Background

Discuss about the Strategic Leadership And The Leaders In Contexts.

In early times family business suffered a lot due to the use of wrong methodologies and they were at large very descriptive and mainly theoretical in nature. However, with the advent of time there was a development in this field with the participation of the rigor theoretical aspect that responded collectively to calls which is continuous in nature. The scholars recommended a sequence that consisted of paradigms that was meant for examining the problems that were eccentric to the companies that are controlled by families. The above stated paradigms were inherited from different domains, namely the economic, strategic, financial management theories, and these focuses mainly on the large corporations that are publicly owned and more specifically it can be stated to be the highly dispersed ownership[1]. The aspects that they include are mainly stewardships theory, agency theory and are also inclusive of views based on the resources. Even though significant insights is derived from extending and adaptation within the situation of the above explained theory in order to provide details about the activities of the organizations that are controlled and owned by family, a huge amount of additional assessments are to be done, with relevance to the unique characteristics to the family businesses who can be tangible in nature. For the purpose of studying the family business, this methodology has often led to contradictory empirical results, excessive reductionism, overlapping terminology, fragmented theoretical interpretations, and a forced application of borrowed logic to explain descriptive findings.

In Asian countries, the level of family organizations is quite prominent. Various researches have been developed which has proved family profit making organization to be a prominent portion of SEW Guide lines. The available data on the Asian Family and firms that are non-family firms are collected from reliable sources in order to attain the result that is desired. The current research paper focuses on medium-large listed organizations taking by assessing and making a comparison of the family based businesses and the non-family profit making organizations. The properties of medium as well broad organizations allow a connection with delayed consequences of exploratory examinations on recorded associations. The test carried out on family companies execution give mixed results in luminosity of the different family organization, in light of unmistakable ownership edges, on an organization, or on blends of proprietorship and association[2]. Family organizations address a conscious happening universe along with particular models of organization and organization, which impact execution in a surprising way. It is considered, from the perspective of SWE that the influence on the implementation of family improvement in the profit making organization, dismembering the characteristics of board and ownership that shape the SEW. Possibility of socio emotional wealth, or loaded with feeling endowments, insinuates the effective family organizations get from the non-budget parts of the profit of organization, for illustration, identity, the aptitude to rehearse family effect, and the reassurance of the family organization and characteristics. The power of the Socio economic wealth is mentioned by Barron:  that the family and organization ownership, proprietorship disseminating, family CEO, and the proximity of different relatives on the board and weight of the non-official people on the board[3]. The paper considers the possible coordinating factors of SEW highlighted by composing, that is family generational stage, organization size, the qualified closeness of non-family financial specialists and organization risk.

Objectives

This analytical study would look to understand the socioeconomic wealth on the financial performance of the family firms and the understanding would be attained with the help of various past researches and thereafter create a methodology in accordance to which analysis of the data can be constructed in order to bring about the actual result.

The research aims and objectives look to address the factors and the features that would be taken into consideration and undertake results that would be helpful in taking the research forward in an effective manner. The aims and objectives of the research are as follows:

• Ascertain the impact of socio-economic wealth on the financial performance of the family firms
• Assess the diversification of the socio-economic wealth and accordingly understand the potential risks associated with it

The research question addresses the issues that would be answered in this paper and thereby the paper would be completed effectively. The research question for this paper is as follows:

The separation of control and ownership causes asymmetric information and conflict of interest between managers and owners. In family-controlled firms, for minimizing, the agency costs the interest of managers and owners are aligned with the personal ownership. Agency costs in family firms are generally lower compared to non-family firms. Analysis of family firm’s performance and behavior are analyzed by referring to agency theory. However, this theoretical framework does not fully explain the variety of behaviors and complexities among the family firms[4]. A genera socio economic wealth model is developed by building on behavioral agency theory for explaining the particularities of family firms[5]. As per the behavioral agency theory, emotional commitment or effectiveness of family members influences the family member’s behavior and the loss is avoided by decision maker act.

The family based companies gain their utility and effectiveness from the authoritative personnel, who act selflessly with regards to the family members and maintaining the social capital of the family companies. The SEW comprises of several aspects and they include the control of the family and their influence, recognition of the members of the family who are related to the company, social ties of the family, emotional attachment among the company, family and among the members of the family who associated with the company[6]. Thus, the recognition of the members of the family is closely associated with the company and the sustenance of the owners of the family, socio-economic becomes essential itself and thereby guiding the attitude of the company. It is seen that by making use of corporate governance, strategies, management and the risk mitigating approaches. The maintenance of SEW leads to the influential objectives which can be overviewed in the following:

• Maintaining influence and control over the business
• Enabling the dynasty of the family with the help of the business
• Maintaining the image and reputation of the family

Socioeconomic Wealth Model

As per the literature review, the model of socio emotional wealth have depicted various consequences on different fields such as research and development, diversification efforts, environmental performance and pricing of IPO[7].

In terms of diversification efforts, family firms behave differently and it is indicated by findings from literature review that family firms diversify more compared to non-family firms at both international and domestic level. It is hinted by research that family firms strive to enter into region that are close to them on cultural basis. The model of SEW helps in explaining the firms specific behavior. In order to protect the SEW, family firms are expected to have less diversification. Owner of family firms avoid diversification because they fear the loss of control over operations, although diversification indicates bearing less risk. View of fewer diversification efforts are supported by other arguments that influence of family business would diminish by appointing non-family members to family business[8].  Furthermore, the shareholding of family might be diluted if external funding does diversification. Contrary to this, once there is increase in business risk, family firms as rational investors opt for diversification. This is indicative if the fact that performance of family firms is worst compared to other firms.

Considering the technological aspect, there is fewer diversifications by family firms on this aspect due to fear of risks factor.  In order for firms to build competitive advantage, one of the important strategic choices is making investment in research and development. It is provided by economic rationality that the main motivation of family firms to make investment in research and development comes from promoting growth, innovation and survival of company. The overall risk of firms can be reduced by creation of investment across firms through synergies[9]. Nevertheless, the family SEW would be threatened by R & D investment because of several reasons. Firstly, there would be loss of family influence, as R & D projects would require assistance from outside parties. Secondly, firms with different product lines would be largely benefitted from such projects. Thirdly, there is a possibility of potential loss of shareholdings of family due to external financing of the project. Lastly, when undertaking such projects, it is required to take clear step away from practices. It has been found from some research that there exist negative relationship between R & D investment and family ownership. Activities of R & D of family firms tend to increase if the board comprise of outsiders that are more independent[10].

Impact of SEW on different fields

It is evident from literature review that family firms intend to convey positive image to society for which they pollute less. However, lower pollution does not have any relation with economic benefits and they can only protect their socio emotional wealth (SEW)[11]. In terms of their perceived SEW; family firms towards environmental pressures make adjustment.

Relationship between IPO pricing and family firms has been investigated in the literature review. It is argued by some authors that the reason associate with acceptance of higher IPO under pricings by family firms is to enhance and preserve their SEW. The need of SEW to preserve the reputation of family firms are related with higher IPO under pricings and this helps in reducing litigation and reputation risks during the process of IPO[12]. Different scholars perceive impact of SEW on pro-active stakeholder engagement of family firms differently[13]. It is argued by authors that in order to pursue SEW, family firms are more inclined to pursue pro-active stakeholder engagement.

All the five components of SEW that is family influence and control, family members identification within the firms, binding social ties, family members emotional attachment and family members bond renewal positively impacts the engagement with external and internal stakeholders.  However, it is argued by some about the existence of negative relationship between stakeholder engagement and SEW[14].

The influence of family firms by SEW on the acquisition behavior has also been investigated. It has been ascertained that the influence of SEW on acquisition behavior of firms varies with different performance levels by firms. This depicts that acquisition behavior of family firm’s changes when they do not reach their aspiration levels. The acquisition target of family firms facing economic loss is unrelated and they are more likely to acquire[15]. Contrary to this, family firms under slack for bolstering their SEW endowments are associated with buying related targets[16].  

It has been ascertained from empirical findings that there is less engagement in acquisition by family owned firms. The findings are deemed to be logically correct as when it comes to acquisition behavior, family firms are expected to be less active because such acquisition has the likelihood of threatening their SEW endowment and dilution of control[17].

Summarizing the above findings, it can be said that the behavior of family firms is influenced by SEW with regard to diversification, R & D, IPO pricing, environmental behavior and engagement of stakeholders. Although, SEW is related to family firms until they do not have any financial trouble. As soon as the business risks is faced by firms, the goal settings of such firms shift to more rational financial goals as against pure SEW goals. The consequence of financial performance and SEW goals of such firms does not have clear answers, while the research is on progress.

Diversification Efforts and Family-Owned Businesses

The most significant objective of the families is the sustenance of the sentimental gift within the company and therefore the performance is a fundamental aim to the development of SEW. The control and the influence of the family within the companies is an essential dimension of SEW and the empirical researches have explained that the families look to avoid brining out the capital in front of the investors. Additionally, while being reluctant towards taking risk, they look to undertake debt financing in order to safeguard their control[18]. The positive performance is the resource of the cash flow for the organizations and permits it towards the financial operations without any alternative to the sources that are external in nature. Furthermore, the profitability makes sure the continuation for the future members of the family and the regeneration of the bonds of the family to the company with the help of dynastic progression[19]. Therefore, there is estimation that family companies follow profitability in order to maintain SEW and thereby outperforming the non-family based businesses[20].

H1: the degree to which the family companies surpass the non-family companies is reliant on the intensity of SEW.

There have been numerous studies that reveal that the involvement of the families within the management generates a stronger bonding among the business and the family. This leads in an extensive effort in order to maintain SEW. The literature even recommends that the presence of the family within the company results to prominent impacts on their reputation and this in a manner remunerates the managers of the family in order to enhance their performance[21]. Furthermore, the empirical evidences on the listed company reveals that the CEO’s of the families have a positive effect on their performance.

H2: Involvement of the family in the private companies and their active management has a positive impact on the performance of the company

The literature review looks to address the various aspects of SEW and the divergence of SEW in accordance to which, the several elements of SEW has been determined. In this manner an understanding of the impact of SEW on the financial performance and the risk taking ability of the family companies can be understood[22]. The development of the hypothesis has indicated that the intensity of SEW has been essential in surpassing the performance of family business over the non-family business. The other hypothesis has indicated that active management of the family members in their business have a positive impact on the performance of the company.

Research and Development in Family-Owned Businesses

This segment of the research has the intention of addressing the kind of data that would be collected in order to take this research paper forward and thereby attaining results that would be helpful in gaining fruitful outcomes[23]. There are numerous kinds of data that can be exploited by the researcher, but the selection of the data is dependent on the topic on which the research has commenced. The methodology section would even highlight the research approach, design, data collection process, data analysis technique and the research philosophy so that an idea about the data collection process and the type of data that is to be used can be identified.

The selection of the methodology is an essential element for the researcher as the authentic selection of the methodology would determine the effectiveness of the collected data. The researcher has the idea that in this paper secondary data would be used in order to have an understanding of the outcome of the research in accordance to this topic and therefore qualitative methodology has been chosen and accordingly qualitative data analysis would be undertaken with the help of which effective results can be attained[24]. The researcher would undertake thematic qualitative data analysis and accordingly precise results can be attained.    

The philosophy is communicated in order to gain a specific knowledge and understanding of the tools and the equipment and the process that would be used by taking help of which the current topic associated data can be attained. There are several philosophies that are available to the researcher, but according to this paper, positivism philosophy has been selected because of the fact that this paper would positively identify the impact of SEW on the financial performance along with the risk taking capability of the family firms[25].

 The approach of the research addresses the frameworks and the models that would be used by the researcher in order to complete the paper in an effective manner. The researcher in this paper would use secondary data and the secondary data would go through qualitative data analysis and therefore deductive approach would be undertaken. Deductive approach makes use of the models and the frameworks that are already existent and this approach is ideal for this research as the researcher in this case would be using secondary data[26].

The design is related to having an understanding of the design and the outline that would be used in order to frame the collected data in such a manner that the data can be used in an effective manner[27]. The design that would be used by the researcher in this paper is exploratory research design because of the fact that the researcher would be exploring the data in accordance to the family firms and these data are secondary in nature and hence exploration of the data is helpful in determining the outcome that is desired by the researcher.

