رفتار کارآفرینانه در شرکت های خانوادگی : مطالعه همانندسازی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|9475||2011||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 9040 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Family Business Strategy, Volume 2, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 128–138
This study examines the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms by replicating a study undertaken in 2006 by Kellermanns and Eddleston [Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A Family Perspective, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, pp. 809–830.]. Employing an extended replication-approach by applying a different national sample (n = 413) from Austria, the relations between four distinct factors – willingness to change, generational involvement, perceived technological opportunities, and strategic planning – and the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms are examined, with the goal to extend the generalization of the original study's findings. Compared to the original study, the replication's results coincide in most parts. However, regarding the relation between strategic planning efforts and entrepreneurial behavior, the replication provides new insights into the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms by stressing the importance of considering organizational size in family-firm research. Accordingly, strategic planning in small family firms seems to comprise a certain ‘entrepreneurial spirit’ that directly influences the extent of their entrepreneurial behavior.
Although entrepreneurial behavior of established businesses is viewed as a crucial prerequisite for growth and performance in dynamic environments (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999, Covin and Slevin, 1991 and Guth and Ginsberg, 1990), research in this field does not explicitly focus on specific types of businesses, such as family businesses (Hall et al., 2001, Hausman, 2005 and Ibrahim et al., 2008). Recent literature acts on this shortfall, for example by dedicating a special issue of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (2010) to the topic. Nonetheless, Nordqvist and Melin (2010) state in their introduction to this special issue that there is “much research […] still needed to better understand the connection between entrepreneurship and family firms” (p. 212), as research lacks particularly the examination of family-specific factors on entrepreneurial behavior in family firms ( Aldrich and Cliff, 2003, Chrisman et al., 2003b, Chrisman et al., 2006, Gudmundson et al., 2003, Hausman, 2005, Heck et al., 2008, Kellermanns and Eddleston, 2006 and Zellweger and Sieger, 2010). This paper contributes to filling this gap by examining how certain family-influenced factors impact the entrepreneurial behavior exhibited by family firms. In doing so, a replication approach is made use of to broaden the generalization of a study undertaken by Franz W. Kellermanns and Kimberly A. Eddleston in 2006 by applying the original scale to an Austrian sample of family businesses. Hence, this replication targets two main objectives: First, it aims at the examination of interrelations between the factors (1) willingness to change, (2) generational involvement, (3) perceived technological opportunities, as well as (4) strategic planning, and entrepreneurial behavior in family-owned businesses. These factors are in line with Miller (1983), who notices that entrepreneurial activities resulting in innovations introduced by mature businesses are mainly characterized by risk-taking and pro-activity. In the original study, these characteristics are displayed by the degree to which the business is willing to change and open for new ideas (willingness to change) and its ability to perceive technological opportunities in its environment (perceived technological opportunities). To consider the family aspect in the study, Kellermanns and Eddleston (2006) introduce the involvement of the family (displayed by the number of generations active in management) into their model (generational involvement). The second objective of the replication is to expand knowledge in the field of corporate entrepreneurship in family firms by contrasting its findings to those of the original study (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006). A replication approach was chosen since replications play an important role “in order to ensure the integrity of a discipline's empirical results” (Hubbard & Armstrong, 1994, p. 233). This approach is in line with recent research on corporate entrepreneurship, emphasizing the importance of replications in different national contexts to overcome the prevalence of U.S.-based samples and allow for broader generalizations (e.g., Frank, Kessler, & Fink, 2010). Replications allow for the extension of empirical results and thus advance knowledge cumulation (i.e. Hubbard, Vetter, & Little, 1998), as new results are directly tied in with existing findings and therefore serve as a means of deepening and broadening a distinct field of research. The original study (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006) represents one of the rare exceptions in the research field of corporate entrepreneurship, as it explicitly focuses on entrepreneurial behavior in family firms (for further examples see Sciascia, Chirico, & Mazzola, 2010, or Casillas, Moreno, & Barbero, 2011). Hence, the original study's replication in a European context might provide a substantial extension of the current level of knowledge in the field. Put differently, in line with Eden (2002): “Whether or not [the replication] produces the same findings as an original study, even an exact replication adds to research knowledge” (p. 842). As family businesses are a rather heterogeneous business type (Chrisman et al., 2003a, Sharma, 2004 and Westhead and Howorth, 2007), in this paper a special focus is on the size differences between the two samples of the original study and the replication, as business size might influence the entrepreneurial behavior or its antecedents. After elaborating on the basic theoretical background to entrepreneurial behavior in family businesses, an overview of the original study (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006) is presented. Additionally, the replication study and the extensions conducted are outlined, especially regarding cultural differences between the Austrian sample of the replication and the U.S. sample of the original study. Subsequently, findings are presented and contrasted with those of the original study to finally discuss implications, contributions, and limitations.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
