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

By Pankaj C. Patel, James J. Chrisman. 2014

380 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/5ce489c4f406575ff7957be5e045011745632924

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

More Than Meets the Eye: A Review and Future Directions for the Social Psychology of Socioemotional Wealth (2018, neutral): “…2012), reputation and identity (Berrone et al., 2010; Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), research and development activities (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Patel & Chrisman, 2014), innovation input and output (Duran, Kammerlander, Van Essen, & Zellweger, 2016; König, Kammerlander, & Enders, 2013), and…”
Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors (2018, background): “involve different levels of financial and business risks (Kollman and Stöckmann, 2014), and family firms tend to shift their focus between the two over time (Patel and Chrisman, 2014).”
Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets (2016, background): “…smoothing internal orientation biases, improving the ability to manage complex operations under uncertain conditions, and developing a willingness to pursue less conservative strategies that are more based on the combination of both exploitation and exploration activities (Patel & Chrisman, 2014).”
Financial Wealth, Socioemotional Wealth, and IPO Underpricing in Family Firms: A Two-stage Gamble Model (2017, methodology): “…subsequent R&D investments, thus explaining the high variability in R&D investments observed among family firms with performance above aspirations (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Patel & Chrisman, 2014) or the discrepancy between innovation input and innovation output in family firms (Duran et al., 2015).”
Are Family Firms Good Employers (2017, methodology): “Consistent with multiple other studies we use a composite measure to classify firms as family controlled (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2015; Patel & Chrisman, 2014) and define family firm if: (i) a family holds more than 50 percent of the shares of the firm, and (ii) at least two board members share the…”
The Ability and Willingness Paradox in Family Firm Innovation (2015, background): “, 1999; Villalonga and Amit, 2009), scholars are paying increasing attention to innovation management in family firms (De Massis et al., 2013a, 2013b; Kellermanns et al., 2012; Chrisman and Patel, 2012; Patel and Chrisman, 2014).”
The Impact of Family Ownership, Management and Governance on Innovation (2015, neutral): “(2001) and Schulze et al. (2001) recently argued that family firms face owner-owner agency costs (Lubatkin et al.”