Environmental Performance and Family-Owned Businesses

Secondary data has been used in this research paper and with the help of the secondary data, information in accordance to the SEW and it impact of the financial performance and the risk taking ability of the family organizations can be understood. The secondary data has been collected for five family companies, which are operational in Singapore and their data with regards to sentiments towards SEW would be helpful in understanding how it impacts the financial performance along with the risk taking capability of the family organization. The data has been attained by taking assistance of the website of the companies, data that is available from the internet sources and the financial performance of the family firms[28]. The data that would be collected will be useful in discovering the solutions to the issues with respect to which the research has been undertaken.

The data analysis process that is selected by the researcher will be useful in answering and addressing the issues with respect to which this paper has been initiated[29]. The researcher has selected thematic analysis with the help of which all the elements would be addressed and thereafter an idea can be attained in accordance to which outcome of the paper can be discovered by the researcher.

The researcher has abided to the ethics that have been constructed by national and the international bodies and accordingly results can be attained that would be true and authentic and would bring out results that can be used by the readers[30]. The researcher has abided by the ethical codes and therefore all the data which is used are collected from precise sources and therefore fair and valid data can be used for the completion of the research paper.                             

This section of the paper would assess the gathered data with the assistance of the expertise of researcher and the thematic tool that would be efficient in attaining the results that is desirable for the researcher. The analysis would determine the key factors with the help of which an understanding of the extent of impact of SEW on the risk taking capability and the financial performance of the family firms can be understood.

The companies that have been selected were assessed and it was discovered that there are distinct factors that have an effect on the financial performance and the risk taking capability of the family companies in accordance to socio-economic wealth[31]. The assessment of the factors would be helpful in determining the performance activities of the family firms in Singapore.

Pricing of IPO and Family-Owned Businesses

The family companies have been looked upon the key area of conflict with a business and therefore the essentiality to sustain harmony within the family is still one of the essential factors that would be lead to the attainment of the long term objectives of the company[32]. The harmony of the family that is totally reliant on the interpersonal trust, can lead to orderly, stable and socially integrating frameworks which keeps the family together. It has been suggested that harmony within the family can lead to improvement in the financial performance and even enhance the risk taking capability of the family firms[33].

The companies that have been selected for this research have stated that each one of them have been keeping familial harmony and this has performed as a guiding factor that has even led to strategic decisions in regards to risk taking ability and financial performance of the companies[34]. For example, two of the chosen organizations have been seen to be trying to expand their business and take their operations out of their neighboring market but few of them have committed strongly to remain with their domestic activities and therefore they are not risk takers. The sustenance of harmony has been an essential factor and this is related directly to SEW and therefore explaining that risk taking capability along with the financial performance can improve with the maintenance of family bonding and harmony in the family firms.

From the point of view of a relation, trust and the capability to establish long term relationships creates a key aspect of the cultures of the family firms. There have been numerous researches that have explained that trust underlies with the structure of governance and the activities of the family firms. The small feature and the extensive bonds among the members of the family can generally improve the extent of trust within the family companies[35]. The researches recommends that the enhanced values and an increased long term commitment has been discovered in several family companies and this influences the relationships that are based on the trust, which should make the financial performance and the risk taking ability much better. While the member of the family in certain cases have indicated the significance of trust in their financial performance and risk taking ability, the companies have even indicated the significance of trust among the members of the family along with the distrust of the outside relationship in accordance to their financial and risk taking abilities[36].

The companies that have been selected in this paper have indicated that trust and honesty are the central principles with the help of which the companies exist and with the help of which the companies are able to undertake their commercial transactions[37]. There are certain companies that have showed trust only to their family members and their relatives and do not show trust to the outsiders but there are few companies who have shown the courage to show trust to the outsiders and the comparison of the two kinds of family companies indicate that the ones that are showing trust to the outsiders are having better business performance in accordance to the ones who are not. The financial performance and the risk taking capability have been higher for these companies and thereby indicating that the companies have been operating effectively.                                         

The development and the creation of the environmental management practices have been one of the key factors that improve the financial performance of a business. The family firms have given significant amount of stress on reducing the extent of pollution from their activities. The companies that have been chosen for the analysis have indicated that they have been making use of various environment friendly tools and processes with the help of which they are able to reduce their extent of pollution and create a safer and eco-friendly product[38]. This increases the reputation and the image of the companies in front the consumers and thereby is able to enhance their financial performance. Once the companies gain the confidence of the consumers they are able to increase their risk taking capability because of the fact that they now have the confidence of the consumers and thereby encourages them to undertake risks with the help of which they would be able to provide better and improved products and services.

