Social networking relationships,firm‐specific managerial experience and firm performance in a transition economy: A comparative analysis of family owned and nonfamily firms

The effect of social networking relationships, firm‐specific managerial experience, and their interactions on performance between family owned and nonfamily firms are studied. Using data from 106 organizations in Ghana, the findings show that family owned firms benefit more from networking relationships with bureaucratic officials than do nonfamily firms. However, nonfamily firms benefit more from networking relationships with community leaders and firm‐specific managerial experience than do family owned firms. Networking relationships with politicians impede performance for nonfamily firms. Nonfamily firms are better able than family owned firms to use their firm‐specific managerial experience to manage the resources and capabilities obtained from networking relationships with community leaders to create value. Moreover, firm‐specific managerial experience attenuates the detrimental effects of networking with politicians for both types of firms. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms

The behavioral agency model suggests family firms invest less in R&D than nonfamily firms to protect their socioemotional wealth. Studies support this contention but do not explain how family firms make R&D investments. We hypothesize that when performance exceeds aspirations, family firms manage socioemotional and economic objectives by making exploitative R&D investments that lead to more reliable and less risky sales levels. However, performance below aspirations leads to exploratory R&D investments that result in potentially higher but less reliable sales levels. Using a risk abatement model, our analyses of 847 firms over 10 years supports our hypotheses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Family firms and internationalization‐governance relationships: Evidence of secondary agency issues

This article documents that blockholders with both ownership and management control in family firms have different goals compared to blockholders with only ownership (but no management) control. We theorize and find evidence that family controlled and family managed (FCFM) firms negatively moderate the relationships between internationalization and governance mechanisms, while family controlled and nonfamily managed (FCNFM) firms do not. The findings indicate that family owners in FCFM firms have greater opportunities to reap private benefits of control indicating the presence of secondary (principal‐principal) agency problems, while these problems are mitigated in FCNFM firms. In emerging economies like India where family firms are ubiquitous, they highlight the need to recognize differing blockholder influences on internationalization‐governance relationships and to develop more nuanced theorizing for understanding them. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

承销商声誉与IPO抑价的关系研究综述

本文在文献回顾的基础上,对承销商声誉与IPO抑价的关系问题展开理论综述。国外通过一系列的研究表明,承销商声誉与IPO抑价之间呈负相关关系。虽然承销商声誉是影响IPO抑价率的重要因素之一,但在我国承销商声誉与IPO抑价间这种负相关关系并不显著,文章通过对国内外理论界对承销商声誉与IPO抑价之间关系的研究进行比较和综述。     

Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

The courage to choose! Primogeniture and leadership succession in family firms

Research Summary : Building on a unique data set with information on the nuclear structure of entrepreneurial families, we integrate leadership succession into a socioemotional wealth (SEW) logic to test the antecedents and consequences of primogeniture vis‐à‐vis second‐ or subsequent‐born selection in family firm succession. Our findings suggest that appointing a family firstborn sibling is more likely when there is a high degree of SEW endowment and the family firm has pre‐succession performance below aspiration levels. Next, we find that appointing a second‐ or subsequent‐born sibling has a positive and significant effect on post‐succession firm profitability, particularly when the firm is in its second generation or later. Managerial Summary : What drives succession choices in family firms? What are the performance implications of each succession choice? These are questions of vital relevance for every business owner. Focusing on the pool of potential family heirs at the time of succession, our study adds to the debate on the drivers of succession choices by suggesting that having a family intensive governance structure fosters primogeniture as the main succession logic, even when the family firm is experiencing lower profitability. Our study informs business owners on the implications of different succession policies, suggesting that family firms that have the courage to disregard primogeniture and choose more wisely the family successor are also the ones experiencing higher post‐succession performance.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Corporate governance and IPO underpricing in a cross‐national sample: A multilevel knowledge‐based view

Prior studies of IPO underpricing, mostly using agency theory and single‐country samples, have generally fallen short. In this study, we employ the knowledge‐based view (KBV) to explore underpricing across 17 countries. We find that agency indicators are insignificant predictors, board of director knowledge limits underpricing, and external knowledge both substitutes for and complements internal board knowledge. This third finding suggests that future KBV studies should consider how internal and external knowledge states interact with each other. Our study offers new insights into the antecedents of underpricing and extends our understanding of comparative governance and the KBV of the firm. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Geographic distance and corporate acquisitions: signals from IPO firms

