Scholars stress that family firms are inherently paradoxical, and that tensions, such as tradition versus change, family liquidity versus business growth, and founder control versus successor autonomy, can both inhibit and foster innovation. Further, theorists propose that firms led by paradoxical thinkers are more likely to manage these tensions and fuel innovative behavior. Leveraging family business and organizational paradox literatures, this multi–stage exploratory study develops measures of paradoxical tensions and paradoxical thinking in family firms, and tests these propositions. Findings indicate that paradoxical tensions may stymie innovative behavior, but that leaders’ paradoxical thinking is positively related to innovative behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ.C. & GerbingD.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two–step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 3(3), 411–423.
2.
AndriopoulosC. & LewisM.W. (2010). Exploration–exploitation tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
3.
ArregleJ.L., HittM.A., SirmonD.G., & VeryP. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 73–95.
4.
BascoR. & Perez–RodriguezM.J. (2009). Studying the family enterprise holistically. Family Business Review, 22(1), 82–95.
5.
BentlerP.M. & ChouC.P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(1), 78–117.
6.
Berent–BraunM.M. & UhlanerL.M. (2012). Family governance practices and teambuilding: Paradox of the enterprising family. Small Business Economics Journal, 38(1), 103–119.
7.
BlockJ. (2012). R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 248–265.
ByrneB.M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS, basic concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
Camison–ZornozaC., Lapiedra–AlcamiR., Segarra–CipresM., & Boronat–NavarroM. (2004). A meta–analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25(3), 331–361.
11.
CassiaL., De MassisA., & PizzurnoE. (2012). Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms: An empirically grounded theoretical framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(2), 198–232.
12.
DamanpourF. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693–716.
13.
DavisJ.A. & TagiuriR. (1989). The influence of life–stage on father–son work relationships in family companies. Family Business Review, 2(1), 47–74.
14.
De MassisA., ChuaJ., & ChrismanJ. (2008). Factors preventing intra–family succession. Family Business Review, 21(2), 183–199.
15.
DistelbergB. & SorensonR.L. (2009). Updating systems concepts in family businesses: A focus on values, resource flows and adaptability. Family Business Review, 22(1), 65–81.
16.
EddlestonK., KellermannsF., & ZellwegerT. (2010). Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms: Does the stewardship perspective explain differences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 347–367.
17.
FongC.T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.
18.
FordJ. & BackoffR. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In QuinnR. & CameronK. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 81–121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
19.
FornellC. & LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
20.
Garcia–AlvarezE., Lopez–SintasJ., & GonzalvoP.S. (2004). Socialization patterns of successors in first– to second–generation family business. Family Business Review, 15(3), 189–203.
21.
GotsiM., AndriopoulosC., LewisM., & IngramA. (2010). Creative tensions: Managing tensions of multiple identities. Human Relations, 63(6), 781–805.
22.
HairJ.F., AndersonR.E., TathamR.L., & BlackW.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
HinkinT.R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In SwansonR. & HoltonE.III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 161–179). San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler.
24.
IngramA., LewisM., AndriopoulosC., & GotsiM. (2008). Innovation tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Toward a collective paradox frame. In Academy of Management Proceedings. Anaheim, CA: Academy of Management.
25.
IravaW. & MooresK. (2010). Clarifying the strategic advantage of familiness: Unbundling its dimensions and highlighting its paradoxes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1, 131–144.
26.
JanssenO. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.
27.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
28.
KanterR. (1998). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–207.
29.
LewisM. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
30.
MartinR. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
31.
MillerD., Le Breton–MillerI., LesterR., & CannellaA. (2007). Are family firm's superior performers?Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 829–858.
32.
MooresK. & BarrettM. (2002). Learning family business—Paradoxes and pathways. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.
33.
NordqvistM. & MelinL. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3), 211–239.
34.
NormanP., PalichL., LivingstoneL., & CarininG. (2004). The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15, 51–71.
35.
PittsM., FowlerC., KaplanM., NussbaumJ., & BeckerJ. (2009). Dialectical tensions underpinning family succession planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(1), 59–79.
36.
PodsakoffP.M., MacKenzieS.B., LeeJ.Y., & PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
37.
PodsakoffP.M. & OrganD.W. (1986). Self–reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(2), 531–544.
38.
PozaE.J. (2007). Family business. Mason, OH: Thomson South Western.
39.
RothenbergA. (1979). Homospatial thinking in creativity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 17–26.
40.
RubioD.M., Berg–WegerM., TebbS., LeeE.S., & RauchS. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104.
41.
SchumanS., StutzS., & WardJ. (2010). Family business as paradox. New York: Palgrave.
42.
ScottS. & BruceR. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
43.
SmithW.K. & LewisM.W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
44.
SmithW.K. & TushmanM.L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
45.
TapiasJ. & WardJ. (2008). Family values and value creation: The fostering of enduring values within family owned businesses. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
WardJ.L. (2009). The ten hidden arts of successful business families. Family Business, 20(4), 49–52.
47.
WardT., FinkeR., & SmithS. (1995). Creativity and the mind: Discovering the genius within. New York: Plenum Press.
48.
WrightD. (1982). The significance of paradoxical language in Hua–yen Buddhism. Philosophy East and West, 32(3), 325–338.
49.
ZahraS., HaytonJ., NeubaumD., DibrellC., & CraigJ. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1035–1054.
50.
ZellwegerT.M., NasonR., & NordqvistM. (2012). From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families. Family Business Review, 25(2), 136–155.
