Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of informal institutions on the prevalence, strategy, and performance of family firms: A meta-analysis

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Family-controlled firms (FCFs)’ prevalence, strategies, and performance differ across countries. We explain these differences through the lens of informal institutions, suggesting that different countries have different levels of appreciation for family business. To capture this effect, we introduce the construct of family business legitimacy (FBL) and an associated index (FBLI). We empirically measure FBLI scores for 83 countries spanning both developed and emerging economies. By combining meta-analytic and archival data, we show that FCFs prevail, follow unique strategies, and outperform non-FCFs in countries with high FBLI scores. As a new contingency variable, FBL advances the literature on the informal institutional embeddedness of organizations and family business.

Résumé

La prédominance, les stratégies et les performances des entreprises familiales (EF) diffèrent d’un pays à l’autre. Nous expliquons ces différences à travers le prisme des institutions informelles, ce qui suggère que les différents pays ont des niveaux d’appréciation différents concernant les entreprises familiales. Pour saisir ce phénomène, nous introduisons le concept de légitimité des entreprises familiales (LEF) et un indice associé (ILEF). Nous mesurons empiriquement les scores ILEF de 83 pays, tant dans les économies développées que dans les économies émergentes. En combinant les données méta-analytiques et les données d’archives, nous montrons que la LEF prévaut, suit des stratégies uniques et surpasse les entreprises non familiales dans les pays ayant des scores ILEF élevés. En tant que nouvelle variable de contingence, la LEF fait progresser la littérature sur l’encastrement institutionnel informel des organisations et des entreprises familiales.

Resumen

La prevalencia, las estrategias y el desempeño de las empresas controladas por familias (FCFs por sus iniciales en inglés) difieren entre los países. Explicamos estas diferencias a través de los lentes de las instituciones informes, y proponemos que países diferentes tienen diferentes niveles de valoración para los negocios familiares. Para capturar este efecto, introducimos el constructo de legitimidad de los negocios familiares (FBL por sus iniciales en inglés) y un índice asociado (FBLI). Medimos empíricamente puntajes de legitimidad de negocios familiares para 83 países abarcando tanto economías desarrolladas y emergentes. Al combinar datos meta-analíticos y de archivo mostramos que las empresas controladas por familias predominan, siguen estrategias únicas y superan las empresas no familiares en países con altos puntajes de legitimidad de los negocios familiares. Como una nueva variable de contingencia, el constructo de legitimidad de los negocios familiares (FBL) avanza las literaturas sobre la integración institucional de las organizaciones y negocios familiares.

Resumo

Prevalência, estratégias e desempenho de empresas controladas por famílias (FCFs) diferem entre os países. Explicamos essas diferenças através da lente de instituições informais, sugerindo que diferentes países têm diferentes níveis de apreço por empresas familiares. Para capturar esse efeito, introduzimos o construto legitimidade de empresa familiar (FBL) e um índice associado (FBLI). Medimos empiricamente as pontuações FBLI para 83 países abrangendo tanto economias desenvolvidas quanto emergentes. Ao combinar dados meta-analíticos e de arquivo, mostramos que FCFs prevalecem, seguem estratégias exclusivas, e superam empresas que não são FCFs em países com altas pontuações de FBLI. Como uma nova variável contingencial, FBL avança as literaturas sobre a inserção institucional informal de organizações e empresas familiares.

摘要

家族控制公司(FCF)的普遍性、策略和绩效在不同国家有所差异。我们通过非正式制度的角度来解释这些差异, 表明不同国家对家族企业的理解程度不同。为了捕获这种影响, 我们介绍了家族企业合法性(FBL)的概念以及相关的索引(FBLI)。我们在实证上衡量了发达经济体和新兴经济体中83个国家的FBLI得分。通过将元分析与存档数据的结合, 我们显示在具有较高FBLI分数的国家中, FCF占优势, 遵循独特的策略, 并且优于非FCF。作为新的意外变量, FBL推进了有关组织和家族企业的非正式制度嵌入的文献。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R., Judge, W., & Terjesen, S. 2018. Corporate governance deviance. Academy of Management Review, 43(1): 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, M. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amemiya, T. 1973. Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Econometrica, 41(6): 997–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., Ding, Y., Villalonga, B., & Zhang, H. 2015. The role of institutional development in the prevalence and performance of entrepreneur and family-controlled firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 31: 284–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Villalonga, B. 2014. Financial performance of family firms. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds), The Sage handbook of family business: 157–178. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. 2010. Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63(9): 839–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Duran, P., Hitt, M., & van Essen, M. 2017. Why is family firms’ internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5): 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1): 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J.-M., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. 2013. Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 962–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. 2009. The effects of family versus career role salience on the performance of family and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 22(1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. P. 1995. Integrated strategy: Market and non-market components. California Management Review, 37(2): 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen, M., Pérez-González, F., & Wolfenzon, D. 2010. The governance of family firms. In K. H. Baker & R. Anderson (Eds), Corporate governance: A synthesis of theory, research, and practice: 371–389. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., et al. 2016. Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3): 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3): 238–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. 2010. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1): 82–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. 2006. The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2): 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, N., Colombage, S., & Gunasekarage, A. 2011. Block shareholder identity and firm performance in New Zealand. Pacific Accounting Review, 23(2): 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, R. 2009. Globalization and the careers of Mexican knowledge workers: An exploratory study of employer and worker adaptations. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2): 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Tang, R. W. 2014. Meta-analytic research in international business and international management. In T. M. Devinney, T. Pedersen, & L. Tihanyi (Eds), Advances in international management: Philosophy of science and meta-knowledge in international business and management, 26: 263–297. Bingley: Emerald Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkart, M., Panunzi, F., & Shleifer, A. 2003. Family firms. Journal of Finance, 58(5): 2167–2201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2009. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Z., Li, Y., Jayaram, J., Liu, Y., & Lumineau, F. 2018. A meta-analysis of the exchange hazards—Interfirm governance relationship: An informal institutions perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1989. On using institutional theory in studying organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 54(4): 545–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 2000. The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6): 1153–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. 1994. Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5): 730–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirico, F., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Hellerstedt, K., Withers, M., & Nordqvist, M. 2019. To merge, sell or liquidate? Socioemotional wealth, family control and the choice of business exit. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318818723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. 2012. Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. 1999. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4): 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Ingram, P. 2009. Guanxi vs networking: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based trust in the networks of Chinese vs American managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 490–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, C.-N., & Luo, X. R. 2013. Leadership succession and firm performance in an emerging economy: Successor origin, relational embeddedness, and legitimacy. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3): 338–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1): 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, C. H. 1992. Human nature and the social order. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8): 797–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., & Tracey, P. 2010. Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1393–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A. 2013. Learning across geographic space: Pro-market reforms, multinationalization strategy, and profitability. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(3): 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. 2005. New directions in corporate governance. Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. 2008. Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12): 1203–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. 2001. Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2): 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 2008. The law and economics of self-dealing. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3): 430–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., & Shleifer, A. 2007. Private credit in 129 countries. Journal of Financial Economics, 84(2): 299–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrev, S. D., & Gotsopoulos, A. 2010. Legitimacy vacuum, structural imprinting, and the first mover disadvantage. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 1153–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., Kostova, T., & van Essen, M. 2017. Political ideologies and the internationalization of family-controlled firms. Journal of World Business, 52(4): 474–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., & Ortiz, M. 2020. When more is better: Multifamily firms and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(4): 761–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., van Essen, M., Heugens, P. P., Kostova, T., & Peng, M. W. 2019. The impact of institutions on the competitive advantage of publicly listed family firms in emerging markets. Global Strategy Journal, 9(2): 243–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsayed, K. 2011. Board size and corporate performance: the missing role of board leadership structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 15(3): 415–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. P. 2002. The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3): 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. 2002. Social capital and development: The coming agenda. SAIS Review, 22(1): 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. 2012. The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1010–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. 2006. Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1987. Structuralism, post-structuralism and the production of culture. In A. Giddens & J. H. Turner (Eds), Social theory today: 195–223. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & DeCastro, J. 2011. The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 653–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. 2003. The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Makri, M., & Larraza-Kintana, M. 2010. Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Nuñez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, I. 2001. The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Mulé, E., & Aguinis, H. 2018. Advancing theory by assessing boundary conditions with meta-regression: A critical review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 44(6): 2246–2273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. 1994. De-orientalizing the Chinese family firm. American Ethnologist, 21(4): 746–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M. F., & Capron, L. 2016. State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(1): 125–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. 2002. Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handler, W. C. 1990. Succession in family firms: A mutual role adjustment between entrepreneur and next-generation family members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1): 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. E., & Huntington, S. P. 2000. Culture matters: How values shape human progress. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. 2001. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(3): 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. 2004. Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4): 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. 2009. Structure! agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. P., De La Cerda, J., Martínez, S. M., Prieto, L., Bautista, J. A., Ortiz, J., et al. 2007. Leadership and culture in Mexico. Journal of World Business, 42(4): 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H. 2008. Family values or crony capitalism? Capitalism and Society, 3(1): 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, M., Prevost, A., & Puthenpurackal, J. 2014. Controlling shareholders, board structure, and firm performance: Evidence from India. Journal of Corporate Finance, 27: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, S. H., & Harrison, D. A. 2017. Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1219–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. M., & Lahiri, N. 2015. Language friction and partner selection in cross-border R&D alliance formation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(2): 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. 2005. Governance matters III: Updated governance indicators for 1996–2004. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2): 331–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, N., Tsang, E. W. K., & Begley, T. M. 2005. Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1): 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kim, H., & Lee, P. M. 2008. Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science, 19(3): 404–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiong, T. C. 2005. Feuds and legacies: Conflict and inheritance in Chinese family businesses. International Sociology, 20(1): 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 308–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalewski, O., Shaefer, D., Stetsyuk, I., & Talavera, O. 2010. Influence of founding-family ownership and managerial regime on firm performance—Evidence from companies on WSE. Family Business Review, 23(1): 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krivogorsky, V., & Burton, F. G. 2012. Dominant owners and performance of continental European firms. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11(1): 191–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6): 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S. 2013. Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(3): 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. 2006. Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientation, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. 2009. Agency vs. stewardship in public family firms: A social embeddedness reconciliation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6): 1169–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A. A. 2006. Interorganizational familiness: How family firms use interlocking directorates to build community-level social capital. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 755–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Yang, J. Y., & Yue, D. R. 2007. Identity, community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. W., Song, Y., & Shan, M. 2018. Social trust in subnational regions and foreign subsidiary performance: Evidence from foreign investments in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Ling, Y., & Schulze, W. 2007. An organizational justice-based view of self-control and agency costs in family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6): 955–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. R., & Chung, C.-N. 2013. Filling or abusing the institutional void? Ownership and management control of public family businesses in an emerging market. Organization Science, 24(2): 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. R., Jeong, Y. C., & Chung, C. N. 2019. In the eye of the beholder: Global analysts’ coverage of family firms in an emerging market. Journal of Management, 45(5): 1830–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 2016. The pursuit of socioemotional wealth (SEW) and financial wealth in family firms: Are these competing or complementary objectives? Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 14(3): 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martynova, M., & Renneboog, L. 2008. A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand? Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(10): 2148–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1): 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Lester, R. H. 2012. Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science, 24(1): 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. 2007. Are family firms really superior performers? Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5): 829–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Lee, J., Chang, S., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2009. Filling the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of family vs. non-family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 802–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2003. Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 513–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. C., Washburn, N. T., & Glick, W. H. 2013. The myth of firm performance. Organization Science, 24(3): 948–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, C. S., & McConaughy, D. L. 1999. Founding family control and capital structure: The risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4): 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D., & Yeung, B. 2005. Corporate governance, economic entrenchment and growth. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3): 655–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. 2002. Relational and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3): 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutlu, C. C., van Essen, M., Peng, M. W., Saleh, S. F., & Duran, P. 2018. Corporate governance in China: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 55(6): 943–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. 2012. Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. 2005. The Anglo-American financial influence on CEO compensation in non-Anglo-American firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 470–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Jiang, Y. 2010. Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Sun, W., Vlas, C., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. 2018. An institution-based view of large family firms: A recap and overview. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2): 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 458–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review Sociology, 24(1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., & Byron, K. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1546–1571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabowo, M., & Simpson, J. 2011. Independent directors and firm performance in family-controlled firms: evidence from Indonesia. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 25(1): 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2): 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H. 2002. Tests tell: Constitutive legitimacy and consumer acceptance of the automobile: 1895–1912. In P. Ingram & B. Silverman (Eds), Advances in strategic management, 19: The new institutionalism in strategic management: 307–335. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. 2006. Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. 1979. The “file drawer problem” and the tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulleting, 86(3): 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M. R., & Wolpin, K. I. 1985. Specific experience, household structure, and intergenerational transfers: Farm family land and labor arrangements in developing countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100: 961–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R., & Wu, Z. 2012. Institutional distance and local isomorphism strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, J., & Sarkar, S. 2000. Large shareholder activism in corporate governance in developing countries: Evidence from India. International Review of Finance, 1(3): 161–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, M. A., & Beamish, P. W. 2014. Offshoring innovation to emerging markets: Organizational control and informal institutional distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9): 1072–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. 2003. Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. E. 2012. 25 years of family business review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25(1): 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 102–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4): 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sraer, D., & Thesmar, D. 2007. Performance and behavior of family firms: Evidence from the French stock market. Journal of European Economic Association, 5(4): 709–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. 2012. Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., Giles, M., Heckemeyer, J. H., Johnston, R. J., Laroche, P., et al. 2013. Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2): 390–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Aguilera, R. V., Heugens, P., van Essen, M., Sauerwald, S., Duran, P., et al. 2019. State ownership and political connections. Journal of Management, 45(6): 2293–2321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. 1958. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1): 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1): 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Essen, M., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. 2015. How does family control influence firm strategy and performance? A meta-analysis of US publicly listed firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(1): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. 2006. How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2): 385–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. 1995. Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 865–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., Block, J. H., Miller, D., Schwens, C., & Xi, G. 2015. A meta-analysis of the financial performance of family firms: Another attempt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(1): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidenbaum, M. 1996. The Chinese family business enterprise. California Management Review, 38(4): 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, R. M., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 1998. A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. 2008. Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1): 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshikawa, T., & Rasheed, A. A. 2010. Family control and ownership monitoring in family-controlled firms in Japan. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. 2003. International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 495–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. 2010. Harvesting family firms’ organizational social capital: A relational perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis, S. H., Newburry, W., & Taras, V. 2016. Global social tolerance index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4): 480–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G. 1983. Organizations as institutions. In S. Bachrach (Ed), Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–42. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Patricio Duran acknowledges the support of the Richard A. Chaifetz School of Business at Saint Louis University. Pascual Berrone acknowledges the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation PID2019-104679RB-I00, the Schneider-Electric Sustainability and Business Strategy Chair, and the IESE’s High Impact Projects Initiative (2018/2018). Tatiana Kostova acknowledges the support of the University of South Carolina CIBER.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IESE Business School, Universidad of Navarra, Camino del Cerro del Aguila 3, Madrid, Spain

    Pascual Berrone

  2. Chaifetz School of Business, Boeing Institute of International Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Patricio Duran

  3. WP Carey School, WP College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Luis Gómez-Mejía

  4. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Spain

    Luis Gómez-Mejía

  5. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, PO Box 1739, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Pursey P M A R Heugens

  6. Sonoco International Business Department, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1014 Green Street, Columbia, SC, USA

    Tatiana Kostova & Marc van Essen

Authors
  1. Pascual Berrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricio Duran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Gómez-Mejía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pursey P M A R Heugens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatiana Kostova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marc van Essen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricio Duran.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Jiatao Li, Area Editor, 7 August 2020. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 592 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berrone, P., Duran, P., Gómez-Mejía, L. et al. Impact of informal institutions on the prevalence, strategy, and performance of family firms: A meta-analysis. J Int Bus Stud 53, 1153–1177 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00362-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00362-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation