IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00192809.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Organizational Learning and Knowledge Development Peculiarities in Small and Medium Family Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Sami Basly

    (IRGO - Institut de Recherche en Gestion des Organisations - Université Montesquieu - Bordeaux 4 - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises (IAE) - Bordeaux)

Abstract

The aim of this theoretical contribution is to analyze the processes of organizational learning and knowledge development within the small and medium sized family firm. Due to its founding characteristics, family SME seems to be a closed, hermetic and rigid organization. Besides, the specificity of mechanisms of learning and knowledge management, in general, within this entity are justified by:- First, the overlapping of "family" and "company" spheres: the family sphere realizes a unique contribution because it constitutes a supplementary source of knowledge inbound to the company compared to a firm without family involvement, - Then, the frequency of the exchanges within the organization: the processes of exchange of piece of information and knowledge take place not only in the organizational context but also and especially in the family context. The family meetings constitute, for example, supplementary occasions for exchange and sharing of knowledge.Schematically, two major characters inherent to this entity constitute obstacles to organizational learning. Indeed, conservatism and independence orientation strongly influence the processes of learning and knowledge development.The literature suggests that the family system attempts to create and maintain a cohesiveness that supports the family "paradigm" which is described as the core assumptions, beliefs, and convictions that the family holds in relation to its environment. Information that is not consistent with this paradigm is resisted or ignored (Davis, 1983). The search for security, conformism and tradition are characteristic of conservative organizations. Particularly to the family firm, the conservative posture could be studied through three dimensions (Miller and ali., 2003). First, on the governance level, the conservatism is exhibited by the plateauing and the growing rigidity of the owner-manager and by the inefficacy of the board of directors. Second, on the strategy level, conservative family SME favorites its actual markets, customers and products and globally is unwilling to change and adopt new paradigms. Then, on the organizational and cultural levels, this entity tends to be closed and introvert. These three components have an impact on knowledge development as the conservatism tends to limit the variation and the exposition to new environments. In short, within this entity the level of organizational knowledge would be weak.The second variable influencing the processes of development of knowledge within family SME is the independence orientation. This orientation is a consequence of the family long-term commitment to the business. Paradoxically, this commitment has two contradictory effects on growth. First, it implies the pursuit of future development and continuity of the firm to make sure that the family heritage is passed on to the following generations. On the other hand, commitment implies a strategy of conservation of the heritage which passes by a strong seek for the independence. Aiming to guarantee its continuity, the (small and medium-sized) family firm establishes an independence orientation of three different types. First, from the financial point of view, it avoids as much as possible turning to outside partners (Hirigoyen, 1985). Then, on the human plan, it would be favorable to the appointment of family members or individuals belonging to the close relational circle to the posts of direction and would be reluctant to the recruitment of professional directors. Finally, to maintain the decision-making in hands of the family, the family firm tends to avoid the inter-organizational relations, cooperative investments, and tries to limit the sharing of the control of its investments. The contribution of outsiders (financiers, directors or partner organizations) can, however, be precious to the company. And the introversion would be a major obstacle to the perpetuity of the firm because it inhibits growth. As a consequence, independence orientation limits the accumulation of knowledge because, on one hand, the horizons of the company will be limited and little varied, and on the other hand, the potential valuable knowledge contribution of outsiders is excluded.The study of these variables raises questions about the efficacy of the organizational memory within the family firm. This organization runs particular risks because of the peculiarity of its knowledge management mechanisms. Because of its founding natural characteristics, the family firm nurtures mechanisms which reinforce the causal ambiguity (Nelson and Winter, 1982) by strengthening the voluntary effort to avoid either a too fast imitation or the loss of knowledge-based resources if the individual or the group holding it leaves the organization (Arrégle, 1995). In short, family firms show an inclination to concentrate the processes of knowledge management around its tacit dimension by encouraging its formation contrarily to the explicit component. However the weak externalization of knowledge coupled with the avoidance of sharing outside the family causes serious risks. First, an obvious risk of deterioration is present because of the weak importance of the organizational protection mechanisms and the strong reliance on individual memory. Moreover, we suggest a risk of erosion of knowledge due to the fragmentation caused by successions that do not preserve the unity of the firm. There is risk of "fragmentation" of the strategic knowledge if the company is shared between the potential successors. This risk would be less pronounced if a prior sharing of knowledge with outside directors had been engaged.Another particularity of family firms is about the intergenerational transmission and transfer of knowledge (Cabrera-Suarez and ali., 2001). Mechanisms inciting to intergenerational transfer of knowledge must be set up because of the negative impact of conservatism and independence on organizational knowledge and due to the fragility of family firm organizational memory.

Suggested Citation

  • Sami Basly, 2007. "Organizational Learning and Knowledge Development Peculiarities in Small and Medium Family Enterprises," Post-Print halshs-00192809, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00192809
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00192809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00192809/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Lubatkin & William S. Schulze & N Dino Richard, 2003. "Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms," Post-Print hal-02311676, HAL.
    2. Michael Lubatkin & William S. Schulze & Richard N. Dino, 2003. "Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms," Post-Print hal-02276698, HAL.
    3. Paul Shrivastava, 1983. "A Typology Of Organizational Learning Systems," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 7-28, January.
    4. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicholas S., 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 187-221, June.
    5. Kuran, Timur, 1988. "The tenacious past: Theories of personal and collective conservatism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 143-171, September.
    6. Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have InformationThat Investors Do Not Have," NBER Working Papers 1396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Miller, Danny & Steier, Lloyd & Le Breton-Miller, Isabelle, 2003. "Lost in time: intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 513-531, July.
    8. Gérard Charreaux, 2002. "Variation sur le thème:"À la recherche de nouvelles fondations pour la finance et la gouvernance d'entreprise"," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(3), pages 5-68, September.
    9. William S. Schulze & Michael H. Lubatkin & Richard N. Dino & Ann K. Buchholtz, 2001. "Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 99-116, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sami Basly, 2005. "Internationalization of family firms in a knowledge-based view," Post-Print halshs-00168486, HAL.
    2. Hicheon Kim & Heechun Kim & Peggy M. Lee, 2008. "Ownership Structure and the Relationship Between Financial Slack and R&D Investments: Evidence from Korean Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 404-418, June.
    3. Sami Basly, 2006. "Propriété, décision et stratégie de l'entreprise familiale : Une analyse théorique," Post-Print halshs-00192818, HAL.
    4. Silvia Bacci & Alessandro Cirillo & Donata Mussolino & Simone Terzani, 2018. "The influence of family ownership dispersion on debt level in privately held firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 557-576, October.
    5. Chan-Jane Lin & Tawei Wang & Chao-Jung Pan, 2016. "Financial reporting quality and investment decisions for family firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 499-532, June.
    6. Alessandro Minichilli & Mattias Nordqvist & Guido Corbetta & Mario Daniele Amore, 2014. "CEO Succession Mechanisms, Organizational Context, and Performance: A Socio-Emotional Wealth Perspective on Family-Controlled Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1153-1179, November.
    7. Annalisa Croce & José Martí, 2017. "Financial constraints in family firms and the role of venture capital," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(1), pages 119-144, March.
    8. Muhammad Sadiq Shahid & Razaz Houssien Felimban & Khawar Naheed & Usman Aleem & Shaiza Nawaz, 2018. "Ownership Structures, Investors Confidence And Financial Decisions In Family Firms: Evidence From Gcc Markets," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 14(1), pages 14-15.
    9. Muhammad Sadiq Shahid & Razaz Houssien Felimban & Khawar Naheed & Usman Aleem & Shaiza Nawaz, 2018. "Ownership Structures, Investors Confidence And Financial Decisions In Family Firms: Evidence From Gcc Markets," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 14(1), pages 52-68.
    10. César Camisón & José Antonio Clemente & Sergio Camisón-Haba, 2022. "Asset tangibility, information asymmetries and intangibles as determinants of family firms leverage," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2047-2082, October.
    11. González, Maximiliano & Guzmán, Alexander & Pombo, Carlos & Trujillo, María-Andrea, 2013. "Family firms and debt: Risk aversion versus risk of losing control," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2308-2320.
    12. Miguel Angel Acedo-Ramirez & Juan Carlos Ayala Calvo & Ernesto Navarrete-Martinez, 2017. "Determinants of Capital Structure: Family Businesses versus Non-Family Firms," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 67(2), pages 80-103, April.
    13. Basly Sami, 2015. "Family Involvement in the Firm and Exports in the Family SME: Is the Manager’s International Orientation Influential?," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 7(3), pages 69-99, September.
    14. Stefania Migliori & Fabrizio Maturo & Francesco Paolone, 2018. "Capital Structure Determinants in Family Firms: An Empirical Analysis in Context of Crisis," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(4), pages 65-83, April.
    15. Vincent Molly & Eddy Laveren & Ann Jorissen, 2012. "Intergenerational Differences in Family Firms: Impact on Capital Structure and Growth Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(4), pages 703-725, July.
    16. Binz Astrachan, Claudia & Astrachan, Joseph H. & Kotlar, Josip & Michiels, Anneleen, 2021. "Addressing the theory-practice divide in family business research: The case of shareholder agreements," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    17. González, Maximiliano & Guzmán, Alexander & Pombo, Carlos & Trujillo, María-Andrea, 2012. "Family firms and financial performance: The cost of growing," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 626-649.
    18. Antonia Schickinger & Alexandra Bertschi-Michel & Max P. Leitterstorf & Nadine Kammerlander, 2022. "Same same, but different: capital structures in single family offices compared with private equity firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 1407-1425, March.
    19. Block, Joern H., 2012. "R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 248-265.
    20. Amarjit Gill & Craig Wilson, 2021. "Bank connections and small business performance: Evidence from Canadian survey data," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 5110-5134, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00192809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.