The degree of technology is another factor that can influence SEW and thereafter an idea can be obtained with respect to the impact on the financial performance along with the risk taking capability of the organization[39]. The family firms do not have extensive degree of tools and technologies that they can use in comparison to the non-family businesses, but they have adequate tools with the help of which they can compete with their rivals. There are two companies that have indicated that they have using extensive level of technological skills and this has been influential for them in order to improve their business and accordingly their financial performance as well[40]. The risk taking capability gets increased once the family firms are able to grow their business with the assistance of these tools and technologies. The use of the technologies reduces the concerns of the members of the family on the socio-economic wealth and thereby is helpful in enhancing the risk taking capacity and the financial performance of the businesses.        

Conclusion

 The results that have been gathered in accordance to this topic by the researcher is helpful in determining the impact of SEW on the risk taking capability and the financial performance of family firms. The background of the research explains what SEW is and how it has been incorporated and understood by the family firms. The research aims and objectives along with the research questions have been able to create an understanding about the aspects in accordance to which the paper would move forward. The results that have been obtained indicates that SEW has significant amount of impact on the financial performance of the family firms. The results have indicated that the factors that have been discussed leads to family firms concentrate more on their businesses and therefore, changing their focus from the SEW is helpful in improving the financial performance of the family firms. In the similar manner the risk taking ability of the family firms would improve as well if the companies are able to take these factors as essentially important rather than the socio-economic wealth. The socio-economic wealth would rise with enhanced business performance and therefore the paper has been able to address both the objectives. The secondary data that has been collected has been of significant help for the researcher in order to reach this conclusion. The differentiation in the performance of the companies that are making use of the factors and those who have not used extensively is an essential factor in determining the impact of SEW.

The recommendation refers to the advices and suggestions that have been discovered from this paper that can be used by the researcher at any future course of time with the help of which the performance of the family firms can better in accordance to the current scenario. It is advisable that the family firms assesses their operational activities from time to time and accordingly make changes in the areas that deemed necessary. The evaluation of the business performance of the rival family firms should even be undertaken with the help of which one would be able to have an understanding of the aspects on which special attention needs to be given by the family firms. It is even recommended that trust should be generated towards the outsiders so that better business performance can be developed and the rate of commercial transactions would increase as well.       

This current topic has the potential of future research because of the fact that with the advent of time, there would be several changes in the internal and the external factors that are related to the businesses of the family firms and therefore future researches would be helpful in determining what has been the impact of SEW on the risk taking capability and the financial performance of the family firms. If the researchers are able to discover changes in the future researches, then accordingly a comparison can be made with the help of which mindset of the members of the family firms can be understood. The SEW factors may even change in the future course of time and thereby the impact of these changes whether positive or negative is influential creating an understanding whether the family firms would be able to benefit from the changes that have taken place.

Reference List

Arrondo-García, Rubén, Carlos Fernández-Méndez, and Susana Menéndez-Requejo. “The growth and performance of family businesses during the global financial crisis: The role of the generation in control.” Journal of Family Business Strategy7.4 (2016): 227-237.

Berrone, Pascual, Cristina Cruz, and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. “Family-controlled firms and stakeholder management: A socioemotional wealth preservation perspective.” The Sage handbook of family business (2014): 179-195.

Binacci, Martina, et al. “Are All Non?Family Managers (NFMs) Equal? The Impact of NFM Characteristics and Diversity on Family Firm Performance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 24.6 (2016): 569-583.

Boling, J. Ruben, Torsten M. Pieper, and Jeffrey G. Covin. “CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family and nonfamily firms.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40.4 (2016): 891-913.

Chang, Sea?Jin, and Jungwook Shim. “When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance?.” Strategic Management Journal 36.9 (2015): 1297-1316.

Chang, Sea?Jin, and Jungwook Shim. “When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance?.” Strategic Management Journal 36.9 (2015): 1297-1316.

Chrisman, James J., et al. “The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 310-318.

Chua, Jess H., James J. Chrisman, and Alfredo De Massis. “A closer look at socioemotional wealth: Its flows, stocks, and prospects for moving forward.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39.2 (2015): 173-182.

Daspit, Joshua J., et al. “A strategic management perspective of the family firm: Past trends, new insights, and future directions.” Journal of Managerial Issues 29.1 (2017): 6.

De Massis, Alfredo, et al. “Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family?oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies.” Journal of Small Business Management 52.2 (2014): 344-364.

Dow, Sandra, and Jean McGuire. “Family matters?: A cross?national analysis of the performance implications of family ownership.” Corporate Governance: An International Review24.6 (2016): 584-598.

Firfiray, Shainaz, et al. “Is nepotism so bad for family firms? A socioemotional wealth approach.” Human Resource Management Review 28.1 (2018): 83-97.

Garcés-Galdeano, Lucía, et al. “Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the moderating role of technological intensity and performance.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12.1 (2016): 27-45.

Gomez?Mejia, Luis R., et al. “Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38.6 (2014): 1351-1374.

Gottardo, Pietro, and Anna Maria Moisello. “The impact of socioemotional wealth on family firms’ financial performance.” Problems and Perspectives in Management 13.1 (2015): 67-77.

Hoskisson, Robert E., et al. “Managerial risk taking: A multitheoretical review and future research agenda.” Journal of management 43.1 (2017): 137-169.

Jaskiewicz, Peter, et al. “Founder versus family owners’ impact on pay dispersion among non-CEO top managers: Implications for firm performance.” Journal of Management43.5 (2017): 1524-1552.

Jaskiewicz, Peter, et al. “The effects of founder and family ownership on hired CEOs’ incentives and firm performance.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41.1 (2017): 73-103.

Kotlar, Josip, and James J. Chrisman. “Point: How family involvement influences organizational change.” Journal of Change Management (2018): 1-11.

Kraiczy, Nils D., Andreas Hack, and Franz W. Kellermanns. “What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk?taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 334-348.

Kraiczy, Nils D., Andreas Hack, and Franz W. Kellermanns. “What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk?taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 334-348.

Kraus, Sascha, et al. “Entrepreneurial paths to family firm performance.” Journal of Business Research (2017).

Lee, Tingko, and Wenyi Chu. “The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Influence of family governance.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 8.4 (2017): 213-223.

Madison, Kristen, et al. “Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories.” Family Business Review 29.1 (2016): 65-93.

Martin, Geoffrey P., Robert M. Wiseman, and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. “Bridging finance and behavioral scholarship on agent risk sharing and risk taking.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 30.4 (2016): 349-368.

Martin, Geoffrey, Joanna Tochman Campbell, and Luis Gomez-Mejia. “Family control, socioemotional wealth and earnings management in publicly traded firms.” Journal of Business Ethics 133.3 (2016): 453-469.

Minichilli, Alessandro, et al. “CEO succession mechanisms, organizational context, and performance: A socio?emotional wealth perspective on family?controlled firms.” Journal of Management Studies 51.7 (2014): 1153-1179.

Minichilli, Alessandro, Marina Brogi, and Andrea Calabrò. “Weathering the storm: Family ownership, governance, and performance through the financial and economic crisis.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 24.6 (2016): 552-568.

Newbert, Scott, and Justin B. Craig. “Moving Beyond Socioemotional Wealth: Toward a Normative Theory of Decision Making in Family Business.” Family Business Review 30.4 (2017): 339-346.

Peng, Mike W., et al. “An institution-based view of large family firms: A recap and overview.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (2017): 1042258717749234.

Poletti-Hughes, Jannine, and Jonathan Williams. “The effect of family control on value and risk-taking in Mexico: A socioemotional wealth approach.” International Review of Financial Analysis (2017).

Poletti-Hughes, Jannine, and Jonathan Williams. “The effect of family control on value and risk-taking in Mexico: A socioemotional wealth approach.” International Review of Financial Analysis (2017).

Revilla, Antonio J., Ana Pérez-Luño, and María Jesús Nieto. “Does family involvement in management reduce the risk of business failure? The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation.” Family Business Review 29.4 (2016): 365-379.

Revilla, Antonio J., Ana Pérez-Luño, and María Jesús Nieto. “Does family involvement in management reduce the risk of business failure? The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation.” Family Business Review 29.4 (2016): 365-379.

Schepers, Jelle, et al. “The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth.” Small Business Economics 43.1 (2014): 39-55.

Schulze, William S., and Franz W. Kellermanns. “Reifying socioemotional wealth.” (2015): 447-459.

Sciascia, Salvatore, Pietro Mazzola, and Franz W. Kellermanns. “Family management and profitability in private family-owned firms: Introducing generational stage and the socioemotional wealth perspective.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 5.2 (2014): 131-137.

Simsek, Zeki, et al. “Strategic leadership and leaders in entrepreneurial contexts: A nexus for innovation and impact missed?.” Journal of Management Studies 52.4 (2015): 463-478.

Strike, Vanessa M., et al. “A socioemotional wealth approach to CEO career horizons in family firms.” Journal of Management Studies 52.4 (2015): 555-583.

Vandekerkhof, Pieter, et al. “Socio?Emotional Wealth Separation and Decision?Making Quality in Family Firm TMTs: The Moderating Role of Psychological Safety.” Journal of Management Studies (2017).

Zachary, Miles A., et al. “Time to recalibrate? Exploring entrepreneurial orientation of family businesses before, during, and after an environmental jolt.” International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 16.1-2 (2017): 57-79.

[1] Jaskiewicz, Peter, et al. “Founder versus family owners’ impact on pay dispersion among non-CEO top managers: Implications for firm performance.” Journal of Management43.5 (2017): 1524-1552.

[2] Strike, Vanessa M., et al. “A socioemotional wealth approach to CEO career horizons in family firms.” Journal of Management Studies 52.4 (2015): 555-583.

[3] Chrisman, James J., et al. “The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 310-318.

[4] Schulze, William S., and Franz W. Kellermanns. “Reifying socioemotional wealth.” (2015): 447-459

[5] Arrondo-García, Rubén, Carlos Fernández-Méndez, and Susana Menéndez-Requejo. “The growth and performance of family businesses during the global financial crisis: The role of the generation in control.” Journal of Family Business Strategy7.4 (2016): 227-237.

[6] Schepers, Jelle, et al. “The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth.” Small Business Economics 43.1 (2014): 39-55.

[7] Chang, Sea?Jin, and Jungwook Shim. “When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance?.” Strategic Management Journal 36.9 (2015): 1297-1316.

[8] Daspit, Joshua J., et al. “A strategic management perspective of the family firm: Past trends, new insights, and future directions.” Journal of Managerial Issues 29.1 (2017): 6.

[9 Dow, Sandra, and Jean McGuire. “Family matters?: A cross?national analysis of the performance implications of family ownership.” Corporate Governance: An International Review24.6 (2016): 584-598.

[10] Garcés-Galdeano, Lucía, et al. “Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the moderating role of technological intensity and performance.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12.1 (2016): 27-45.

[11] Revilla, Antonio J., Ana Pérez-Luño, and María Jesús Nieto. “Does family involvement in management reduce the risk of business failure? The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation.” Family Business Review 29.4 (2016): 365-379.

[12] Chang, Sea?Jin, and Jungwook Shim. “When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance?.” Strategic Management Journal 36.9 (2015): 1297-1316.

[13] Gomez?Mejia, Luis R., et al. “Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38.6 (2014): 1351-1374.

[14] Peng, Mike W., et al. “An institution-based view of large family firms: A recap and overview.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (2017): 1042258717749234.

[15] Poletti-Hughes, Jannine, and Jonathan Williams. “The effect of family control on value and risk-taking in Mexico: A socioemotional wealth approach.” International Review of Financial Analysis (2017).

[16] Kraiczy, Nils D., Andreas Hack, and Franz W. Kellermanns. “What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk?taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 334-348.

[17] Hoskisson, Robert E., et al. “Managerial risk taking: A multitheoretical review and future research agenda.” Journal of management 43.1 (2017): 137-169.

