FIRSTFIRSTOWNERSHIP SUCCESSIONOWNERSHIP SUCCESSION

ININFAMILY BUSINESSESFAMILY BUSINESSES

FROMFROMENTREPRENEURSHIP ENTREPRENEURSHIP

VIEWPOINTVIEWPOINT

5th IFERA Annual Research Conference5th IFERA Annual Research ConferenceApril 14-15, 2005April 14-15, 2005

IESE Business SchoolIESE Business School

Eugeniusz Niedbała

Research questionResearch question……

whether ownership succession in the family businesses contribute to the increase in entrepreneurship

……and basic assumptionsand basic assumptions

the family business and the family create the scene, on which the process of ownership succession is going on

the process is perceived from entrepreneurship viewpoint

The definitions on which the The definitions on which the research model should be built:research model should be built:

succession (transition) is a “multistage process that exists over time, beginning before the heirs even enter the business” (Handler, 1994: 134),

“entrepreneurship is the process by which individuals pursue opportunities without regard to resources they currently control” (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990: 23),

organisational entrepreneurship is “reconciling opportunities and organizational actions for new wealth creation in the context of co-evolving people and venture with organization and its environment” (Bratnicki, 2003: 18).

The premises on which the research The premises on which the research model should be built:model should be built:

concepts and theoretical constructs of entrepreneurship are multidimensional (Hofer & Bygrave, 1992),

entrepreneurship model should be built on three levels: environmental, organisational and individual (Covin & Slevin, 1991),

entrepreneurship can vary according to the environmental context but its nature and dimensions are the same regardless of the context (Morris & Kuratko, 2002),

The premises on which the research The premises on which the research model should be built: cont.model should be built: cont.

conducting of complex research process (Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001) should be a way of addressing entrepreneurship in organisations,

co-alignment (Branderburger & Nalebuff, 1996) and co-evolution of organisation and environment (Oliver & Ross, 2000) are a source of entrepreneurial actions,

entrepreneurship research should be more theory driven (Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001),

The premises on which the research The premises on which the research model should be built: cont.model should be built: cont.

entrepreneurship research should:

consider cognitive and behavioural factors relating to entrepreneurs in variety of settings (Ucbasaran, Westhead & Wright, 2001),

consider effect on environmental factors (Aldrich & Martinez, 2001),

take multilevel approach (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001),

consider time frame and causality issues (Chandler & Lyon, 2001).

Entrepreneurship in family business Entrepreneurship in family business should be measured byshould be measured by

operationalization of entrepreneurial management as:

strategy orientation, resource control, management structure, reward philosophy, growth orientation, entrepreneurial culture

made by Brown, Davidsson and Wiklund (2001).

ReferencesReferences

Aldrich, H.E. & Martinez, M.A. (2001). Many are called but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 41-56.

Branderburger, R.M. & Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday. Bratnicki, M. (2003). (Ed.), Organizational entrepreneurship: Conceptual advances and some

empirical tests. Katowice: Publisher of The Karol Adamiecki University of Economics. Brown, T.H., Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationlisation of Stevenson’s

conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 953–968.

Chandler, G. N. & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: the past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101–113.

Covin, J. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 7-25.

Davidsson, P., Law, M.B. & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 5-15.

Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 81-99.

Handler, W. C. (1994). Succession in Family Business: A Review of Research. Family Business Review, 7(2), 133-157.

Hofer, C.W. & Bygrave, W.D. (1992). Researching entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(3), 91-100.

Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial development within organizations. Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.

Ofori-Dankwa, J. & Julian, S.D. (2001). Complexifying organizational theory: Illustrations using time research. Academy of Management Review, 26(5), 415-430.

Oliver, D. & Ross, J. (2000). Striking a balance: Complexity and knowledge landscapes. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A perspective of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 17–27.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P. & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 57-80.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Eugeniusz Niedbała