Advertisement

A missing link in family firms’ internationalization research: Family structures

  • Jean-Luc ArregleEmail author
  • Michael A. Hitt
  • Isabelle Mari
COUNTERPOINT

Abstract

Hennart, Majocchi, and Forlani propose and validate a new explanation of family firms’ internationalization heterogeneity shedding light on the role of a family firm’s global niche business model. This type of family firm can avoid the dominant internationalization problems usually depicted in the literature on family firms’ internationalization. Starting from the same diagnosis on extant research, we explore another perspective to explain this heterogeneity: the structure of the family institution. We examine the relationships of family structures, developed by Emmanuel Todd in social anthropology, to family firms’ internationalization. We explain how Todd’s typology of family structures can influence the new mechanisms proposed by Hennart and colleagues for family firms in Europe with a global niche business internationalization. Finally, using these family structures, we also reexamine two analyses on family firms’ internationalization. Therefore, we introduce a new perspective for research on family firms’ internationalization that is based on context and has critical importance for understanding family firms’ strategies. This new perspective has significance for international business research on family firms.

Keywords

family firm internationalization family structure institutions 

Résumé

Hennart, Majocchi et Forlani proposent et valident une nouvelle explication de l’hétérogénéité de l’internationalisation des entreprises familiales en mettant en lumière le rôle du modèle d’affaires de niche mondiale d’une entreprise familiale. Ce type d’entreprise familiale peut éviter les problèmes dominants d’internationalisation habituellement décrits dans la littérature sur l’internationalisation des entreprises familiales. Partant du même diagnostic sur les recherches existantes, nous explorons une autre perspective pour expliquer cette hétérogénéité: la structure de l’institution familiale. Nous examinons les relations entre les structures familiales, développées par Emmanuel Todd en anthropologie sociale, pour l’internationalisation des entreprises familiales. Nous expliquons comment la typologie des structures familiales de Todd peut influencer les nouveaux mécanismes proposés par Hennart et ses collègues pour les entreprises familiales en Europe avec une internationalisation fondée sur une niche mondiale. Enfin, à partir de ces structures familiales, nous réexaminons également deux analyses sur l’internationalisation des entreprises familiales. Nous introduisons ainsi une nouvelle perspective pour la recherche sur l’internationalisation des entreprises familiales qui est fondée sur le contexte et qui revêt une importance cruciale pour comprendre les stratégies des entreprises familiales. Cette nouvelle perspective est significative pour la recherche en international business sur les entreprises familiales.

Resumen

Hennart, Majocchi y Forlani proponen y validan una nueva explicación para la heterogeneidad de la internacionalización de las empresas familiares que arroja luz sobre el papel del nicho del modelo de negocio de la empresa familiar. Este tipo de empresa familiar puede evitar los problemas de internacionalización dominante usualmente descritos en la literatura de internacionalización de empresas familiares. Empezando desde el mismo diagnóstico en la literatura existente, exploramos otra perspectiva para explicar esta heterogeneidad: la estructura de la institución familiar. Examinamos las relaciones de las estructuras familiares, desarrollada por Emmanuel Todd en antropología social, para la internacionalización de las empresas familiares. Explicamos cómo la tipología de Todd para las estructuras familiares puede influenciar los nuevos mecanismos propuestos por Hennart y sus colegas para las empresas familiares en Europa con una internacionalización de negocio con un nicho global. Finalmente, usando estas estructuras familiares, también reexaminamos dos análisis de la internacionalización de empresas familiares. Por lo tanto, introducimos nuevas perspectivas para la investigación en la internacionalización de empresas familiares que está basado en el contexto y tiene una importancia crítica para el entendimiento de las estrategias de las empresas familiares. Esta nueva perspectiva tiene significancia para la investigación en negocios internacionales sobre empresas familiares.

Resumo

Hennart, Majocchi e Forlani propõem e validam uma nova explicação sobre a heterogeneidade na internacionalização de empresas familiares, esclarecendo o papel do modelo de negócios de nicho global de uma empresa familiar. Esse tipo de empresa familiar pode evitar os dominantes problemas de internacionalização, geralmente descritos na literatura sobre internacionalização de empresas familiares. Partindo do mesmo diagnóstico na pesquisa existente, exploramos uma outra perspectiva para explicar essa heterogeneidade: a estrutura da instituição familiar. Examinamos as relações de estruturas familiares, desenvolvidas por Emmanuel Todd na antropologia social, para a internacionalização de empresas familiares. Explicamos como a tipologia de estruturas familiares de Todd pode influenciar os novos mecanismos propostos por Hennart e colegas para empresas familiares na Europa com uma internacionalização de negócios de nicho global. Finalmente, usando essas estruturas familiares, também reexaminamos duas análises sobre a internacionalização de empresas familiares. Assim sendo, introduzimos uma nova perspectiva para a pesquisa sobre internacionalização de empresas familiares que é baseada em contexto e tem importância crítica para entender estratégias de empresas familiares. Essa nova perspectiva tem importância para a pesquisa em negócios internacionais sobre empresas familiares.

摘要

Hennart,Majocchi和Forlani提出并验证了对家族企业国际化异质性的新解释, 揭示了家族企业全球利基商业模式的作用。这类家族企业可以避免家族企业国际化文献中占主导的国际化问题。从对现存研究的相同诊断开始, 我们探索另一种解释这种异质性的观点: 家庭制度的结构。我们针对家族企业国际化研究了由Emmanuel Todd在社会人类学中提出的家庭结构关系。我们解释了Todd的家庭结构类型如何影响Hennart及同事为欧洲家族企业提出的全球利基商业国际化的新机制。最后, 我们利用这些家庭结构还重新审视了两个关于家族企业国际化的分析。因此, 我们为基于情境的对理解家族企业战略至关重要的家族企业国际化研究引入了一个新视角。这个新视角对家族企业的国际商务研究具有重要意义。

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Editor-in-Chief Alain Verbeke and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

REFERENCES

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. 2003. The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 573–596.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. 2010. The power of the family. Journal of Economic Growth, 15: 93–125.Google Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. 2014. Family ties. In P. Aghion, &. S. N. Durlauf (Eds), Handbook of economic growth, vol. 2: 177–215. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. 2015. Culture and institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(4): 898–944.Google Scholar
  5. Arregle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M., & van Essen, P. 2017. Why is family firms’ internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5): 801–831.Google Scholar
  6. Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 73–95.Google Scholar
  7. Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. 2011. Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs non-family leaders. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8): 1060–1072.Google Scholar
  8. Banfield, E. C. 1958. The moral basis of a backward society. New York: Simon and Schuster, Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, M. 1993. Les Patrons de PME entre le Pouvoir, l’Entreprise et la Famille. Paris: InterEditions.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. 2006. The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2): 73–96.Google Scholar
  12. Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. 2006. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries (Working paper #w12216). London: National Bureau of Economic Research, LSE.Google Scholar
  13. Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. 2010. Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1): 203–224.Google Scholar
  14. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 2009. The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise – A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1563–1580.Google Scholar
  16. Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., Very, P., & Veiga, J. F. 1997. Modelling the origins of nationality-bound administrative heritage: A historical institutional analysis of French and British firms. Organization Science, 8: 681–696.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A., & Piscitello, L. 2018. Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8: 3–21.Google Scholar
  19. Dheer, R. J., Lenartowicz, T., & Peterson, M. F. 2015. Mapping India’s regional subcultures: Implications for international management. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(4): 443–467.Google Scholar
  20. Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., Van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. 2016. Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1224–1264.Google Scholar
  21. Duranton, G., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sandall, R. 2009. Family types and the persistence of regional disparities in Europe. Economic Geography, 85(1): 23–47.Google Scholar
  22. Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. 1997. Generation to generation: A life cycle of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ghemawat, P. 2003. Semiglobalization and international business strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 138–152.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greif, A. 2006a. Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Greif, A. 2006b. Family structure, institutions, and growth: The origins and implications of Western corporations. American Economic Review, 96(2): 308–312.Google Scholar
  27. Hennart, J. F. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4(4): 529–547.Google Scholar
  28. Hennart, J. F., Majocchi, A., & Forlani, E. 2017. The myth of the stay-at-home family firm: How family-managed SMEs can overcome their internationalization limitations. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0091-y.
  29. Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., Shanine, K., & Kacmar, M. 2017. Introducing the family: A review of family science with implications for management research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 309–341.Google Scholar
  30. Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. 2017. Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30(2): 111–118.Google Scholar
  31. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. Internationalization process of firm – A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  32. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 1411–1431.Google Scholar
  33. Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. 2018. Family firm internationalization: Heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal, 8: 158–183.Google Scholar
  34. Kirchhoff, P. 1932. Kinship organization: A study of terminology. Africa, 5: 184–191.Google Scholar
  35. Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. P., & White, C. T. 2003. The neglect of intracountry cultural variation in international management research. Journal of Business Research, 56(12): 999–1008.Google Scholar
  36. Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. 2001. Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2): 305–325.Google Scholar
  37. Okoroafo, S. C. 1999. Internationalization of family businesses: Evidence from Northwest Ohio, U.S.A. Family Business Review, 12: 147–158.Google Scholar
  38. Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A. 2014. The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review, 27(2): 103–125.Google Scholar
  39. Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.Google Scholar
  42. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
  43. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2005. Towards a theory of regional multinationals: A transaction cost economics approach. Management International Review, 45(1): 5–17.Google Scholar
  44. Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Sharma, P., & Manikutty, S. 2005. Strategic divestments in family firms: Role of family structure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 293–311.Google Scholar
  46. Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 519–535.Google Scholar
  47. Shenkar, O. 2012. Beyond cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 12–17.Google Scholar
  48. Todd, E. 1983. La Troisième Planète. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  49. Todd, E. 1984. L’Enfance du monde. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  50. Todd, E. 1985. The explanation of ideology, family structures and social systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Todd, E. 2011. L’origine des systèmes familiaux. Tome 1: L’Eurasie. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  52. Tung, R. L. 2008. The cross-cultural research imperative: The need to balance cross-national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 41–46.Google Scholar
  53. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8): 1259–1274.Google Scholar
  54. Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. 2012. The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family-based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 1183–1205.Google Scholar
  55. Weber, M. 1904. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Unwin.Google Scholar
  56. Whitley, R. D. 1992. European business systems, firms, and markets in their national contexts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Luc Arregle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael A. Hitt
    • 2
    • 3
  • Isabelle Mari
    • 4
  1. 1.EM Lyon Business SchoolEcully CedexFrance
  2. 2.Mays Business SchoolTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Neeley School of BusinessTexas Christian UniversityFt. WorthUSA
  4. 4.EDHEC Business SchoolNiceFrance

Personalised recommendations