JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Exploratory Study on the Influence on Family Involvement on Corporate Innovation Performance
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Exploratory Study on the Influence on Family Involvement on Corporate Innovation Performance
Kim, Young-kyun;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Prior studies have reported equivocal patterns of the results about the relationships between family involvement and firm performance, particularly financial performance. In line with this research trend, this study focuses on non-financial performance that agency costs may marginally influence. tries to identify the relationship between nepotism and the three types of innovation performance, namely corporate entrepreneurship, radical innovation performance, and incremental innovation performance. The results has shown that family involvement is positively correlated with the three types of innovation performance.
 Keywords
Nepotism;Agency Costs;Corporate Entrepreneurship;Radical Innovation Performance;Incremental Innovation Performance;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
K. Pauwels, J. Silva-Risso, S. Srinivsansan, and D. M. Hannssens, "New Products, sales promotions, and firm value; the case of the automobile industry", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 142-156, 2004. crossref(new window)

2.
S. Ross, (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal''s problem. American Economic Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 134-139, 1973.

3.
K. M. Eisenhardt, "Agency theory: An assessment and review". Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 57-74. 1989.

4.
M. C. Jensen, & W. H. Meckling, "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure". Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360. 1976. crossref(new window)

5.
J. J Chrisman, J. H. Chua, & R. A. Litz, "Comparing the Agency Costs of Family and Non-family Firms: Conceptual Issues and Exploratory Evidence". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 4., pp. 335-354, 2004. crossref(new window)

6.
A. Bellow, In praise of nepotism. New York, NY: Random House, 2003.

7.
E. Fama, & M. C. Jensen, "Separation of ownership and control". Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 301-325. 1983

8.
J. S. Ang, R. A. Cole, & J. W. Lin, "Agency costs and ownership structure". Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 81-106. 2000 crossref(new window)

9.
A. Stewart, "Help one another, use one another: Toward an anthropology of family business". Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 383-396. 2003. crossref(new window)

10.
Z. Wu, "Altruism and the family firm: Some theory. Unpublished master''s thesis, Department of Economics, University of Calgary. 2001

11.
D. Parsons, "The employment relationship: Job attachment, work effort, and the nature of contracts". In O. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (eds.), The Handbook of Labor Economics, 789-848. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1986.

12.
N. Bruce, & M. Waldman, "The rotten kid theorem meets the Samaritan''s dilemma". Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 155-165. 1990. crossref(new window)

13.
R. Morck, A. Shleifer, & R. Vishny, "Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis". Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 293-316. 1988 crossref(new window)

14.
R. Morck, & B. Yeung, "Agency problems in large family business groups". Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 367-382. 2003. crossref(new window)

15.
W. S. Schulze, M. H. Lubatkin, & R. N. Dino, "Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms". Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4. pp. 473-490. 2003. crossref(new window)

16.
W. S. Schulze, M. H. Lubatkin, & R. N. Dino & A. K. Buchholtz, "Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence". Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 99-116. 2001. crossref(new window)

17.
D. W. Ewing, "Is nepotism so bad?" Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 22. 1965.

18.
W. Handler, & K. Kram, "Succession in family firms: The problem of resistance". Family Business Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 361-381. 1988. crossref(new window)

19.
C. Eaton, L. Yuan, & Z. Wu, "Reciprocal altruism and the theory of the family firm". Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Theories of the Family Enterprise: Search for a Paradigm, Dec., Philadelphia. Summer, 2002 351

20.
J. Chua, & J. Schnabel, "Nonpecuniary benefits and asset market equilibrium". Financial Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 185-190. 1986. crossref(new window)

21.
P. Podsakoff, S. MacKenzie, J. Lee, & N. Podsakoff, "Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommeded Remedies". Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 879-903, 2003. crossref(new window)

22.
R. Chandy, & G. Tellis, "Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize." Journal of Markteting Research, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 474-488, 1998. crossref(new window)

23.
Y. K. Kim, "The Relationship of Market Orientation, Organizational Learning and Innovativeness with New Product Development and Overall Performance," Journal of Korea Industrial Information System Society, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 59-70, 2013.

24.
S. Zahra, "Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1713-1735, 1996. crossref(new window)

25.
J. Davis, F. Schoorman, & L. Donaldson, "Toward a stewardship Theory of Management," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 20-47, 1997.

26.
J. Astrachan, S. Klein, & K. Smyrnios, "The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the Family Business definition problem," Family Business Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 45-58. 2002. crossref(new window)

27.
R. Litz, "The family firm''s exclusion from business school research: Explaining the void, addressing the opportunity," Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 55-71. 1997.

28.
P. Sharma, J. Chrisman, & J. Chua, "Strategic management of the family business: Past research and future challenges," Family Business Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-35. 1997. crossref(new window)

29.
Y. K. Kim, "Born Global or Not? It May Depend on Psychological Ownwership of Top Executives," Journal of Korea Industrial Information System Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 119-130, 2014.

30.
Y. K. Kim, "A Empirical Study on the Relationship of Corporate Entrepreneurship with Market Orientation and Competence Enhancement," Journal of Korea Industrial Information System Society, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 127-140, 2013. crossref(new window)

31.
L. Gomez-Mejia, K. Haynes, M. Nunez -Nickel, K. Jacobson, & J. Moyano -Fuentes, "Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills." Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 106-137, 2007.

32.
J. Campbell, L. Gomez-Mejia, R. Hoskisson, G, Martin, M. Makri, & D. Sirmon,"Socio-emotional Wealth as a Mixed Gamble: Revisiting Family Firm R&D Investments with the Behavioral Agecy Model." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 1351-1374, 2014.

33.
J. C. Nunally, & I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory(3rd ed.). New York; McGraw-hill, 1994.