Abstract
Using a systematic literature review, we address the topic of social capital in family firms. Based on 69 studies, we analyze the main findings, sampling and methodologies, theoretical approaches, definitions, and measurements of social capital in family firms. We also present how social capital is used as a model variable and present a conceptual framework of social capital in family firms. Subsequently, we identify the research gaps and develop research questions for further research.
Introduction
Family businesses (FBs) are one of the most prevalent forms of business organizations worldwide (Daily & Dollinger, 1993). The difference between FBs and nonfamily businesses is the presence of family ties between owners and managers in the former, which are considered to be stronger, more intense, and more enduring than nonfamily ties (Hoffman et al., 2006). Family ties are dense social networks, characterized by a high degree of closure and mutual interdependence of actors (Arregle et al., 2007). Social networks enable access to information and resources (Burt, 1992; Lin, 1999), and their existence represents a source of social capital (SC), originally defined as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248).
The existing literature offers many definitions of SC. For instance, SC is described as “an asset embedded in relationships of individuals, communities, networks, or societies” (Leana & Van Buren, 1999, p. 538). More broadly, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 243) defined SC as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit.” Other researchers, going beyond social networks’ structure, considered that SC represents “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, p. 67).
The literature also offers several perspectives on SC. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) differentiated between the structural (density and connectivity of group ties), relational (resources embedded in relationships, such as trust, norms, and identity), and cognitive (shared representations and interpretations of the social group) dimensions of SC. Putnam (2000) distinguished between bonding SC (resources embedded in relationships among social group members) and bridging SC (resources embedded in outside networks). In family firms, Arregle et al. (2007) further stressed the necessity to distinguish the content perspective (the “stock” of SC) from the process perspective (its “flow”), as the latter focuses on four dynamic factors that lead to the development of SC: stability, interaction, interdependence, and closure (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Finally, SC can be investigated at various levels, such as nations, communities, individuals, and firms (Leana & Van Buren, 1999); thus, it can be approached, for instance, through the collective or individual-level perspective (Weiler & Hinz, 2019).
Due to its relevance to management theories, SC theory has become widely accepted in management research (Kwon & Adler, 2014). In management science, SC can be understood as “the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations, and that can be mobilized to facilitate action” (Adler & Kwon, 2002). The family business literature further explores the role of “family social capital.” The term first appeared in the work of Coleman (1988), who employed an instrumental definition of family SC based on the ratio of parents to children, frequency of communication, and mothers’ expectations about children’s education. However, as family SC had no precise definition, the term has been often employed inconsistently. The literature offers multiple definitions of family SC. It is referred to as the “social capital developed among family members” (Arregle et al., 2007), the “goodwill among family members and between families and their community members that can be input to the owning family and their firm to facilitate action” (Danes et al., 2009), or “an asset available to a family and family firm that consists of positive network relationships with the family (including extended family or kin), customers, and the community” (Sorenson et al., 2009, p. 242).
Family and business networks overlap in FBs (Arregle et al., 2007), whereby the family firm offers a unique context for studying the role of SC as this context is dissimilar to other forms of business organizations. SC in FBs is the subject of many theoretical and empirical studies. Despite this, we found no existing literature review on the topic, except for Nordstrom and Steier (2015), who provided an overview of the SC dimensions in the context of family business research.
Overall, we noticed that the construct of SC remains weakly integrated in the family business literature and that a comprehensive review of the literature is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap. We examined two central research questions: (a) “What do we know about SC in FBs?” and (b) “What are the main research gaps in this regard?” Based on the findings, we presented a conceptual framework for SC in FBs that provides guidelines for future research.
We contributed to the family business literature in multiple ways. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the literature concerning SC in FBs that contributes a coherent perspective on the topic. We categorized the findings according to different types of SC and presented the existing measures and treatments of SC in empirical studies. We also addressed questions on the levels of analysis and perspectives on SC and systematized the relevant antecedents, consequences, and contingency factors. Our discussion of research gaps presents a bridge between the social capital and family business literature, showing promising future research avenues, and highlighting the weaknesses of the existing research. Finally, we identified the common denominator of the existing research gaps. By drawing attention to three main aspects (definition, multilevel nature, and dynamics of SC), we laid the groundwork for further integration of SC in the family business literature.
Method
To conduct the systematic literature review, we employed a two-step process. The process was guided by the two central research questions and inspired by recent systematic reviews of family business literature (Andreini et al., 2020; Hernández-Linares & López-Fernández, 2018; Kubíček & Machek, 2020; Swab et al., 2020). Our review considered only peer-reviewed papers, as they have the strongest impact and contribute the most to family business research (Xi et al., 2015). Moreover, we only considered papers that measured SC or made significant theoretical contributions to the study of SC in FBs. First, we searched for the keywords “social capital” AND “famil*” in the titles and abstracts of papers published in the relevant top-tier management journals. Following Swab et al. (2020), we based our selection of journals on the journal recommendations of Debicki et al. (2009). We also adhered to the journal recommendations of Chrisman et al. (2008), which partially overlapped with those of Debicki et al. (2009). Finally, to exhaust the relevant literature, we followed Strike et al. (2018) and searched the Table of Contents of Journal of Family Business Strategy, which is not included in the journal lists of Chrisman et al. (2008) and Debicki et al. (2009) as its first issue was published in 2010. However, it is a leading journal in family business research (Rovelli et al., 2021). Although the papers of Chrisman et al. (2008) and Debicki et al. (2009) were published a decade ago, the bibliometric analyses of Xi et al. (2015) and Ratten et al. (2020) revealed that the journals listed in these papers are still the major contributors to the family business research field. Overall, in the first step, we included 51 studies in the sample. The papers were published in the following journals: Family Business Review (n = 14), Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice (n = 13), Journal of Family Business Strategy (n = 7), Journal of Management Studies (n=4), Journal of Small Business Management (n = 2), International Small Business Journal (n = 2), Journal of Business Research (n = 2), Journal of Business Venturing (n = 2), Journal of Business Ethics (n = 2), Journal of International Business Studies (n = 2), and Human Relations (n=1).
