Innovation in family firms: an empirical analysis linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success

By Sascha Kraus, Mikko V. Pohjola, Aki Koponen. Reviews of Management Sciences, 2011

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Family firms play a significant role in national economies worldwide, accounting e.g. for 85% of all enterprises in the OECD countries as well as for the majority of companies in Central Europe. Previous scholarly research on family firms has mostly focused on the question of how they differ from public corporations, describing family firms as being more conservative, less risk-raking, or reluctant to grow—in sum, as being less entrepreneurial than their non-family counterparts. Similarly, the existing literature often criticizes the lack of innovation in family firms. But since innovation has long been discovered as one of the key drivers to company success, it is surprising that its role in family firms has been mostly neglected in existing academic research so far. The aim of this article is therefore to study the role of (managerial and organizational) innovation in family firms compared to non-family firms on the basis of an empirical survey of 533 companies from Finland, using structural equation modelling (MPlus) for the statistical analyses.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/880295543cf48b2d05dc54ef06515d37cceac623

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

Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research (2018, background): “This sub-cluster represents most family firms worldwide (Feldbauer-Durstmüller et al. 2012, Kraus et al. 2012).”
Management innovation and firm performance: An integration of research findings (2015, methodology): “The term MI used here corresponds with the terms administrative innovation, organizational innovation, and managerial innovation as were applied in previous research (Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Kimberly, 1981; Kraus et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2011).”
Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review (2021, background): “Accordingly, Innovativeness is a personality trait that is often a central component of entrepreneurial orientation (Kraus et al. 2019) and activity (Mueller and Thomas 2001).”
Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research (2019, unknown): “, 2011) Innovation outcomes Technological innovation (Santos-Vijande & Álvarez-González, 2007) (Khanagha, Volberda, Sidhu, & Oshri, 2013) (Le Bas, Mothe, & NguyenThi, 2015) (Staropoli, 1998) (Damanpour & Evan, 1984) (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017) Product innovation (Nieves, 2016) (Kraus et al., 2012) (Dam”
Determinants of innovativeness in SMEs: disentangling core innovation and technology adoption capabilities (2017, background): “…as: the creation of sustained competitive advantage (Camisón and Villar-López, 2011); the interrelation between product and marketing innovations (Lee et al., 2011); and the especial contribution of organisational and managerial innovations to the business model innovation (Kraus et al., 2012a).”