Knowledge that Transforms

Family firms are not a homogeneous group. Thus, we theorize and empirically validate how governance differences among family firms (family governance heterogeneity) influence internationalization, considering the home country’s level of family collectivism as a moderator. Drawing on the bifurcation bias approach, we conduct a multilevel meta-analysis on 33,493 family firms. Our findings suggest that family CEOs and greater family involvement on the board hamper internationalization, but family collectivism improves these relationships. In contrast, non-founding generations promote internationalization independently of this country-level moderator. Our study reconciles the theoretical and empirical inconsistencies in the relationship between family governance and family firm internationalization.

Why do migrants return home and start businesses? Research on this multistage phenomenon—that is, return followed by entrepreneurship—is fragmented, reflecting different scholarly approaches and reasons migrants return and start businesses (or not). We systematically review 80 papers addressing aspects of returnee entrepreneurship and organize findings into a two-stage process model grounded in three levels of analysis—institutional, social, and individual. Our model contributes by providing a parsimonious way to understand returnee entrepreneurship and describe what has been learned. We also contribute a research agenda to help entrepreneurship scholars leverage what is known about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial processes to address critical unanswered questions.

Our meta-analysis investigates the environmental sustainability performance of family firms (FFs) distinguishing between environmental hand- and footprint and accounting for FF heterogeneity. Based on a sample of 87 primary studies comprising 118,538 firms, we find no significant difference between FFs and non-FFs regarding their overall environmental sustainability performance. Yet, distinguishing between environmental hand- and footprint, we show that FFs have a lower footprint than non-FFs but do not differ regarding their handprint. Firm size, being a public firm, and type of family involvement moderate the effects of FF status on environmental sustainability performance. Our research note extends prior meta-analytical evidence and contributes to a more fine-grained and nuanced understanding of the environmental sustainability performance of FFs. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

A rapidly expanding body of entrepreneurship literature draws on signaling theory. Yet as the field grows, common understanding of the theory’s underlying constructs has become increasingly fuzzy and riddled with ambiguities. To establish a common ground for entrepreneurship scholars, we take stock of 172 articles in a systematic literature review and develop a taxonomy of signal constructs. In an effort to increase the clarity of signal constructs further, we apply this taxonomy to assess the signal constructs’ boundary conditions, relationships, and interplays with complementary theories in entrepreneurship contexts. Finally, we leverage the novel insights to identify promising opportunities for further theory-based developments in the field.

Entrepreneurship can be fulfilling and enhance wellbeing, but also highly stressful and diminish wellbeing. This meta-analytical review synthesizes 319 effect sizes from 94 studies and 82 countries to establish whether individuals derive greater wellbeing from working for themselves or for someone else. The answer is partly positive in favor of entrepreneurship but depends on the components of wellbeing under investigation (positive wellbeing or negative wellbeing/mental illbeing) and the institutional context (especially the rule of law). We contribute by developing the component view of wellbeing as an organizing framework and by advancing an institutional perspective to guide research on entrepreneurs’ wellbeing.

We explore how entrepreneurial passion’s effect size varies across measures and operationalizations. The role-based measure outperforms the dualistic measure on some outcomes but not on performance. The role-based measure’s IPF and IC dimensions are strongly correlated, and so are its three domains, putting its theoretical assumptions in question. Scholars often use it against the guidelines, although the obtained effect sizes do not drop. The dualistic measure is more effective when the original questions are used and when entrepreneurship-specific targets are mentioned. Yet, its focus is not positive feelings per se. The search for an ideal passion model should continue.

This meta-analysis of 142 studies from 36 countries examines how the institutional environment moderates the relationship between family involvement and firm performance. Specifically, we investigate performance differences between family and nonfamily firms while using property rights protection, institutional stability, and a country’s regime type as moderators. Our analysis shows that institutional stability serves as a decisive moderator of the relationship between family involvement and firm performance and that family firms outperform nonfamily firms in democracies and autocracies but not in anocracies. Based on these findings, we provide and discuss both practical recommendations for family firms and theoretical implications for institutional theory.

Initial public offerings (IPOs) have been a prominent focus of academic and popular press attention, especially in recent years. Much of this attention can be attributed to the increase in IPO activity as a function of the “dot com” phenomenon. Of particular interest to both academics and practitioners is IPO underpricing. Review of existing research suggests little consensus regarding those factors associated with underpricing. We provide a meta-analysis of published studies. Our findings reveal a number of significant relationships, many of which are opposite that predicted by signaling theory. Implications of these findings for practice and future research are discussed.

Researchers have been examining the effects of formal strategic planning on small firm financial performance for more than twenty years. Reviewers of prior studies have drawn differing conclusions as to whether formal planning improves small firm performance. We have applied meta-analysis for the first time to the results of previous studies on formal strategic planning and small firm performance. The results suggest that even though the size of the effects for planning for individual studies Is not large, the overall relationship between formal planning and performance across studies Is positive and significant. Much of the variance in the size of the effects, however, Is not explained by sampling error, Indicating the potential for other variables to moderate the effects of planning on the performance of small firms. It is concluded, in general, that strategic planning is a beneficial activity for small firms.