In the second step, to ensure that the literature review did not exclude relevant papers in other leading management journals, we followed the guidelines of Calabrò et al. (2019) and Carbone et al. (2022) and tracked citations of the previously selected articles. The step provided additional articles published in the following journals: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research (n = 7), Journal of Family Business Management (n = 4), International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business (n = 2), Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development (n = 2), International Journal of Human Resource Management (n = 1), Industrial and Corporate Change (n = 1), and Journal of Product Innovation Management (n = 1).
The coding protocol included the following elements: theoretical approach, key construct of SC and its measurement, perspective (content/process), level of analysis (individual/family/firm), methodology, sample size and country, key findings, and future research suggestions. We also recorded dependent, independent, moderating, and mediating variables in quantitative studies. The final sample consisted of 69 studies among which the oldest was published in 2001. The final sample comprised the following: 49 empirical papers (including 35 quantitative and 14 qualitative), 18 conceptual papers, and two reviews. Table 1 provides an overview of all the papers in the sample with their most significant results. The following section details the results of our review.
Key Findings.
Note. Methods are abbreviated as follows. R = review; C = conceptual paper; QL = qualitative empirical paper; QN = quantitative empirical paper. Perspectives and levels of analysis are abbreviated as follows: C = content perspective; p = process perspective; I = individual level of analysis; G = group (family) level of analysis; F = firm level of analysis. SC = social capital; FBs = Family businesses; ISC = internal social capital; EO = entrepreneurial orientation; LO = learning orientation; RSC = relational social capital; FSAs = firm-specific advantages.
Social Capital in Family Firms: The Findings
Sampling and Methodological Approaches
From a geographical perspective, the 49 empirical papers included research samples from Europe (n=17), North America (n=15), East Asia (n=6), the Middle East (n=3), the Asia-Pacific region (n=3), Africa (n=2), South America (n=1), and South Asia (n=1). Thus, there is an overrepresentation of developed countries. Moreover, as only one study (Edelman et al., 2016) employed a cross-national sample, there is a lack of cross-cultural research in the area.
Qualitative Papers
Of the 14 qualitative studies, 12 used the multiple case study approach. Other qualitative approaches included the single case study (Schmidts & Shepherd, 2015) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (Mallon et al., 2018). The studies mainly used interviews to collect data (n=13). In addition, the authors used focus groups (Caspersz & Thomas, 2015), observation (Shi et al., 2015), and ethnography (Glover, 2013). Except for Dyer and Mortensen (2005), all qualitative papers focused solely on FBs and developed insights specific to family businesses. This leads to a lack of qualitative comparative studies, which could yield valuable findings beyond the theme of social capital in FBs (Neubaum & Micelotta, 2021).
Quantitative Papers
Of the 35 quantitative studies, eight used data collected from secondary sources. The 27 remaining quantitative studies collected primary data through surveys. However, only two studies collected multiple responses per firm (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014; Chirico & Salvato, 2016), and only four studies employed longitudinal data (Brewton et al., 2010; Danes et al., 2009; D. Mani & Durand, 2018; Tran & Santarelli, 2013). This shows that there is a lack of evidence on the evolution of SC in FBs over time. Regarding data analysis methods, the most prevalent methods were linear regression (n=20) and structural equation modeling (n=13). Except for Edelman et al.’s (2016) robustness checks, no study employed multilevel modeling. Concerning the heterogeneity of the research samples, 19 quantitative studies concentrated exclusively on FBs, while the other authors also analyzed nonfamily businesses, making it possible to draw comparisons between family and nonfamily firms. To distinguish FBs, the studies used the criteria of family involvement (Bendig et al., 2020; Chua et al., 2011; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2017), family ownership (Campbell & Park, 2016; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015; Zahra, 2010), and generational involvement (Chirico & Salvato, 2016). No authors used definitional criteria of “family essence,” such as succession intentions (Chrisman et al., 2012).
Theoretical Approaches
Regarding theoretical approaches, 19 studies in the sample did not formally adopt a specific theoretical approach. In the remaining studies, we observed a significant theoretical diversity, suggesting that the study of social capital in FBs is an interdisciplinary research area linked to a variety of research fields (e.g., family studies, management, economics, and sociology).
The most frequently adopted theoretical approach is social capital theory (n = 25). The theory is relevant to the study of FBs because of the strong social ties between the stakeholders within the family firm (Mustakallio et al., 2002). Following Arregle et al. (2007), some authors distinguished between family and organizational social capital, sometimes referring to family social capital theory as a distinct theoretical approach (Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019). Several authors adopted the resource-based view (n = 7), which focuses on the use and exploitation of resources and capabilities to achieve and maintain competitive advantage (Barney, 1991), and provides the theoretical basis for the construct of familiness (Andersén, 2015; Pearson et al., 2008), that is, the unique resources and capabilities created due to family involvement in the business.
Agency theory, adopted by three studies (Chua et al., 2011; Tran & Santarelli, 2013; Young & Tsai, 2008), addresses the conflict of interest between principals (owners) and agents (managers; Jensen & Meckling, 1976). However, in the SC context, the use of agency theory appears to be limited as it ignores the social relationships between agents and principals (Young & Tsai, 2008). Consequently, Mustakallio et al. (2002) combined contractual governance (agency theory) and relational governance (social capital theory) in FBs and argued that some dimensions of SC (such as shared vision) could serve as governance mechanisms. As an alternative to agency theory, one study (Schmid & Sender, 2021) used stewardship theory, which assumes that managers act as stewards and align their interests with the principals. Stewardship is likely to persist in an environment facilitating stable and interrelated interpersonal relationships (Putnam, 2000), making FBs a suitable context for the application of the theory.
Three studies (Brewton et al., 2010; Danes et al., 2009; Mallon et al., 2018) considered sustainable family business theory, which posits that FBs’ sustainability depends on an appropriate interplay between business success and family functionality (Stafford et al., 1999). Sustainable family business theory is closely related to the SC and other related theories, as it assumes that family capital is a combination of human, social, and financial capital (Mallon et al., 2018).
Definitional and Measurement Approaches
Regarding definitions and classifications of SC in FBs, we observed a notable diversity, suggesting the lack of a universally accepted definition and classification of SC. The term “organizational social capital” is not applied consistently across the papers and refers to bonding (internal) SC, bridging (external) SC, or both of these kinds of SC. Nine studies either did not adopt any specific definition of SC (e.g., Meneses et al., 2014) or viewed it as a broad concept. SC has been further conceptualized by the value orientation of FBs (Brewton et al., 2010), assistance and family support (Mallon et al., 2018), or “relational wealth,” that is, networks of supportive relationships (Steier, 2001).
Most authors referred to either bonding SC (strong ties) or bridging SC (weak ties), or their structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions. In addition, 25 studies focused on family SC. However, the boundaries between bonding and bridging organizational SC and family SC are blurred. Tata and Prasad (2015) measured SC by the strength of an individual’s ties with both family and nonfamily members. While Tasavori et al. (2018) measured “internal SC” using Carr et al.’s (2011) “internal social capital among family business” (ISC-FB) scale, other authors used the same scale to measure family SC. To organize the definitional and measurement approaches, we elaborated on bonding, bridging, and family SC separately.
Bonding SC
One quantitative study used a single item to measure bonding SC: board members’ firm tenure (Bendig et al., 2020). Campbell and Park (2016) measured bonding SC by trust, reciprocity, shared vision, and homophily. Carr et al. (2011) developed and validated the ISC-FB scale, a second-order construct comprising traditional structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions of bonding SC (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The ISC-FB construct was also used by Tasavori et al. (2018) and Y. Mani and Lakhal (2015), who, however, treated the three first-order constructs of Carr et al. (2011) as separate.
In addition, other authors approached bonding SC through its structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions. The structural dimension in qualitative and conceptual papers is viewed through strong and enduring ties (Bizri, 2016; Discua Cruz et al., 2012). In a quantitative study, the structural dimension was measured by social interaction, family institutions, and family size (Mustakallio et al., 2002). The cognitive dimension in qualitative and conceptual papers was conceptualized using shared meanings, shared vision, and commitment to stewardship (Bizri, 2016; Discua Cruz et al., 2012). One quantitative study measured this dimension by shared vision (Mustakallio et al., 2002). The relational dimension was understood in qualitative and conceptual papers as trust (Shi et al., 2015), collective norms, obligations, and identification (Bizri, 2016; Discua Cruz et al., 2012). In quantitative studies, this dimension was measured by trust between managers (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014) and owners (Uhlaner et al., 2015).
Bridging SC
The qualitative studies in the sample approached bridging SC as a broad synonym for social networks, network ties, or network contacts (Dyer & Mortensen, 2005; Glover, 2013; Kontinen & Ojala, 2012; Schell et al., 2018). Consistent with this view, the quantitative studies approached the structural dimension of bridging SC as linkages to other firms (Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Wu, 2008; Zahra, 2010), connections with external stakeholders (Miller et al., 2009), cross-group ties (D. Mani & Durand, 2018), board interlocks (Bendig et al., 2020), external directorship ties held by the CEO (Young & Tsai, 2008), frequency of interactions (Khayesi et al., 2014), and entrepreneurs’ network closure (Burt, 2018). Other authors approached the relational dimension in the form of firm reputation (Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Zahra, 2010), quality of relations with external stakeholders (Debicki et al., 2020), repeated transactions with partners (Wu, 2008), and interorganizational trust (Stanley & McDowell, 2013; Wu, 2008). Finally, one paper referred to Chinese guanxi (Wu, 2008) as an informal type of bridging SC and as a means for accessing resources from extended social networks of FBs.
Family SC
Compared with nonfamily SC, family SC is considered to be readily available (Hoffman et al., 2006), developing over a longer period of time (Arregle et al., 2007), difficult to be imitated by nonfamily businesses (Herrero, 2018), and transferable across generations through dynastic succession (Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019). Most authors considered family SC to be an internal bonding type of SC (Arregle et al., 2007; Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019), while others also considered its possible bridging characteristics (Edelman et al., 2016; Sorenson et al., 2009). Despite the arguments of Hoffman et al. (2006), who argued that family capital, as a type of SC, has only structural and relational dimensions, recent scholars have contended that family SC includes all three dimensions (Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019).
The measurement of family SC is not consistent in the sample. We first considered the dominant “bonding view” of family SC. Although Carr et al. (2011) did not mention the term “family social capital,” their ISC-FB scale was used by other authors (Herrero, 2018; Herrero & Hughes, 2019) to measure family SC. Family SC is also measured by trust, participation, work climate (Ruiz Jiménez et al., 2013), open communication (Kansikas & Murphy, 2011), shared vision, close social relationships, time spent together, and keeping promises within the family (Chirico & Salvato, 2016). Chua et al. (2011) measured family SC indirectly through various family involvement measures (e.g., family ownership, family management, or intention for transgenerational succession).
Multiple authors have attempted to measure family SC’s individual components. The structural dimension is measured by ownership dispersion (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019), emotional cohesion, intergenerational attention, open communication (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014), and networking and exchange of resources among family members (Randolph et al., 2020). The relational dimension is measured by commitment to a common purpose (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019). The cognitive dimension is measured by shared values, support, loyalty to the business (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2019), and the degree of similarity between family members’ views, interests, and tastes (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014).
Only two studies in the sample considered the external characteristics of family SC, such as family support related to external ties (Edelman et al., 2016), FB’s social standing in the community, or family independence (Sorenson et al., 2009). Thus, despite the theoretical importance of bridging SC of family with external actors (Sharma, 2008), there is an apparent lack of consideration of bridging family SC in the reviewed literature.
