The Ability and Willingness Paradox in Family Firm Innovation

By James J. Chrisman, Jess H. Chua, Alfredo De Massis, Federico Frattini, Mike Wright. 2015

493 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3f9cc93a46480c6e0c9e4db070f71886bb928401

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors (2018, background): “, 2016), and the paradox between their willingness to innovate and their ability to do so (Chrisman et al., 2015).”
Family-Driven Innovation: Resolving the Paradox in Family Firms (2015, background): “terized by a paradox, which is manifested by family firms innovating less despite having the ability to innovatemore than their non-family counterparts.(13) This in turn has led to two key questions that both”
Innovation Through Tradition: Lessons From Innovative Family Businesses and Directions for Future Research (2016, background): “First, this paper suggests a way of reconciling the innovation paradox that characterizes innovation in family businesses (Chrisman et al., 2015), whereby these firms are often unwilling to engage in innovation because the family wishes to maintain control, preserve its identity, and behave parsimon”
Resources and Innovation in Family Businesses: The Janus-Face of Socioemotional Preferences (2015, background): “Further, SEW-related goals may co-exist with other goals and will probably change over the life-cycle of the firm.(26) The statistic that few family firms are handed down to the grandchildren of the founder is one possible indicator of the changing goals of the family over time.”
The impact of small- and medium-sized family firms on economic growth (2015, background): “In general, family SMEs are less innovative compared to non-family SMEs (Chrisman et al. 2015; Classen et al. 2014; De Massis et al. 2013a; GómezMejı́a et al. 2011) because of inertia, lack of specialized talent, emotional ties with existing products and assets, traditions restricting change,…”
Family firm internationalization: heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias (2018, unknown): “Chrisman et al. (2015a) discuss the ability and willingness paradox of family firms in the context of discontinuous innovation: they argue that family firms are able to innovate more than their non-family counterparts, due to the well documented benefits of family governance discussed above, yet…”
Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes (2018, background): “More recently, some scholars (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2015) pointed to the importance of considering both the degree and type of family involvement to understand how family involvement translates into firm behavior.”
Searching for resilience: the impact of employee-level and entrepreneur-level resilience on firm performance in small family firms (2020, unknown): “Therefore, resilient organisations are capable of cultivating adjustments under challenging conditions and finding opportunities through analysing changes and surprises (Boyne and Meier 2009; Cheng et al. 2014; Chrisman et al. 2015a, b).”