[18] Chua, Jess H., James J. Chrisman, and Alfredo De Massis. “A closer look at socioemotional wealth: Its flows, stocks, and prospects for moving forward.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39.2 (2015): 173-182.

[19] De Massis, Alfredo, et al. “Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family?oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies.” Journal of Small Business Management 52.2 (2014): 344-364.

[20] Minichilli, Alessandro, Marina Brogi, and Andrea Calabrò. “Weathering the storm: Family ownership, governance, and performance through the financial and economic crisis.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 24.6 (2016): 552-568.

[21] Revilla, Antonio J., Ana Pérez-Luño, and María Jesús Nieto. “Does family involvement in management reduce the risk of business failure? The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation.” Family Business Review 29.4 (2016): 365-379.

[22] Jaskiewicz, Peter, et al. “The effects of founder and family ownership on hired CEOs’ incentives and firm performance.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41.1 (2017): 73-103.

[23] Newbert, Scott, and Justin B. Craig. “Moving Beyond Socioemotional Wealth: Toward a Normative Theory of Decision Making in Family Business.” Family Business Review 30.4 (2017): 339-346.

[24] Poletti-Hughes, Jannine, and Jonathan Williams. “The effect of family control on value and risk-taking in Mexico: A socioemotional wealth approach.” International Review of Financial Analysis (2017).

[25] Berrone, Pascual, Cristina Cruz, and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. “Family-controlled firms and stakeholder management: A socioemotional wealth preservation perspective.” The Sage handbook of family business (2014): 179-195.

[26] Simsek, Zeki, et al. “Strategic leadership and leaders in entrepreneurial contexts: A nexus for innovation and impact missed?.” Journal of Management Studies 52.4 (2015): 463-478.

[27] Kraiczy, Nils D., Andreas Hack, and Franz W. Kellermanns. “What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk?taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32.3 (2015): 334-348.

[28] Firfiray, Shainaz, et al. “Is nepotism so bad for family firms? A socioemotional wealth approach.” Human Resource Management Review 28.1 (2018): 83-97.

[29] Kraus, Sascha, et al. “Entrepreneurial paths to family firm performance.” Journal of Business Research (2017).

[30] Minichilli, Alessandro, et al. “CEO succession mechanisms, organizational context, and performance: A socio?emotional wealth perspective on family?controlled firms.” Journal of Management Studies 51.7 (2014): 1153-1179.

[31] Madison, Kristen, et al. “Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories.” Family Business Review 29.1

[32] Gottardo, Pietro, and Anna Maria Moisello. “The impact of socioemotional wealth on family firms’ financial performance.” Problems and Perspectives in Management 13.1 (2015): 67-77.

[33] Martin, Geoffrey, Joanna Tochman Campbell, and Luis Gomez-Mejia. “Family control, socioemotional wealth and earnings management in publicly traded firms.” Journal of Business Ethics 133.3 (2016): 453-469.

[34] Zachary, Miles A., et al. “Time to recalibrate? Exploring entrepreneurial orientation of family businesses before, during, and after an environmental jolt.” International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 16.1-2 (2017): 57-79.

[35] Lee, Tingko, and Wenyi Chu. “The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Influence of family governance.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 8.4 (2017): 213-223.

[36] Vandekerkhof, Pieter, et al. “Socio?Emotional Wealth Separation and Decision?Making Quality in Family Firm TMTs: The Moderating Role of Psychological Safety.” Journal of Management Studies (2017).

[37] Binacci, Martina, et al. “Are All Non?Family Managers (NFMs) Equal? The Impact of NFM Characteristics and Diversity on Family Firm Performance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 24.6 (2016): 569-583

[38] Kotlar, Josip, and James J. Chrisman. “Point: How family involvement influences organizational change.” Journal of Change Management (2018): 1-11.

[39] Boling, J. Ruben, Torsten M. Pieper, and Jeffrey G. Covin. “CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family and nonfamily firms.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40.4 (2016): 891-913.

[40] Martin, Geoffrey P., Robert M. Wiseman, and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. “Bridging finance and behavioral scholarship on agent risk sharing and risk taking.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 30.4 (2016): 349-368.