Call for Chapters
Challenges and Opportunities for the Strategic Management of Family Businesses
Jes??s Manuel Palma-Ruiz, Autonomous University of Chihuahua (Mexico) Ismael Barros Contreras, Austral University of Chile (Chile) & Lancaster University Management School (UK) Luca Gnan, Tor Vergata University (Italy)
Call for Chapters
Proposals Submission Deadline: March 12, 2019 Full Chapters Due: July 10, 2019 Submission Date: November 2, 2019
The research carried out in recent years in the field of strategy consistently shows that the strategies that characterize successful family businesses are different from those employed by non-family companies (Chrisman et al., 2005). Indeed, there is a growing consensus that the process of strategic formulation differs between companies that are familiar and those that are not (Chua et al., 2003). As noted by Sharma et al. (1997) the differences can be in the set of objectives, in the way in which the strategic process is carried out or in the participants that take part in this process. Precisely, the family business literature has shown that family strategy and values influence the generation process of its strategy (Fletcher et al., 2012), non-financial objectives (Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008; G??mez-Mej??a et al., 2007, Zellweger et al., 2013), networks and long-term relationships fostered by trust and altruism (Carney, 2005; Karra et al., 2006), the identity of the family brand (Craig et al., 2008), or the perspective of generational permanence (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2006). This way of proceeding also makes it possible to differentiate the strategic process of family businesses from that used by non-family companies (Astrachan, 2010; Miller et al., 2018). Delving into the sources of these differences in strategic behavior between both types of companies, researchers have considered different aspects of the company relevant, in particular, the disparity of vision (Chua et al., 2003), the objectives (Chua et al., 2018), professionalization (Gnan & Songini, 2003), size and financial structure (Romano et al., 2001), resources and capabilities (Chua et al., 2003) or corporate governance (Gnan et al., 2013a; Gnan et al., 2015). In particular, the resource-based approach and the theory of agency, are the two theoretical approaches that have dominated research on family business strategy (Astrachan, 2010). Using the resource-based approach in the family business (Cabrera-Su??rez et al., 2001; Habbershon et al., 2003; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003) research has observed how the presence of the family (in relation to its values, traditions, and priorities) in the company affects the choice of strategies (Chrisman et al., 2009; Gnan & Montemerlo, 2001). It is argued that the resources that the family business owns are due to the interaction of the family, its individual members and the company ('familiness') (Habbershon & Williams, 1999), which can lead to advantages based on the family, which is the means by which family businesses achieve the goal of creating transgenerational wealth (Habbershon et al., 2003) and which are the source of their distinctive behavior with respect to non-family businesses (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003) affecting the decision-making processes (Arregle et al., 2007; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). In particular, the simultaneous participation of the family in property, government, and management (Gnan et al., 2013b; Klein et al., 2005), family relationships (Eddleston et al., 2008) or the desire is put as examples of succession (Cabrera-Su??rez et al., 2001). Another theoretical approach that has been incorporated into the understanding of the strategic behavior of family businesses is the stakeholder approach. The family is one of the main interest groups in the family business (Zellweger & Nason, 2008) that influences the strategic behavior of the company. High levels of family participation increase the intensity of the influence on innovation and growth in family businesses (Casillas et al., 2010). Family influence plays an essential role in the achievement of strategic adequacy (strategy and structure) and, in turn, in the result of superior performance (Lindow et al., 2010). Family control has a positive effect on the return on investment when ownership and control are aligned (Bjuggren & Palmberg, 2010). Family ownership is positively associated with the performance of the company; this positive association is particularly strong when family members serve as CEOs, senior executives or directors in family businesses (Zattoni et al., 2015). In short, the theory of stakeholders in their application to the family business, can explain how different participants, through the interaction of their participation, power, legitimacy, and urgency in the formulation of goals and strategies of the organization, intervene in the definition of what resources should be acquired and the costs that should be eliminated or amplified (Mitchell et al., 1997). Finally, we can point out other approaches that have had less intensity in the study of the strategic behavior of the family business, such as the theories of social capital, contingency, prospective or institutional, dynamic capabilities, the economics of transaction costs, and the stewardship approach. Some of the results obtained applying these approaches refer to the lack of evidence about the relationship between family businesses and institutional development (Jiang & Peng, 2011), regional growth (Barros et al., 2017), to the positive effects on the performance produced by connections and relationships of the family business with the community (Miller et al., 2009), the relationship of internal social capital with satisfaction at work, in the family and with the performance of the family business (Carr et al., 2011), since the participatory strategic process is positively related to the company??s performance (Chirico et al., 2011). Altruism reduces the conflict of relationships and improves the participatory strategic process (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007). The combination of these perspectives can allow a better understanding of the conditions under which the positive forces of family participation can be developed and directed towards the achievement of economic and non-economic objectives, contributing to the development of a theory of strategic management of the family business (Chrisman et al., 2005). The theory of dynamic capabilities has received considerable attention in the literature on business strategy (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007, 2014, 2018; Winter, 2003; Zollo & Winter, 2002). From this approach, dynamic capabilities are considered as the ability of an organization to purposefully create, extend or modify its resource base (Helfat et al., 2007). Dynamic capabilities allow a company to expand or create common capabilities through access and recombination of knowledge, allowing success over time (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Therefore, from this approach it is considered that knowledge is one of the most relevant elements of the dynamic capacities (Foss, 2005), allowing the acquisition of skills, learning, and accumulation of intangible or indivisible resources in the organization (Teece, 2007). In the field of family business, there is still limited research dedicated to the study of dynamic capacities (Colombo et al., 2006; Chirico, 2006; Chirico & Salvato, 2008, 2016; Chirico & Nordqvist, 2010; Chirico et al., 2012; Barros et al., 2016). Family businesses are a particular type of company where the generation of dynamic capacities can probably be developed distinctively, due to the specific conditions and characteristics offered by the process of knowledge management and learning in these companies. However, despite the advances in research, there are still steps to be taken in understanding the strategic behavior of family businesses about their evolution and dynamics (Chirico, 2008; Chirico et al., 2012; Daspit et al., 2017). Family dynamics also make family businesses different from non-family businesses (Chua et al., 1999) and as a consequence, family dynamics also affect the way in which the strategy is constructed and implemented in the company (Brunninge et al., 2007). Among the many distinctive features that can affect and alter the strategic process are long-term family relationships that foster trust, commitment, and responsibility (Astrachan, 2010). Families are different and so are their dynamics, resulting in different implications for the strategy, behavior of the company (Kellermanns et al., 2008) and ultimately for the continuity of the family business. References Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73-95. Astrachan, J. H. (2010). Strategy in the family business: Toward a multidimensional research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 6-14. Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business Review, 21(2), 139-149. Barros, I., Hernang??mez, J., & Martin-Cruz, N. (2016). A theoretical model of strategic management of family firms. A dynamic capability approach. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 149-159. Barros, I., Palma-Ruiz, M., Cantarero-Prieto, D., & Gonz??lez-Moreno, S.E. (2017). Las empresas familiares en el desarrollo regional: un llamado al reenfoque de la investigaci??n en M??xico. In book: Los Retos del Cambio Econ??mico Actual: Revisi??n y Aplicaciones para el Caso Mexicano. Monterrey, Mexico: Ediciones de Laurel. Bjuggren, P. O., & Palmberg, J. (2010). The impact of vote differentiation on investment performance in listed family firms. Family Business Review, 23(4), 327-340. Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 295-308. Cabrera-Su??rez, K., De Sa??-P??rez, P., & Garc??a-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from a resource- and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37-46. Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249-265. Carr, J. C., Cole, M. S., Ring, J. K., & Blettner, D. P. (2011). A measure of variations in internal social capital among family firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1207-1227. Casillas, J. C., Moreno, A. M., & Barbero, J. L. (2010). A configurational approach of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth of family firms. Family Business Review, 23(1), 27-44. Chirico, F. (2006). Knowledge, dynamic capabilities and family inertia in family firms: A computational approach. Family firms as arenas for trans-generational value creation. A qualitative and computational approach. The University of Jyv??skyl??. Jyv??skyl??, Finland. Chirico, F. (2008). Knowledge accumulation in family firms: Evidence from four case studies. International Small Business Journal, 26(4), 433-462. Chirico, F., & Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal, 28(5), 487-504. Chirico, F., Nordqvist, M., Colombo, G., & Mollona, E. (2012). Simulating dynamic capabilities and value creation in family firms: Is paternalism an 'asset' or 'liability'? Family Business Review, 25(3), 318-338. Chirico, F., & Salvato, C. (2008). Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaptation in family firms. Family Business Review, 21(2), 169-181. Chirico, F., & Salvato, C. (2016). Knowledge internalization and product development in family firms: When relational and affective factors matter. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40(1), 201-229. Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307-326. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Kellermanns, F. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, and performance in the family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 739-760. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555-576. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., De Massis, A., & Wang, H. (2018). Reflections on family firm goals and the assessment of performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(2), 107-113. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-39. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Steier, L. P. (2003). Extending the theoretical horizons of family business research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(4), 331-338. Colombo, G., Koiranen, M., & Chirico, F. (2006). Understanding family businesses as value creation systems through system dynamics. Family firms as arenas for trans-generational value creation. A qualitative and computational approach, 158. Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 351-371. Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Long, R. G. (2017). A Strategic Management Perspective of the Family Firm: Past Trends, New Insights, and Future Directions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 29(1), 6-29. Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545-565. Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource configuration in family firms: Linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities for performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 26-50. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. Fletcher, D., Melin, L., & Gimeno, A. (2012). Culture and values in the family business: A review and suggestions for future research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(3), 127-131. Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategy, economic organization, and the knowledge economy: The coordination of firms and resources. New York, USA.: Oxford University Press. G??mez-Mej??a, L. R., Haynes, K. T., N????ez-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. Gnan, L., & Songini, L. (2003). The Professionalization of family firms: the role of agency cost control mechanisms. Universit?? commerciale Luigi Bocconi. Gnan, L., Hinna, A., & Monteduro, F. (Eds.). (2013). Conceptualizing and researching governance in public and non-profit organizations (Vol. 1). Emerald Group Publishing. Gnan, L., Hinna, A., Monteduro, F., & Scarozza, D. (2013). Corporate governance and management practices: stakeholder involvement, quality and sustainability tools adoption. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(4), 907-937. Gnan, L., & Montemerlo, D. (2001). Structure and dynamics of ownership, governance, and strategy: the role of family and impact on performance in Italian SMEs. In the Family business network: annual world conference. Gnan, L., Montemerlo, D., & Huse, M. (2015). Governance systems in family SMEs: The substitution effects between family councils and corporate governance mechanisms. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 355-381. 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. Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., & MacMillan, I. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451-465. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Sing, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Jiang, Y., & Peng, M. (2011). Are family ownership and control in large firms good, bad, or irrelevant? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1), 15-39. Karra, N., Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family firm: Exploring the role of family, kinship, and ethnicity. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 861-877. Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (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. Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321-339. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731-746. Lindow, C. M., Stubner, S., & Wulf, T. (2010). Strategic fit within family firms: The role of family influence and the effect on performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 167-178. Miller, D., Amore, M. D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Minichilli, A., & Quarato, F. (2018). Strategic distinctiveness in family firms: Firm institutional heterogeneity and configurational multidimensionality. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 16-26. Miller, D., Lee, J., Chang, S., & Breton-Miller, I. L. (2009). Filling the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of family vs non-family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 802-817. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 853-886. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2001). Capital structure decision making: A model for family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 285-310. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management of the family business: Past research and future challenges. Family Business Review, 10(1), 1-35. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. E. (2012). 25 years of family business review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25(1), 5-15. Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339-358. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328-352. Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359-368. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991-995. Zattoni, A., Gnan, L., & Huse, M. (2015). Does family involvement influence firm performance? Exploring the mediating effects of board processes and tasks. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1214-1243. Zellweger, T. M., & Nason, R. S. (2008). A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family Business Review, 21(3), 203-216. Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229-248. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351.
The literature on family business has developed significantly over the last years. However, efforts remain to summarize and systematize the main aspects that affect the behavior of this type of company. In this regard, the topic of strategic management has been developed since the beginning of this field of study, with special relevance nowadays. In this sense, it is especially important to recognize how the family decisively influences the behavior of the company, and also to identify how the existence of the company affects family dynamics. Those who manage family businesses, whether family or not, must reconcile both perspectives (business - family) in the definition of strategic objectives, allowing sustainability and continuity in this type of organization. This book aims to cover in perspective how the strategic management in the family business has been developed ??? identifying the objectives that sustain the strategic behavior, the main areas of analysis (family - business), the definition of strategies and their implementation. Also, the authors of this book review the different scenarios for family firms and propose strategies to tackle the challenges and seize the possibilities to grow in a competitive and dynamic environment.
The target audience of this book will be composed of professionals and researchers working in the field of family business, strategic management, organizational behavior, and entrepreneurship in various disciplines, e.g., economics, business administration, administrative sciences and management, education, sociology, among others. Moreover, the book will provide insights and support executives, academics, advisors and consultants, policy-makers and in general to all those linked to family businesses concerned with the strategic management, sustainability, and continuity of family business in different types of work communities and environments.
Proposed topics (but not limited to): - Emerging strategies to seize valuable opportunities for profit and growth - Entrepreneurial Leadership and Competitive Strategy in family business - Entrepreneurship-based models - Improving market performance through leadership - Trust in global networks - Guidance as a management strategy - Leadership and globalization - Competitive strategies in family business - Knowledge transfer, leadership, and best practices - Human capital development - Inter-organizational communication and knowledge - Information security and competition - Knowledge creation and leadership - Knowledge representation in family business - Organizational culture and leadership - Organizational learning and family business - Trust in organizational leadership - Economic development and corporate governance - Management and Information systems to foster leadership - Interpersonal trust and competitive strategy - Technology partnerships and leadership - Succession and governances across generations - Conflict management across generations in a family business - Trust and value creation in the family business - Socioemotional wealth and performance - Innovative performance and business models
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before March 12, 2019, a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words explaining the mission and concerns of the proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by March 30, 2019, about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines. Full chapters are expected to be submitted by July 10, 2019, and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at http://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project. Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-blind peer review editorial process. All proposals should be submitted through the eEditorial Discovery??TM online submission manager.
This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), publisher of the "Information Science Reference" (formerly Idea Group Reference), "Medical Information Science Reference," "Business Science Reference," and "Engineering Science Reference" imprints. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit www.igi-global.com. This publication is anticipated to be released in 2020.
Mar 12, 2019: Proposal submission deadline Apr 11, 2019: Notification of acceptance July 10, 2019: Full chapter submission Sep 7, 2019: Review results due to authors Oct 5, 2019: Revisions due from authors Oct 19, 2019: Final acceptance notification due to authors Nov 2, 2019: All final accepted materials due from authors
Jes??s Manuel Palma-Ruiz, Autonomous University of Chihuahua (Mexico) email@example.com / firstname.lastname@example.org Ismael Barros Contreras, Austral University of Chile (Chile), Lancaster University School of Management (UK) email@example.com / firstname.lastname@example.org Luca Gnan, Tor Vergata University (Italy) email@example.com
Prof. Luca Gnan
Professor in Organizational Behavior
Director of the Bachelor in Business Administration and Economics (https://economia.uniroma2.it/ba/business-administration-economics/)
Editor in Chief of the International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems (http://www.inderscience.com/ijtis)
Management and Law Department
School of Economics
Tor Vergata University
Dipartimento Management e Diritto
Facolt?? di Economia
Universit?? degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata
Via Columbia, 2
Chi accoglie un pensiero non riceve qualcosa, ma qualcuno.
Passate la palla, a volte ?? l'unica cosa che potete fare:
prenderla, toccarla e poi passarla.
Le Po??te est semblable au prince des nu??es
Qui hante la temp??te et se rit de l'archer;
Exil?? sur le sol au milieu des hu??es,
Ses ailes de g??ant l'empechent de marcher.
Connect to the Division