Perspectives on Social Capital
Content Versus Process Perspective
The focus of the studies in the sample differed based on whether they referred to the stock (content perspective) or the flow (process perspective) of SC (Arregle et al., 2007; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Fifty studies adopted the content perspective. On the contrary, 17 studies considered the dynamics of SC and examined the factors that engender its development. Six conceptual papers adopted the process perspective of SC and discussed the creation or building (Arregle et al., 2007; Ciravegna et al., 2019; Lester & Cannella, 2006), accumulation and erosion (Chirico et al., 2012), transfer (Tata & Prasad, 2010), and recombination (Kano et al., 2020) of SC in the family firm. In addition, six qualitative studies examined the development of SC (Caspersz & Thomas, 2015; Kontinen & Ojala, 2012; Schmidts & Shepherd, 2015; Shi et al., 2015) and its dynamic role in the succession process (Schell et al., 2018; Steier, 2001). Only five quantitative studies investigated the creation or development of SC and treated SC as a dependent variable (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014; Debicki et al., 2020; D. Mani & Durand, 2018; Sorenson et al., 2009; Uhlaner et al., 2015), indicating the need for more empirical research into why and how SC develops over time.
Collective Versus Individual Perspective
Most studies (n=31) examined SC at the firm level, both theoretically and empirically. In 27 papers, 13 of which were quantitative studies, the authors investigated SC at the family (social group) level. Nine studies considered SC at the individual level, of which only four were quantitative and focused on the strength of an individual’s ties with family and nonfamily members (Tata & Prasad, 2015), the number of people a person interacts with regularly (Khayesi et al., 2014), and the quantity and quality characteristics of the CEO network (Burt, 2018; Young & Tsai, 2008).
Social Capital as a Model Variable in Quantitative Studies
This section discusses how sample studies treat the SC construct in their research models. Table 2 presents a summary of the models used in the quantitative studies. Below, we discuss the antecedents of SC, its consequences, and the models in which SC moderates or mediates other relationships.
Social Capital as a Variable in Quantitative Studies.
Note. SC is considered both as a combined construct and a construct classified based on its individual dimensions. Cabrera-Suárez et al. (2014) and Sanchez-Famoso et al. (2015) considered SC both as an independent variable and mediator; Uhlaner et al. (2015) considered SC dimensions both as a dependent variable and an independent variable, and Herrero and Hughes (2019) considered SC both as an independent variable and moderator. SC = social capital; ROA = return on assets; ROE = return on equity; ROI = return on investment.
Antecedents of SC
It is important to note that only three quantitative studies employed bridging SC as a dependent variable, and no study examined the antecedents of bonding SC or family SC. Thus, our present knowledge of the antecedents and dynamics of SC in FBs is very limited. D. Mani and Durand (2018) showed that family involvement reduces the formation of bridging ties. Two studies found moderating effects of family involvement on the positive relationship between bonding SC and bridging SC (Uhlaner et al., 2015) and on the positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation/learning orientation and relational SC, a type of bridging SC (Debicki et al., 2020).
Consequences of SC
Twenty-nine quantitative studies examined the consequences of SC. Overall, SC is assumed to be positively related to performance (Schmid & Sender, 2021; Tata & Prasad, 2015). The studies highlighted the consequences of bonding SC, bridging SC, and family SC. Bonding SC was found to positively affect firm performance (Campbell & Park, 2016; Herrero, 2018; Y. Mani & Lakhal, 2015; Tasavori et al., 2018). Y. Mani and Lakhal (2015) distinguished the type of performance and dimensions of SC and found that the structural and relational dimensions of bonding SC positively influenced financial and nonfinancial performance of FBs, while the cognitive dimension only improved their financial performance. Bonding SC was found to be positively related to dynamic capabilities (Wang, 2016) and decision-making quality (Mustakallio et al., 2002). Bridging SC was also found to positively affect firm performance (Miller et al., 2009; Tran & Santarelli, 2013). The development of bridging SC facilitates access to financial capital (Chua et al., 2011), improves competitiveness (Wu, 2008), and develops dynamic capabilities (Wang, 2016). Bridging SC was also found to be positively related to FBs’ ability to build and leverage relationships with new ventures (Zahra, 2010). In addition, Young and Tsai (2008) found that bridging SC served as a determinant in setting compensation levels of nonfamily CEOs.
Regarding family SC, most authors agreed on its positive influence on firm performance (Herrero, 2018; Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Kansikas & Murphy, 2011; Ruiz Jiménez et al., 2013; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015; Sorenson et al., 2009). Family SC was observed to make a long-term contribution to perceived corporate success (Danes et al., 2009). However, compared with nonfamily SC, the performance effects of family SC seem to be weaker (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015). Other studies found benefits related to knowledge integration (Kansikas & Murphy, 2011), product development (Chirico & Salvato, 2016), and engagement in start-up activities (Edelman et al., 2016). In addition, family SC improved knowledge diversity and decision-making based on prediction logic (Randolph et al., 2020).
SC as a Moderator or Mediator
In three articles, SC was found to facilitate the effects of predictors of performance or innovation. Specifically, bonding and bridging SC were found to moderate the negative relationship between family involvement and the number of research inventions (Bendig et al., 2020). Bridging SC, in the form of organizational trust, along with organizational efficacy, led to greater performance gains than either factor would alone (Stanley & McDowell, 2013). Herrero and Hughes (2019) showed that the relationship between structural family SC and performance was inverted U-shaped and positively moderated by organizational SC. In three other studies, SC functioned as a mediating variable. Family SC contributed to firm performance when exploiting nonfamily SC, which acted as a mediator (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015). Collaborative dialogue and ethical norms helped create family SC, which, in turn, improved firm performance (Sorenson et al., 2009). Finally, structural and cognitive family SC contributed to the relational SC, which led to corporate goals being set in relation to nonfamily stakeholders in FBs (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014).
Future Research Agenda: The Research Gaps and Research Questions for Further Exploration
The preceding discussion allows for the integration of the results of quantitative studies, as shown in Figure 1. This figure summarizes the empirically tested antecedents of bridging SC, bonding SC, and family SC in FBs, as well as the contingency factors (moderators). Overall, little evidence is available on the antecedents of bridging SC in FBs; we did not find any significant study related to the antecedents of bonding SC or family SC in FBs. On the contrary, there are many known consequences of SC that are primarily positive (e.g., firm performance or knowledge internalization and integration). It is interesting to note that family SC, perceived by most authors as an internal type of SC, has consequences that the social capital literature often associates with external SC, especially those related to innovativeness and innovation outcomes.
Social Capital in Family Firms—The Conceptual Framework.
The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1 reveals the academic areas that deserve further attention. We elaborate on these in the remainder of this section. Following Strike et al. (2018) and Kubíček and Machek (2020), we organized future research directions into research gaps (RGs) and research questions (RQs) for further exploration, which are displayed in Table 3.
Research Gaps and Research Questions for Further Exploration.
Note. SC = social capital; FBs = Family businesses.
RG 1: Dynamics of SC in FBs
In our sample of studies, only four studies collected data based on observations for a period of more than 1 year (Brewton et al., 2010; Danes et al., 2009; D. Mani & Durand, 2018; Tran & Santarelli, 2013). Most quantitative studies are cross-sectional, and there is a lack of longitudinal studies, which is acknowledged by many authors (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2015; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015; Tata & Prasad, 2015; Uhlaner et al., 2015). The absence of observations from several survey waves not only raises concerns about the causal interpretation (Kwon & Adler, 2014) but there is also a lack of information about how SC develops over time, which is a recurring topic in the social capital literature (Weiler & Hinz, 2019). In the FB context, the dynamics of SC is a unique area of research because there is a spillover of SC between the family and firm (Chua et al., 2011), and SC is transferred across generations. In addition, FBs have longer time horizons and different knowledge structures and processes when considering new opportunities. Thus, FBs’ ways of leveraging their SC can be fundamentally different from those of non-family businesses (Patel & Fiet, 2011). Following Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019) and Steier (2001), we suggest investigating how SC in FBs is transferred across generations (RQ 1) and the extent to which SC is inherited (RQ 2). Addressing these questions generates the need to investigate the role of tacit knowledge in perpetuating SC and the stock of SC residing in weak ties (Steier, 2001), as well as how the SC is affected when an important member of the dominant coalition steps down (Pearson et al., 2008). Moreover, following Chua et al. (2011), it is vital to study how SC is borrowed and transferred from the family to the business across the FB life cycle (RQ 3).
RG 2: Antecedents of SC in FBs
Our review suggested that most quantitative studies focused on the outcomes of SC while neglecting its antecedents. Thus, there was a clear preference for the “content perspective,” including investigating the stock of SC at a particular instance of time—whereas the “process perspective” was adopted by only five quantitative studies (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014; Debicki et al., 2020; D. Mani & Durand, 2018; Sorenson et al., 2009; Uhlaner et al., 2015). All of them focused on the antecedents of bridging SC in FBs, and the antecedents of bonding SC and family SC remain unexplored (see Figure 1). Thus, we are convinced that the development of SC in FBs is still not well understood. For instance, the resources contributing to SC creation in family networks have not been sufficiently explored (Daspit & Long, 2014). SC is likely to be affected by unique family firm attributes such as family ownership or the generation in control, but their effects have not yet been empirically investigated (Tata & Prasad, 2015). Arregle et al. (2007) emphasized the need to study how different social groups in FBs influence the development of organizational SC. It is also vital to understand the role of nonfamily CEOs (Arregle et al., 2007), or, more broadly, nonfamily members’ roles in FBs (Carr et al., 2011; Herrero, 2018). Thus, important questions for further research include the major drivers of the development of SC in FBs (RQ 4) and the role of nonfamily members in SC development in FBs (RQ 5).
RG 3: Dimensionality of SC in FBs
There has been an ongoing debate in the management literature on the relationships between the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC. In a review article, Zheng (2010) found that structural and relational SC seem to reinforce each other in a feedback loop and concluded that there is no clear boundary between relational and cognitive SC, which are likely to be highly intercorrelated. In a recent review, Alghababsheh and Gallear (2020) stated that there seems to be a consensus that structural SC facilitates the development of relational and cognitive SC and that cognitive SC fosters relational SC. While the relationships among the SC dimensions are not clarified in the management literature, they are even less explored in the context of FBs. While in FBs, the individual dimensions of SC are also assumed to be interrelated (Carr et al., 2011), there is only one empirical study on this topic (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014). Hence, an important question for future research is how the dimensions of SC in FBs interact with each other (RQ6).
It is possible to distinguish distinct clusters of family firms based on varying levels of social capital. Using configuration analyses, Sanchez-Ruiz et al. (2019) created a taxonomy of FBs associated with high, average, and low levels of family SC that produced different outcomes. Nevertheless, previous research shows that equal outcomes can also be achieved using alternative configurations of a network’s structural and relational attributes (Payne, 2006). Our review reveals that not all dimensions of SC contribute equally to the outcomes. For example, unlike cognitive SC, excessive relational SC (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2015; Stanley & McDowell, 2013) and structural SC (Herrero & Hughes, 2019) can have dysfunctional effects. Thus, a related question is whether the overall effect is determined by high or low levels of SC or rather by a particular configuration of SC dimensions, and we suggest investigating the effects of different configurations of SC in FBs (RQ 7).
In addition, several authors (Arregle et al., 2007; Zahra, 2010) argued that organizational and family SC are not independent of one another, but that these SC types interact. For example, the strength of family ties can weaken external relationships (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014). Consequently, future researchers could investigate how organizational SC and family SC interact with each other (RQ8).
RG 4: Measurement of SC in FBs
Our review suggested that the understanding of SC varied significantly across the studies in the sample. The authors measured SC in various ways, ranging from employing simple items to extensive scales. The variety of SC measures makes it difficult, if not impossible, to draw comparative conclusions. Consequently, future studies should aim to arrive at a common understanding of SC. In other words, one of the major research questions is whether it is possible to find a unanimous definition and measure of SC in FBs (RQ 9). The question concerns both organizational SC and family SC (Danes et al., 2009), as universally accepted definitions and measures of these entities are lacking. In addition, some authors suggested the existence of particular types of family SC, such as borrowed family SC (Chua et al., 2011), community-level family SC (Lester & Cannella, 2006), and symbolic SC (Nordstrom & Steier, 2015). Some authors called for exploring the role of nonfamily members in FBs in managing SC (Herrero, 2018). These aspects of SC are unique to FBs, and there is a need for refinement of measures and a thorough investigation of the family SC construct (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2014). One of the promising theories of family SC, the sustainable family business theory, was empirically examined in only three studies in our sample (Brewton et al., 2010; Danes et al., 2009; Mallon et al., 2018); thus, further research is necessary to support this theory in the context of family SC. Overall, a crucial question of interest is what the dimensions of family SC are and how to properly measure these dimensions (RQ 10).
Many studies in our sample used the CEO as the key informant (e.g., Herrero & Hughes, 2019; Uhlaner et al., 2015). While CEOs are well informed about internal and external relationships, and there is empirical support for a single-respondent design with family CEOs (Herrero, 2018), CEOs’ assessment of SC depends on their ability to accurately perceive others (Baron & Markman, 2003). In FBs, there is evidence of misguided stewardship thinking applied to family members caused by asymmetric altruism (Verbeke & Kano, 2012); thus, a respondent’s assessment of interpersonal relationships in the firm can be biased. Furthermore, much as friendship or trust can be perceived asymmetrically, social capital is prone to subjective assessment. We believe that SC could be better understood by surveying multiple respondents per firm (Uhlaner et al., 2015). Exploring whether asymmetry in SC perception could change the current understanding of SC in FBs (RQ 11) is an interesting endeavor, especially given recent calls for the use of dispersion modeling, which analyzes the variance of respondents’ assessments (Holt et al., 2017). Measuring within-group dispersion, for example, using standard deviation of construct scores, could provide a novel viewpoint on social capital, concentrating on the antecedents and consequences of (dis)similar assessments of social capital rather than social capital per se. A high disagreement on mutual trust or shared vision, for example, could suggest poor family functioning. Thus, dispersion modeling would also allow for understanding within-group interactions and processes that could only be inferred from other methods (Holt et al., 2017).
RG 5: Outcomes of SC in FBs
Twenty-nine quantitative papers in the sample tested hypotheses about the outcomes of SC in FBs. Thus, empirical evidence on the effects of SC in FBs is available. Nevertheless, we have identified several research questions that are worth exploring further. The entrepreneurship literature considers that excessive levels of SC can lead to the inhibition of novel ideas and innovation and rigidity of norms and values, known as the “dark side” of SC (Stam et al., 2014). However, it seems that most authors tend to accentuate the positive effects of SC while neglecting its negative impacts (Weiler & Hinz, 2019).
Several family business authors also raised the question of whether SC can be “too much a good thing” that can have negative consequences (Pearson et al., 2008). SC is generally perceived as a positive phenomenon in the studies in our sample, with only a few exceptions. Theoretical studies in the sample suggested that excessive SC in FBs can inhibit opportunity recognition and exploitation (Shi et al., 2015), harm relationships with key external family stakeholders (Dyer & Mortensen, 2005), and limit the productive exchange of opinions during strategic discussions among family members due to blind trust among these members (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2015). Only two quantitative papers supported the predictions of the research on the “dark side” of SC. Stanley and McDowell (2013) found that blind trust may be associated with dysfunctional and unproductive interorganizational relationships, and Herrero and Hughes (2019) stated that high levels of family SC inhibit the flow of new knowledge because the FB becomes trapped in its established networks. Overlooking the “dark side” of SC, possibly due to the clear preference of studies for employing linear models, can lead to inadequate predictions and misleading recommendations for family business professionals. Consequently, future authors can study the negative effects of SC in FBs (RQ 12) in more detail.
The broader social capital literature emphasizes the need to clarify the cross-level character of SC (Kwon & Adler, 2014; Payne et al., 2011; Weiler & Hinz, 2019). We observed that no study in our sample employed a multilevel model (except for Edelman et al.’s, 2016 robustness checks); however, some authors acknowledged the need to analyze nested data (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2011). We observed that family business authors preferred the collective-level perspective in analyzing SC at the family- and firm-level, neglecting the traditional individual-level perspective, which assumes that SC is a private good (Bourdieu, 1986). Therefore, how SC in FBs affects lower-level outcomes is unknown (RQ 13).
RG 6: The Role of the Environment
The geographical distribution in the reviewed literature suggests that the knowledge of SC in FBs is predominantly derived from developed countries. We did not observe many urgent calls for cross-national studies in the reviewed literature (e.g., De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2015), and of all the studies reviewed, only one study used a cross-national sample (Edelman et al., 2016). Thus, the question of whether future research efforts should be focused on the role of the environment in SC in FBs arises. To present contributions to the research field, the study of well-established processes or relationships in new contexts should be justified (Neubaum & Micelotta, 2021).
We believe there are several reasons why the study of SC in different contexts could bring new added value. Cross-national studies could help achieve comparative insights and verify the general robustness of the existing results (Nguyen et al., 2022). More importantly, contextual factors could shape the mechanisms of previously identified relationships, as country-specific differences can influence family members’ behaviors and attitudes (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2011; Daspit & Long, 2014; Discua Cruz et al., 2012; Dyer & Mortensen, 2005; Zahra, 2010). Thus, for example, personal achievements in individualistic cultures are more important than the collective group’s interest (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015), which is likely to affect the nature and strength of organizational SC. Conversely, collectivist cultures emphasize membership within the organization, which can lead to a stronger role of organizational SC (Ko & Campbell, 2020). Other cultural dimensions such as to power distance and uncertainty avoidance are closely related to the development of organizational trust (Schoorman et al., 2007). Comparative studies could challenge the established theoretical relationships and find relationships that contradict previous findings from Western contexts (e.g., Daspit & Long, 2014), which would present important theoretical contributions (Neubaum & Micelotta, 2021). Therefore, we propose to investigate whether the existing findings on SC in FBs are applicable to different countries and cultures (RQ 14).
In addition, several authors mentioned the necessity to further explore the role of the environment (Dyer & Mortensen, 2005) and industry affiliation in the context of the use (Zahra, 2010) and dynamics (Steier, 2001) of SC. In other words, future research should investigate how environmental and institutional pressures affect the development of SC in FBs (RQ 15). Because FBs represent a unique empirical setting, the study of SC in FBs in different contexts could also bring new insights to the broader management literature. For instance, the transfer of a founder’s Guanxi network in Chinese FBs is more challenging for female successors (Deng, 2015), and women in FBs that operate in “masculine” industries, such as construction, struggle with non-acceptance by other employees (Constantinidis & Nelson, 2009). A study of how social networks can be efficiently transferred in FBs, how this transfer is influenced by environmental and personal characteristics, and how SC is further developed in the post-succession phase could help us understand the transition of roles and executive succession in other types of businesses.
RG 7: Heterogeneity Within Firms
In their pioneering work, Pearson et al. (2008) emphasized the need to address the existing categorizations of FBs. The recent family business literature calls for a deeper consideration of the heterogeneity of FBs (Memili & Dibrell, 2019). We believe that this line of research has the potential to improve our understanding of SC in FBs, as not all causes of differences between FBs have been properly addressed. For instance, no “family essence” criteria (Chrisman et al., 2012) have been considered to distinguish family firms in the reviewed literature. Therefore, in addition to family involvement in ownership (Campbell & Park, 2016; Zahra, 2010) or generational involvement (Chirico & Salvato, 2016), future studies should examine other characteristics of FBs, such as the legal form of ownership (Tata & Prasad, 2015), ownership structure (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2015), blood- versus friendship-connected families (Pearson et al., 2008), the size of the family working in the business (Pearson et al., 2008; Tata & Prasad, 2015), the mode of succession (Steier, 2001), and whether these differences strengthen, weaken, or moderate SC in FBs. Overall, we believe that it is worthwhile to investigate how family attributes (RQ 16) and different configurations of family involvement in ownership and management (RQ 17) are related to SC in FBs.
Final Reflections: Integrating the Topic of Social Capital in Family Firms
In our review, we observed that the literature on the topic of social capital in family firms is fragmented. Simultaneously, a common thread seems to run through all the seven major research gaps. To reduce this fragmentation and integrate SC into the family business literature, three primary shortcomings of the existing research are discussed: lack of a clear definition of SC in FBs, lack of reference to different levels of analysis regarding SC, and neglect of the process perspective of SC.
Defining Social Capital in Family Firms
To explore individual research topics, a research area needs to have solid foundational knowledge (Rovelli et al., 2021). Our review of the family business literature highlights that the current understanding of SC is unclear, and its definitions are inconsistent. Many studies in the sample did not mention any definition of SC. The term “organizational social capital” is used ambiguously, referring to bonding SC, bridging SC, or a mixture of the two types of SC. The term “family social capital” is also applied inconsistently and it has no universal (or even exceptionally quoted) definition. While some authors considered that family SC is composed of relationships among family members (Chang et al., 2009), others considered it to be developed among family members and nonfamily stakeholders (Dyer et al., 2014; Sorenson et al., 2009). Moreover, some authors used the term “family capital” to describe SC (Hoffman et al., 2006), while other researchers used the same term to describe a combination of a family’s social, human, and financial capital (Danes et al., 2009). Therefore, as the first step in reducing the fragmentation of the study of SC in FBs, the definitions of family SC and organizational SC must be clarified.
Family SC
To determine the universal definition of family SC, we propose referring to the seminal work by Arregle et al. (2007) and Pearson et al. (2008). Both authors used Adler and Kwon’s (2002, p. 1) definition of SC as “the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations and that can be mobilized to facilitate action.” Arregle et al. (2007, p. 76) further explained that family SC is “the social capital developed among family members.” While this study did not explicitly limit the scope of family SC to family members who work in the firm, to be hardly imitable by nonfamily businesses (which also possess close networks of contacts, such as friends), the definition should be narrowed down to refer to family members involved in the business, as illustrated by the intersection of family and business in the three-circle model (Sharma, 2008). The notion that family SC only refers to family members within the family firm appears to be implicitly accepted by recent authors (e.g., Herrero & Hughes, 2019) and is reflected, for example, in Carr et al.’s (2011) ISC-FB scale, whose questions refer to family members who “work in this firm.” Thus, using Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) definition of SC, family SC can be precisely defined as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by family members involved in the family firm.”
Second, while Arregle et al. (2007) and Pearson et al. (2008) adopted the internal (bonding) view of SC, they recognized the importance of bridging SC (Sharma, 2008). This is evidenced by Arregle et al.’s (2007, p. 81) acknowledgment that “family outside the boundaries of the firm is highly important for support and resources,” thus representing an important source of bridging SC. Indeed, family members own external networks that constitute an asset that can be mobilized for the collective good of the family firm (Edelman et al., 2016; Sharma, 2008; Sorenson et al., 2009). It follows that family SC can be classified into bonding family SC (e.g., Arregle et al., 2007; Pearson et al., 2008) and bridging family SC (e.g., Danes et al., 2009; Sorenson et al., 2009). Although the reviewed literature rarely employs this distinction, we believe that it is useful in determining the different antecedents and effects of bonding and bridging family SC, as evidenced by the entrepreneurship literature.
Organizational Social Capital of the Family Firm
Our review supports the view that the organizational SC of FBs is composed of both bridging and bonding organizational SC. These networks of relationships include family members and nonfamily members who work in the firm. Organizational SC in FBs can be understood as the sum of family SC and nonfamily SC, as suggested by some previous authors (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015). Thus, in the three-circle model, the organizational SC belongs to the “business circle” (e.g., Sharma, 2008). Consequently, following the definition of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), organizational SC in FBs can be understood as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by family and nonfamily members involved in the family firm.”
Multilevel Nature of Social Capital in Family Firms
Figure 1 reveals that most antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of SC are examined at the family- or organization-level. This observation corresponds to past trends in the social capital literature, in which scientists limited their view of SC to discrete levels of analysis (individual, organization, community, industry, and nation) without making efforts to integrate them (Oh et al., 2006; Payne et al., 2011). The process of merging the individual and collective aspects of SC leads to the “neutral view” of SC. This approach to studying SC is prevalent until today, as shown by Weiler and Hinz’s (2019) review of social capital literature, in which only 10% of the studies considered more than one level of analysis. Ignoring the cross-level character of SC leads to a disconnection between micro and macro viewpoints (Payne et al., 2011) and results in a fragmentation of the management literature (Molina-Azorín et al., 2020). Our review demonstrated similar trends in the family business literature. However, the prevalence of the “neutral view” of SC limits the investigation of SC at various levels in an organization (Weiler & Hinz, 2019). In organizations, SC at one level of analysis can influence SC at another level. For instance, the dishonest use of excessive individual-level SC can harm firm-level SC (Ibarra et al., 2005). Cross-level interactions of SC can be particularly relevant in the FB context, where conflict of interest and asymmetric altruism (Chrisman et al., 2004) can induce both nonfamily and family members to use their private SC for their own benefit.
The second step to reduce the fragmentation of the study of SC in the family business literature is using multilevel research, which makes it possible to bridge the gap between macro and micro viewpoints (Molina-Azorín et al., 2020). Multilevel research assumes the existence of several levels and nested structures, which makes it an appropriate technique to study organizations (e.g., employees nested within groups, and groups nested within companies), including FBs. In addition, variables at each level can influence other levels, making this type of analysis well suited for studying SC (Weiler & Hinz, 2019). Traditional multilevel methods (hierarchical linear models) only allow the study of lower-level outcomes, that is, downward cross-level influences (Aguinis & Molina-Azorín, 2015). Examples of such outcomes in FBs might include the succession or turnover intentions of family members. However, in recent years, progress has been made to examine bottom-up models with higher-level outcomes (Molina-Azorín et al., 2020). For instance, one promising method is multilevel structural equation modeling, which investigates higher-level mediators and outcomes in addition to lower-level outcomes (Aguinis & Molina-Azorín, 2015).
The Process Perspective of Social Capital in Family Firms
The existing literature regarding SC in FBs displays a strong preference for the content perspective, as emphasized by Pearson et al. (2008). Arregle et al. (2007) proposed a different view, focusing on the mechanisms by which the flow of family SC influences FB’s organizational SC. The flow of family SC is based on four dynamic factors (time, interactions, interdependence, and closure) that take particularly strong forms in FBs (Chirico & Salvato, 2008), and which, in turn, affect organizational SC. In a subsequent discussion, Sharma (2008) stated that given the “appropriability” of SC and family/business overlap, the flow of SC can be expected to be bidirectional (family to the business and vice versa). Directionality is expected to depend on the FB life cycle and to achieve sustainability, an appropriate balance between the inflows and outflows of SC must be accomplished. Despite the fruitful discussion at the end of the first decade of the 21st century (Arregle et al., 2007; Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Pearson et al., 2008; Sharma, 2008), there is an apparent lack of empirical evidence regarding the flow of SC in FBs and the directionality of this flow. Generally, the presence of longitudinal studies indicates the evolution and sophistication of a research area (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). However, in the social capital literature (Weiler & Hinz, 2019) and, as we show, in the family business literature, most studies failed to consider the temporal nature of SC. Therefore, the third step to reduce the fragmentation of the study of SC in the family business literature is a more explicit use of time related to SC change processes (Payne et al., 2011). To incorporate time in analysis, future researchers should collect longitudinal data and consider the use of growth models. Growth models are often extensions of multilevel modeling (Payne et al., 2011), wherein repeated measurements correspond to the lowest level (Molina-Azorín et al., 2020). Alternatively, the dynamics of SC can be approached through more recent methods such as latent growth modeling (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010).
Conclusion
Our review highlights that the topic of social capital in family firms is relatively recent. The large number of qualitative and conceptual articles that called for empirical validation of their propositions suggests that the understanding of the topic is not yet complete. Our main conclusions suggest that the literature on SC in FBs is fragmented and that the definitions and measures of SC and its dimensions are used ambiguously. Our review highlights the methodological weaknesses of the existing research. The heterogeneity of definitions and measures makes it difficult to draw reliable comparative conclusions or conduct meta-analyses on the topic. The only relationship that is adequately supported is the effect of SC in FBs on firm performance. However, we also found that authors tended to overemphasize the benefits of SC while overlooking its potential threats. In addition, the understanding of the antecedents and moderators of SC is ambiguous. Finally, our review lays the ground for future research by discussing the essential aspects that need to be addressed to better understand SC in FBs: its definition and its multilevel and dynamic nature.
This systematic literature review is not without limitations. The first pertains to the selection of journals that was inspired by the guidelines of Chrisman et al. (2008) and Debicki et al. (2009). There may be other studies published in less influential journals with interesting findings. The selection procedure was intended to ensure that our review integrated only reliable findings and avoided those that could potentially distort the knowledge in the field because of publication malpractice. Some examples include findings that appear in multiple journals (text recycling), piecemeal publication practices, or publication in potentially predatory journals. The second limitation pertains to the selection of only peer-reviewed papers in the sample. Therefore, similar to other review articles (e.g., Andreini et al., 2020), we did not cover conference proceedings, books, book chapters, and dissertation theses that could contain noteworthy contributions. The third limitation is the possibility of revealing new knowledge before the publishing of this work. Despite these caveats, we believe that our review will help improve the current understanding of SC in FBs. Lack of a clear definition of SC in FBs, lack of reference to different levels of analysis about SC, and disregard for the process perspective of SC are three common threads that run across the research gaps found in this review, and they all offer intriguing areas for future research.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We appreciate the funding support received from the Czech Science Foundation for the project entitled “Intrafamily Conflicts in Family Firms: Antecedents, Effects and Moderators” (registration no.: GA20-04262S). The main author is further thankful for the additional scholarship received from the Internal Grant Agency of the Prague University of Economics and Business (project no. F3/52/2020).
