Does family employment enhance MSEs performance? Integrating socioemotional wealth and family embeddedness perspectives

By C. Cruz, Rachida Justo, J. D. Castro. 2012

346 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1bb9667b5353d797821b2d5841dc5cebdfab683

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Family Involvement in the Firm, Family‐to‐Business Support, and Entrepreneurial Outcomes: An Exploration** (2017, background): “Nonfamily firms lack the family ties that engender a shared sense of commitment and destiny that family firms espouse (Cruz et al. 2012).”
Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned? (2019, background): “2011), family business (Chrisman et al. 2010; Cruz et al. 2012; Debicki et al. 2009; Van Gils et al. 2014; Zahra et al. 2008), green or sustainable entrepreneurship (Dean and McMullen 2007; Gast et al.”
Preserving Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms: Asset or Liability? The Moderating Role of Business Context (2013, background): “…like perpetuating the family dynasty, can have a positive effect since they imply a long-term investment horizon, but also a negative effect since they can lead to favoring family members for key management positions over 1343November, 2013 external, more qualified candidates (Cruz et al., 2012).”
The role of information asymmetry in the choice of entrepreneurial exit routes (2014, background): “The response rate was 10.3%, which is comparable to the response rates of other studies that targeted entrepreneurs and top-managers (Cruz et al., 2010b; Eddleston et al., 2012; Schulze et al., 2001).”
To Merge, Sell, or Liquidate? Socioemotional Wealth, Family Control, and the Choice of Business Exit (2019, neutral): “According to Cruz, Justo, and De Castro (2012), reciprocal bonds within family businesses often represent closed networks that offer collective social capital, relational trust, and interpersonal solidarity, much of which may be lost once the firm ceases as an ongoing concern.”
The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth (2014, background): “incapable family members creates specific agency costs (Lubatkin et al. 2005; Cruz et al. 2012) or may enlarge rent extraction in the family firm (Gómez-”
Driving factors of innovation in family and non-family SMEs (2018, background): “Usually smaller family firms do not have to deal with these so-called agency costs (Corbetta and Salvato 2004) since management positions can be filled with family members (Ang et al. 2000; Carnes and Ireland 2013; Cruz et al. 2012).”