Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the moderating role of technological intensity and performance

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines how socio-emotional factors can influence family firms’ commitment to entrepreneurially- oriented activities, and how their level of commitment is moderated by the technological intensity of the sector and firm performance. We find that, while family firms are less entrepreneurially-oriented than non-family firms, this gap closes with increasing technological intensity of the sector. We find no evidence, however, to suggest any change in entrepreneurial orientation in family firms resulting from a drop in firm performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To rule out potential problems with common method bias, we ran the Harman’s single factor test. The shared variance among self-reported measures is 0.23, which is far from the 0.50 threshold. In addition, as can be seen from Table 1, self-reported measures do not exhibit high correlations. Hence, we can consider our results and conclusions free of common method bias.

References

  • Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robinson, P. (2001). Safety in numbers: Downsizing and the deinstitutionalization of permanent employment in Japan. Administrative. Science. Quarterly., 46, 622–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the s&p 500. J. Financence., 58, 1301–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Mustakallio, M. (2003). Family firm internationalization: a model of family firm generational succession and internationalization strategic postures. paper Presented at the theories of the family enterprise conference. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H., & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 23(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E., Gulbrandsen, T., & Schone, P. (2005). Family ownership and productivity: The role of owner-management. Journal Corporate Finance, 11(1/2), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basso, O., Fayolle, A., & Bouchard, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation: the making of a concept. International Journal Entrepreneurship Innovation, 10, 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W., & Wolff, E. (1983). Feedback from productivity growth to R&D. Scandination. Journal. Economics., 85, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative. Science. Quarterly., 55, 82–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Wan, J. C. (2003). Turnaround in East Asian firms: Evidence from ethnic overseas Chinese communities. Strategic. Management. Journal., 24, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 29(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, J. C., & Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence: a mediation test of family support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intent. Journal. Business. Research., 60(10), 1090–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy. Management. Journal., 55(4), 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colli, A., Pérez, P. F., & Rose, M. B. (2003). National determinants of family firm development? Family firms in Britain, Spain, and Italy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Enterprice. Society., 4(1), 28–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile benign environments. Strategic. Management. Journal., 10, 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 36, 677–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation - sales growth rate relationship. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 30(1), 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronqvist, H., & Nilsson, M. (2003). Agency costs of controlling minority shareholders. Journal. Financial. Quantitative. Analysis., 38.

  • Cruz, C., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: A generational perspective. Small Business. Economy., 38, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (6), forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. (1989). The aftermath of organizational decline: A longitudinal study of the strategic and managerial characteristics of declining firms. Academy. Management. Journal., 32, 577–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W., Worrell, D., & Fox, J. (1996). Early retirement programs and firm performance. Academy. Management. Journal., 39(4), 970–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2013). Research on technological innovation in family firms: Present debates and future directions. Family . Business. Reviw., 26, 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy. Management. Exececutive., 19(1), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S., & Snycerski, S. (2013). Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Management. Decision., 51(3), 524–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2008). Moderating influences on the firm’s strategic orientation-performance relationship. International Small Business Journal, 26(4), 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of western European corporations. Journal. Financial. Economic., 65(3), 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 36(2), 387–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy. Management. Journal., 46, 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative. Science. Quarterly., 52(1), 106–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Makri, M., & Kintana, M. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal. Management. Studies., 47(2), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & de Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy. Management. Annals., 5(1), 653–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Tochman Campbell, J., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G. (2013). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice.. doi:10.1111/etap.12083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grazzi, M., Jacoby, N. & Treibich, T. (2013). Dynamics of investment and firm performance: comparative evidence from manufacturing industries. GREDEG Working Papers Series No. 2013–09, available at http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html.

  • Green, K. M., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2008). Exploring the relationship between strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: the role of structure-style fit. Journal. Business. Venturing., 23(3), 356–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, L., Lawrence, A. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1988). Determinants of workforce reduction strategies in declining organizations. Academy. Management. Review., 13, 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudmunson, C. G., & Danes, S. M. (2013). Family Social Capital in Family Businesses: A Stocks and Flows Investigation. Family. Relation., 62, 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T.G. & Pistrui, J. (2002.) Enterprising families domain: family-influenced ownership groups in pursuit of transgenerational wealth. Family Business Review,15(3), 223–237.

  • Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family. Business. Review., 12(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heshmati, A., & Lööf, H. (2008). Investment and performance of firms: correlation or causality? Corporate Ownership Control, 6, 268–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Jornal. Business. Venturing., 17(3), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family perspective. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 30(6), 809–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P. (1977). The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-Pec scale of family influence: construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 29, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Märk, S. (2012a). Family firms and entrepreneurship: contradiction or synonym? Journal. Small. Business. Entrepreneurship., 25, 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Hosman, V., Rigtering, C., & Hughes, M. (2012b). Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of smes: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review. Managerial. Science., 6, 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal. Financial., 54, 471–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansberg, I. (1999). Succeeding generations: realizing the dream of families in business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996a). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy. Management Review., 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996b). Enriching the entrepreneurial orientation construct-a reply to “entrepreneurial orientation or pioneer advantage”. Academy. Management. Review., 21(3), 605–607.

  • Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 33(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management. Science., 33(1), 1404–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchisio, G., Mazzola, P., Sciascia, S., Miles, M., & Astrachan, J. (2010). Corporate venturing in family business: the effects on the family and its members. Entrepreneurship. Regional. Development., 22, 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, D. L., Walker, M. C., Henderson, G. V., Jr., & Mishra, C. S. (1998). Founding family controlled firms: efficiency and value. Review. Financial. Economics., 7, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1983). Correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management. Science., 29, 770–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic. Management. Journal., 4, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: sustainable advantages for individuals, organizations, and societies. Wesport, Connecticut: Quorum books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, J. L., Johnson, R. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2004). The effects of cost and asset retrenchment on firm performance: the overlooked role of a firm’s competitive environment. Journal. Management., 30, 271–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family. Business. Review., 20, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, E. A. (2003). Human values and their importance to the development of forestry policy in Britain: a literature review. Forestry, 76, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace-transformation and who adopts It. Industrial. Labor. Relations. Review., 47, 173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Patents and R&D at the Firm Level. A First Look, in Griliches (ed.), R&D, patents, and productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., et al. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 33(3), 761–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Requejo, A. (1996). Reducción de plantilla y problemas de viabilidad financiera: el papel de la estructura de capital. Investigaciones. Economicas., 20, 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigtering, C., Kraus, S., Jensen, S. H., & Eggers, F. (2014). A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms. Service. Industries. Journal., 34, 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C. (2004). Predictors of entrepreneurship in family firms. Journal. Private. Equity., 7(3), 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003).  Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the diretors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 179–194.

  • Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: family businesses’ contribution to the economy- A framework for assessing family business statistics. Family. Business. Review., 9, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R.W. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy 94(3-Part): 461.

  • Short, J. C., Payne, T. G., Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., & Broberg, J. C. (2009). Family firms and entrepreneurial orientation in publicly traded firms: a comparative analysis of the S&P 500. Family. Business. Review., 22, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. F., & Amoako-Adu, B. (1999). Management succession and financial performance of family controlled firms. Journal. Corporate. Finance., 5, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W.H. & Hedberg, B.L. (1977). Savind an organization from a stagnating environment. In H. Thorelli (Ed.), Strategy+ structure = performance., Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 249–258.

  • Steier, L. (2003). Variants of agency contracts in family-financed ventures as a continuum of familial altruistic and market rationalities. Journal. Business. Venturing., 18, 597–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal. Financial. Economics., 80, 385–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F.-T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P. (1992). The relationship between investment in information technology and firm performance: A study of the valve manufacturing sector. Information. Systems. Research., 3, 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, R. M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy. Management. Journal., 23, 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi, J.M., Kraus, S., Filser, M. & Kellermanns, F.(forthcoming). Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, DOI:10.1007/s11365-013-0286-z

  • Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy. Management. Journal., 39, 1713–1735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2005). Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family. Business. Review., 18(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2012). Organizational learning and entrepreneurship in family firms: Exploring the moderating effect of ownership and cohesion. Small Business. Economics., 38(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. Journal. Business. Ventururing., 19, 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Filatotchev, I. (2004). Governance of the entrepreneurial threshold firm: A knowledge-based perspective. Journal. Management. Studies., 41(5), 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D., & Kuratko, D. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 24, 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: a resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Enterpreneurship. Theory Practice., 28, 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal. Business. Venturing., 24(3), 248–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education under projects SEJ2007-67895-C04-01 and ECO2010-21393-C04-03.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departmento de Gestión de Empresas, Universidad Pública de Navarra Campus de Arrosadía, 31006, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Lucía Garcés-Galdeano & Martín Larraza-Kintana

  2. Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Universidad Pública de Navarra Campus de Arrosadía, 31006, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Carmen García-Olaverri

  3. Department of Management, University of Miami, 414 L 5250 University Drive, Jenkins Building, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

    Marianna Makri

Authors
  1. Lucía Garcés-Galdeano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martín Larraza-Kintana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmen García-Olaverri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marianna Makri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martín Larraza-Kintana.

Appendix 1: EO and operational performance items

Appendix 1: EO and operational performance items

Entrepreneurial orientation variable

Indicate their level of agreement with the following statements about the management style (from 1: strongly disagree to 5: Total agreement).

1. Shows a great deal of tolerance for high-risk projects

2. Uses only “tried and true” procedures, systems, and methods (R)

3. Challenges, rather than responds to, its major competitors

4. Takes bold, wide-ranging strategic actions, rather than minor changes in tactics

5. Emphasizes the pursuit of long-term goals and strategies

6. Rewards taking calculated risks

7. Is very aggressive and seeks to appropriate the business from its competitors

8. Rewards good ideas and tolerates unsuccessful ones

9. Favors the creation of autonomous units to encourage creative thinking

10. Encourages new ideas and initiatives

R = reverse scored

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcés-Galdeano, L., Larraza-Kintana, M., García-Olaverri, C. et al. Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the moderating role of technological intensity and performance. Int Entrep Manag J 12, 27–45 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0335-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0335-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation