Knowledge management, flexibility and firm performanceThe effects of family involvement

  1. Antonio J. Carrasco-Hernández
  2. Daniel Jiménez-Jiménez
Journal:
European Journal of Family Business

ISSN: 2444-8788,  2444-877X

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 6

Issue: 2

Pages: 108-117

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.EJFB.2017.06.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: European Journal of Family Business

Abstract

After the last global crisis, firms needed to change and adapt better to the environment. In this scenario, knowledge management is the most important strategic resource, and therefore, it is considered critical for improving firm performance. However, knowledge management processes and the dynamic environment demand new ways of personnel management, especially a break from traditional and rigid forms of working. As a result of these experiments several innovations in work systems, managerial practices, and personnel policies have appeared. This study examines the holistic relationship between knowledge management, flexibility and firm performance in family firms. The results show that knowledge management has a positive influence on firm performance. Also, flexibility is not significantly related to firm performance. However, flexibility is positive and significantly related to knowledge management. Furthermore, there is no linear relationship between family involvement in ownership and management, and flexibility and knowledge management in the firm.

Bibliographic References

  • Abraham, K. G., & Taylor, S. K. (1996). Firms’ use of outside contractors: Theory and evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 394---424.
  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411---423.
  • Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45---58.
  • Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel Management, 16(8), 28---31.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: John Wiley.
  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74---94.
  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249---265.
  • Cheng, J. L. C. (2007). Critical issues in international management research: An agenda for future advancement. European Journal of International Management, 1(1/2), 23---38.
  • Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477---501.
  • Davis-Blake, A., & Uzzi, B. (1993). Determinants of employment externalization: A study of temporary workers and independent contractors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 195---223.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 382---388.
  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653---707.
  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106---137.
  • Gramm, C. L., & Schnell, J. F. (2001). The use of flexible staffing arrangements in core production jobs. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 54(2), 245---258.
  • Gulbrandsen, T. (2005). Flexibility in Norwegian family-owned enterprises. Family Business Review, 18(1), 57---76.
  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Black, B., & Babin, B. (2016). . Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • Hall, A., Melin, L., & Nordqvist, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship as radical change in the family business: Exploring the role of cultural patterns. Family Business Review, 14(3), 193---208.
  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Lee, H. U. (2000). Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: An introductory essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3), 231---246.
  • Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2004). Exploring primary activities of the knowledge chain. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 155---174.
  • Holsapple, C., & Jones, K. (2005). Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(1), 3---31.
  • Hoopes, D. G., & Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowledge, glitches, and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(9), 837---865.
  • Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage Publications.
  • Joreskög, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlations matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443---487.
  • Kalm, M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2016). Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 51(4), 409---411.
  • Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Snell, S. A. (2003). Employment flexibility and firm performance: Examining the interaction effects of employment mode, environmental dynamism, and technological intensity. Journal of Management, 29(5), 681---703.
  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33---47.
  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14---37.
  • Pérez López, S., Manuel Montes Peón, J., & José Vázquez Ordás, C. (2004). Managing knowledge: The link between culture and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 93---104.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
  • Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363---377.
  • Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. SAGE Publications.
  • Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2008). Family involvement in ownership and management: Exploring nonlinear effects on performance. Family Business Review, 21(4), 331---345.
  • Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., Astrachan, J. H., & Pieper, T. M. (2012). The role of family ownership in international entrepreneurship: Exploring nonlinear effects. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 15---31.
  • Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595---623.
  • Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1999). The influence of leveraging tacit overseas knowledge for global new product development capability. In M. A. Hitt, P. G. Clifford, R. D. Nixon, & K. P. Coyne (Eds.), Dynamic strategy resources. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745---761.
  • Tosi, H. L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1994). CEO compensation monitoring and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1002---1016.
  • Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Hite, J. P. (1995). Choice of employee---organization relationship: Influence of external and internal organizational factors. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13(1), 117---151.
  • 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(6), 1183---1205.
  • Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 31---33.
  • Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756---772.
  • Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363---381.
  • Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Larrañeta, B. (2007). Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities: The moderating role of family involvement. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1070---1079.
  • Instituto de la Empresa Familiar & Red de Cátedras Empresa Familiar. (2016). La Empresa Familiar en España 2015. Madrid: Instituto de la Empresa Familiar.
Data source: Dialnet