkirchM.KammerlanderN. (2022). Benefitting from benefits—A comparison of employee satisfaction in family and non-family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(2), Article 100351.
105.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ.ProbstG.TushmanM. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.
106.
ReidE. M.ToffelM. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178.
107.
SariolA. M.AbebeM. A. (2017). The influence of CEO power on explorative and exploitative organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 73, 38–45.
108.
SharmaP.SalvatoC. (2011). Commentary: Exploiting and exploring new opportunities over life cycle stages of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1199–1205.
109.
ShengJ.DingR. (2024). Is proximity better? The geographical proximity of financial resources and green innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(1), 138–158.
110.
StathopoulosK.VoulgarisG. (2016). The importance of shareholder activism: The case of say-on-pay. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 359–370.
111.
TerzaJ. V. (2018). Two-stage residual inclusion estimation in health services research and health economics. Health Services Research, 53(3), 1890–1899.
112.
UotilaJ.MaulaM.KeilT.ZahraS. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.
WaldronT. L.NavisC.FisherG. (2013). Explaining differences in firms’ responses to activism. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 397–417.
115.
WangD.MaG.SongX.LiuY. (2016). Political connection and business transformation in family firms: Evidence from China. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(2), 117–130.
116.
WuB.ChenF.LiL.XuL.LiuZ.WuY. (2024). Institutional investor ESG activism and exploratory green innovation: Unpacking the heterogeneous responses of family firms across intergenerational contexts. The British Accounting Review, 57(4), Article 101324.
117.
WuB.GuQ.LiuZ.LiuJ. (2023). Clustered institutional investors, shared ESG preferences and low-carbon innovation in family firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, Article 122676.
118.
XuD.ZhouK. Z.ChenS. (2023). The impact of communist ideology on the patenting activity of Chinese firms. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 102–132.
119.
XuL.YangS.LiuY.NewbertS. L.BoalK. (2023). Seeing the forest and the trees: Exploring the impact of inter-and intra-entrepreneurial ecosystem embeddedness on new venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 66(6), 1954–1982.
120.
YilmazY.RaetzeS.GrooteJ. D.KammerlanderN. (2024). Resilience in family businesses: A systematic literature review. Family Business Review, 37(1), 60–88.
121.
ZellwegerT. M.KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A.MemiliE. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.
122.
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(2), 229–248.
123.
ZhouK. Z.GaoG. Y.ZhaoH. (2017). State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 375–404.
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.