7.1. Contributions Although this replication aimed at applying a research design as similar as possible to the original study by Kellermanns and Eddleston (2006), some minor adjustments had to be made–especially with regards to the cultural setting of the replication study. Results show that this extension enabled a new perspective on corporate entrepreneurship in family firms by contributing to family firm as well as corporate entrepreneurship literatures in several ways. First, the replication aimed at examining the external validity and thus the generalizability of the original study's results (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006) by changing the geographical and cultural setting. In doing so, the replication was able to confirm the external validity of the original study's result in most parts. Especially regarding the predictor variables willingness to change and perceived technological opportunities, results of the replication showed that the results of the original study can be transferred to a sample differing in terms of firm size and geographical as well as cultural setting. However, the replication also showed that the moderating effect of strategic planning proposed in the original study cannot be transferred to the replication's sample. This divergent result seems to be rooted in the relatively smaller size of companies in the replication's sample. Furthermore, the replication's results contribute to existing research by pointing out the importance of the consideration of family firms’ heterogeneity in terms of size. It seems to be indispensable to recognize differences between family firms according to size, as this influences the strategic alignment of family firms (Lindow et al., 2010). Further research is therefore challenged to bear size-based idiosyncrasies of family firms in mind. Finally, results of this replication extend the level of knowledge concerning the connection of strategic planning and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms, by revealing a certain “entrepreneurial spirit” rooted in the strategic-planning content of firms with family involvement. The content and impact of strategic planning seems to be influenced by the national culture in which a family firm is embedded. The replication's sample differed significantly from the original U.S.-sample in terms of future orientation and uncertainty avoidance (Ashkanasy et al., 2004 and Sully de Luque and Javidan, 2004). Interpreting the results of the regression analysis and their comparison to the original results, it can be argued that high-valued flexibility and long-term orientation with an underlying “entrepreneurial spirit” might influence the predictors of entrepreneurial activity in family businesses in different national cultures. Therefore, results of this replication study offer recommendations to practice as well (especially to smaller family businesses), as they underline the importance of strategic planning, which is directly related to the extent of entrepreneurial behavior exhibited in family firms, as wealth creation might not result from strategy or entrepreneurship alone, but from a combination of the two (“strategic entrepreneurship”, Webb, Ketchen, & Ireland, 2010). Therefore, family-firm owners and managers are recommended to pay great attention to strategic planning efforts, to consider the inherent entrepreneurial spirit which enables the business to focus on entrepreneurial activity. 7.2. Limitations and suggestions for further research Although the replication aimed at staying as close to the original study as possible, some extensions or variations in the study design have to be considered, as they might influence the results and their applicability. The study applied a single-respondent approach, which might have influenced the results, especially as the family or its influence is viewed as the unit of analysis. Therefore, further research on the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms should aspire to apply a multi-respondent approach to overcome problems related with single respondents’ replies (Nordqvist & Melin, 2010). Furthermore, the sample applied stemmed from a single industry (manufacturing of food and beverages), and therefore results might not be transferrable to industries with differing compositions. Additionally, regarding the application of the original scales, it has to be noted that in line with Casillas and Moreno (2010) considering the five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation proposed by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) might have been superior to Miller's (1983) three dimensions used in the original and the replication study. Hence, it seems to be fruitful for further empirical research to consider the two missing dimensions (competitive aggressiveness and autonomy; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) as well. For the definition of family firms in this replication's sample, a two-step approach (1: self identification, 2: appliance of the original study's definition) was used. Therefore, it has to be noted that no continuous measure for assessing family influence (i.e., the F-PEC scale) was used, although its application may have been superior since it also considers the essence, and not only the involvement of families in business (Astrachan et al., 2002 and Klein et al., 2005). Again, for reasons of closeness to the original study, it seemed inevitable to stay with the original definition to allow for comparability of the replication's results to those of the original study. Hence, further research might strengthen the involvement vs. essence distinction in examining entrepreneurial activity in family firms. In line with this aspect, it also seems to be fruitful for further research to recognize the emerging field of familiness (Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010) in a corporate entrepreneurship-context, as the consideration of family influence through family-specific resources and capabilities (Habbershon and Williams, 1999 and Habbershon et al., 2003) seems to be a promising approach for examining the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms (Frank, Lueger, Nosé, & Suchy, 2010).