This paper examines acquisitions of firms after they have undergone initial public offerings (IPOs). Combining insights from information economics with recent research on geographic distance in various market settings, the analysis investigates whether the presence or absence of different signals on IPO firms has an impact on the geographic proximity of acquirers. The central proposition we develop and test is that specific characteristics of IPOs—venture capitalist backing, investment bank reputation, and underpricing of issued shares—convey signals on these firms, which can facilitate acquisitions by more remote acquirers who are more likely to face the risk of adverse selection. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Ability and Willingness Paradox in Family Firm Innovation

We present a framework of how family involvement influences innovation management based on ability (discretion to act) and willingness (disposition to act), two drivers that distinguish family firms from nonfamily firms and lead to heterogeneity among family firms. Paradoxically, family firms have superior ability yet lower willingness to engage in technological innovation. Resolving this paradox should yield new insights about innovation management in general. We summarize and position the papers in this special issue according to these drivers and set out an agenda for further research that will contribute to a better understanding of family firms' heterogeneous and paradoxical behaviors.     

The Impact of Family Ownership,Management, and Governance on Innovation

Previous research suggests that the distinctive nature of family firms, including both specific advantages and disadvantages related to their particular agency situation, influences innovation activities. Most studies, however, view family firms as homogeneous entities and thus neglect the heterogeneity of family firms when comparing them with nonfamily firms. One important factor of this firm heterogeneity is family influence in terms of ownership, management, and governance. A data set of large German publicly traded firms between 2000 and 2009 is used to test how these three dimensions of family influence predict innovation input and output. The results show that family participation in management and governance has a negative impact on innovation input and a positive influence on innovation output. This suggests that family members are risk averse and reluctant to invest in innovation, but at the same time do so more effectively.     

Rationale behind IPO Underpricing: Evidence from Asian REIT IPOs

This article examines the rationale behind IPO underpricing using a sample of REIT IPOs in Asia. Although the IPOs registered an average initial return of 3.08%, the issuers were able to sell the IPO shares above their fundamental values by timing the listings in periods when existing REIT stocks are traded at a premium to their net asset values (NAV). An IPO could therefore be underpriced and yet produce a net gain for the issuer. The issuers’ net gain from IPO is, however, negatively related to long‐run performance of REIT IPOs.     

Board composition,share ownership,and ‘underpricing’ of U.K. IPO firms

Using a sample of 251 IPOs in the United Kingdom, this paper examines interlinks between executive and nonexecutive characteristics, share ownership, and short‐term performance measured in terms of share offer ‘underpricing.’ It argues that executives' power and previous experience directly affect ex ante choice of nonexecutive directors and their ownership interests in the firm. These endogenously developed governance factors may be used by IPO teams strategically to reduce the extent of underpricing. However, there is a selective response of investors to different board characteristics and share ownership structure. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exploring the sociocultural determinants of de novo versus de alio entry in emerging industries

The influence of institutional factors on firm entry has long interested strategy scholars. However, we have limited understanding of how the sociocultural environment, defined as the unwritten, decentralized “rules of the game,” influences founding rates in emergent industries; we know even less about how these noneconomic factors differentially influence entry by new entrepreneurial (de novo) firms versus diversifying incumbent (de alio) firms. Utilizing a unique dataset on entry in the green building supply industry, we find that, while economic and policy factors are highly correlated with de alio entry, the sociocultural environment exerts a greater influence on de novo firms. Our findings contribute to the literature on corporate demography, institutions and entrepreneurship, and industry emergence. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corporate divestitures and family control

This paper investigates the relationship between divestitures and firm value in family firms. Using hand‐collected data on a sample of over 30,000 firm‐year observations, we find that family firms are less likely than non‐family firms to undertake divestitures, especially when these companies are managed by family rather than non‐family‐CEOs. However, we then establish that the divestitures undertaken by family firms, predominantly those run by family‐CEOs, are associated with higher post‐divestiture performance than their non‐family counterparts. These findings indicate that family firms may fail to fully exploit available economic opportunities, potentially because they pursue multiple objectives beyond the maximization of shareholder value. These results also elucidate how the characteristics of corporate owners and managers can influence the value that firms derive from their corporate strategies. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Pricing of Seasoned Equity Offerings: Evidence from REITs

Real estate investment trusts (REITs) have been a very active sector in the capital market over the last few years. This paper examines the pricing of seasoned equity offers by equity REITs during 1991–1996. Consistent with Parsons and Raviv's model, we find that SEOs by REITs are underpriced with respect to both the closing price on the day before and the closing price on the day of the offer. Underpricing depends on the institutional ownership of the firm's common stock. Issues by firms with higher institutional ownership are more underpriced for post-1990 REITs. Further, consistent with the notion that theories of IPO pricing apply to SEOs as well, the underpricing of SEOs is a function of the issue size and of the underwriter's reputation.     

Profitability Goals,Control Goals,and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms

Research and development (R&D) investments can help build sustainable competitive advantages and improve firm performance. Nevertheless, managers also acknowledge the difficulties associated with managing R&D and the low chances of success of innovation programs. For this reason, researchers have long been interested in understanding how managers make R&D investment decisions. Research grounded in the behavioral theory of the firm suggests that a primary driver of R&D investment decisions is profitability: when profitability goals have not been met, managers are more likely to initiate a problemistic search through increasing R&D investments. While emphasizing profitability goals and their relationship with R&D investments, prior research largely downplays the role of goals beyond profitability that exist in a significant number of firms (family firms) that are owned and managed by family members whose primary concern is preserving their control over the organization. Research indicates that these family‐centered noneconomic goals lead family managers to minimize R&D investments and that the coexistence of multiple goals produces highly variable R&D investment behavior. Yet, how family‐centered goals for control and profitability enter decision‐making in family firms is not fully understood. In this study, we propose that family managers form distinctive reference points that capture supplier bargaining power and are used to evaluate the degree of external obstruction to their managerial control. The empirical analysis of panel data on 431 private Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 2000–2006 shows that the importance of profitability and control goals follows a sequential logic in family firms, such that family firms react more strongly to increasing supplier bargaining power when their profitability reference points have been reached. This study extends current understanding of the distinctive organizational processes engendered by family management in business organizations leading to new research opportunities at the intersection of the innovation management and family business literatures.     

The development of capabilities in new firms

This research explores evidence of corporate capabilities for conducting acquisition and alliance deals in young firms. We hypothesize that investors conjecture about the future based on information about a firm's capabilities. Each successive deal carries intrinsic value, creates experience, generates feedback, and yields information about the firm's underlying capabilities. We evaluate whether stock prices impute expectations that firms will capably pursue particular programs of acquisitions and alliances. The analysis covers how investor responses change across successive deals on the theory that firms with a concentrated program of deals may develop capabilities more intensively than those with programs that involve both acquisitions and alliances. The dataset covers the population of firms that went through an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States between 1988 and 1999. It contains information on all of their post‐IPO acquisitions and alliances, and on how their stock prices changed in response to the announcement of each deal. The results suggest that within the first year after IPO, investors expect firms to execute particular streams of alliances and acquisitions that reflect their unique histories of demonstrated capabilities. We also find evidence that investors cannot fully anticipate deal programs. The findings support a capabilities‐based view of the firm and also show that accurate inference using event‐study methods may require digging deep into the early histories of firms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Digital Transformation Through Exploratory and Exploitative Internet of Things Innovations: The Impact of Family Management and Technological Diversification*

This study examines the impact of family management on digital transformation with specific regard to the firm’s development of Internet of Things (IoT) innovations. Drawing on the distinctive characteristics of firms with family managers, such as the focus on family‐centered noneconomic goals, long tenure, emotional ties to existing assets, and rigid mental models, it hypothesizes that increasing family involvement in the top management team is negatively related to the development of IoT innovations that are distant from a firm’s existing technology base (i.e., exploratory IoT innovations) compared to exploitative IoT innovations. Further, the study proposes that the firm’s degree of technological diversification, especially in unrelated forms, reinforces this relationship. The longitudinal analysis between 2002 and 2013 on a sample of publicly traded German firms allows us to test our hypotheses from the beginning of the emergence of the IoT concept. Our findings show that due to the particular characteristics of their managers, family‐managed firms do not welcome the risks related to exploratory IoT innovations, and the benefit of risk diversification from technological diversification is lower than the cost of abandoning family‐centered goals. As our results imply that the involvement of family managers constrains the development of exploratory IoT innovation, the top management team composition in firms that intend to be at the forefront of the digital transformation should be accurately designed by avoiding a high proportion of family members.     

Information diffusion and value redistribution among transaction partners of the IPO firm

This paper examines the diffusion of information around the initial public offering (IPO) process and identifies transaction partners on which IPO firms are dependent. Using a resource payments perspective, we argue that this dependence will lead to greater cumulative abnormal stock returns for transaction partners when this information is revealed in the market (when the initial form S‐1 is filed with the SEC). Moreover, we examine the uniqueness of the resource configuration between the IPO firm and transaction partners and find that greater uniqueness is associated with higher valuation for these transaction partners. We also find that multiple dependencies (by the IPO firm) reduce the valuation effect for transaction partners, indicating that a bargaining effect reduces the potential value that any transaction partner can appropriate. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.