en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 12/2020 
Volume 28 
Issue 4

Intergenerational Familial Ambidexterity in Polish Family Firms

Piotr Preciuk
Kozminski University

Ewa Wilczyńska
Kozminski University

12/2020 28 (4) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.37

Abstract

Purpose: To explore how the predecessors and successors of Polish family businesses use and refine existing knowledge, identify knowledge deficiencies or absences, and create new knowledge during the working together stage.
Methodology/approach: The article builds on qualitative empirical material gathered in 2018 and 2019 with a problem-centered interview approach aiming to capture the complex and potentially diverging realities of both generations. Altogether, 48 preliminary interview questionnaires were completed and, subsequently, 46 interviews were conducted.
Findings: The study captured that the use of existing knowledge during the Working Together period is significantly supported by the fact that the old and young generation share several unarticulated beliefs, mental models, and behaviors. However, the identification of knowledge gaps and the creation of new knowledge are heavily hindered by the fear of confrontation and only declarative – instead of active – interest of the older generation in creating new knowledge.
Originality/value: The article bridges the gap between the literature on organizational ambidexterity and family business by empirically investigating the intergenerational dynamics of owners’ families regarding knowledge creation. Moreover, we introduce the concept of intergenerational familial ambidexterity.

References

  1. Auh, S., and Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bednarz, J., Bieliński, T., Nikodemska-Wołowik, A., and Otukoya, A. (2017). Sources of the competitive advantage of family enterprises: An international approach focusing on China, Nigeria and Poland. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2017.050207. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  4. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609751-1. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saá-Pérez, P., and García-Almeida, D. (2001). The Succession Process from a Resource- and Knowledge-Based View of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2001.00037.x. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cabrera-Suárez, M.K., García-Almeida, D. J., and De Saá-Pérez, P. (2018). A Dynamic Network Model of the Successor’s Knowledge Construction From the Resource- and Knowledge-Based View of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 31(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518776867. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chirico, F. (2008). The Creation, Sharing and Transfer of Knowledge in Family Business. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 21(4), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2008.10593433. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chirico, F. and Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms. The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal, 28(5), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610370402. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chirico, F. and Salvato, C. (2016). Knowledge Internalization and Product Development in Family Firms: When Relational and Affective Factors Matter. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40(1), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12114. [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cunningham, J., Seaman, C., and McGuire, D. (2017). Perceptions of Knowledge Sharing Among Small Family Firm Leaders: A Structural Equation Model. Family Business Review, 30(2), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516682667. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dou, J., Su, E. Li, S. and Holt, D.T. (2020). Transgenerational entrepreneurship in entrepreneurial families: what is explicitly learned and what is successfully transferred?, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1727090. [Google Scholar]
  13. Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: R.H. Killman, L.R. Pondy, and D. Sleven (eds.), The management of organization (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferrari, F. (2020). Organizational and Socio-Relational Factors Undermining Knowledge Sharing in Family SMEs. pp. 43–62. In: J.M. Palma-Ruiz, I. Barros, and L. Gnan (eds.), Handbook of Research on the Strategic Management of Family Businesses. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2269-1. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., McCollom Hampton, M., and Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to Generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibson, C.C.B., and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573 [Google Scholar]
  17. Habbershon, T.G., and Astrachan, J.H. (1997). Research note: Perceptions are reality: How family meetings lead to collective action. Family Business Review, 10(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00037.x. [Google Scholar]
  18. Habbershon, T.G., and Williams, M.L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00001.x. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hadryś-Nowak, A. (2018). Family entrepreneurship orientation in family owned SMEs: A key resource for internationalization? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 6(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2018.060208. [Google Scholar]
  20. Handler, W.C. (1989). Methodological Issues and Considerations in Studying Family Businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1989.00257.x. [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879001500105. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hatak, I.R. and Roessl, D. (2015). Relational Competence-Based Knowledge Transfer Within Intrafamily Succession: An Experimental Study. Family Business Review, 28(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513480386. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Hahn, K., and Jacobson, D. (2008). The low-tech issue. In H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, and D. Jacobson (Eds.), Innovation in low-tech firms and industries (pp. 3–22). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jeżak, J., Popczyk, W., and Winnicka-Popczyk, A. (2004). Przedsiębiorstwo rodzinne funkcjonowanie i rozwój. Warszawa: Difin. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kauppila, O. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. (1991). https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010387409. [Google Scholar]
  26. Klein, S.B. (2000). Family businesses in Germany: significance and structure. Family Business Review, 13(3), 157–181. [Google Scholar]
  27. Koładkiewicz, I. (2015). System nadzoru w firmie rodzinnej. Doświadczenia polskie i światowe. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext. [Google Scholar]
  28. Korine, H. (2017). Succession for Change. Strategic transitions in family and founder-led businesses. Cham: Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kowalewska, A., Szut, J., Małgorzata, B. L., Kwiatkowska, M., Sułkowski, Ł., Marjański, A., and Jaguszyński-Krynicki, T.J. (2009). Firmy rodzinne w polskiej gospodarce – szanse i wyzwania. Warszawa: PARP. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lansberg, I. (1999). Succeeding generations : realizing the dream of families in business, https://books.google.pl/books?id=QE2HCgAAQBAJandhl=plandsource=gbs_book_other_versions [Google Scholar]
  31. Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., and Steier, L. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 305–328. [Google Scholar]
  32. Leach, P. (2017). Firmy rodzinne. Wszystko, co istotne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Studio EMKA. [Google Scholar]
  33. Letonja, M. and Duh, M. (2015). Successors’ Innovativeness as a Crucial Succession Challenge of Family Businesses in Transition Economies: The Case of Slovenia”. In: L.-P. Dana, and V. Ramadani (eds.), Family Businesses in Transition Economies. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 57–174. [Google Scholar]
  34. Letonja, M. and Duh, M. (2016). Knowledge transfer in family businesses and its effects on the innovativeness of the next family generation. Knowledge Management Research and Practice. Nature Publishing Group, 14(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.25. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lubinski, C. (2011). Path dependency and governance in German family firms. Business History Review, 85(4), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680511001164. [Google Scholar]
  36. Malkki, L.H. (2007). Tradition and improvisation in ethnographic field research. In: A. Cerwonka, and L.H. Malkki (eds.), Improvising theory: Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork (pp. 162–187). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Marjański, A. and Sułkowski, Ł. (2019). The evolution of family entrepreneurship in Poland: Main findings based on surveys and interviews from 2009-2018. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070106. [Google Scholar]
  38. Marsh, I. A. (2018). If it so good to talk, why is it so hard. Rediscovering the power of conversation. UK: Matador. [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, A., Keller, A., and Fortwengel, J. (2019). Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017740262 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matthews, C.H., Moore, T.W., and Fialko, A.S. (1999). Succession in the family firm: A cognitive categorization perspective. Family Business Review, 12(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00159.x. [Google Scholar]
  41. May, P., and Bartels, P. (2017). Governance im Familienunternehmen: Das Handbuch für die erfolgreiche Führung von Familienunternehmen und Unternehmerfamilien (1st ed.). Köln: Bundesanzeiger Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  42. Miller, D., and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Muskat, B. and Zehrer, A. (2017). A power perspective on knowledge transfer in internal succession of small family businesses. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Taylor and Francis, 29(5), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1345208. [Google Scholar]
  44. Myers, M. D. (1997). Interpretive research in IS. In: J. Mingers and F. Stowell (eds.), Information systems: An emerging discipline (pp. 239–266). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  45. Myers M.D. (2013). Qualitative Research in Business and Management. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Reilly, C., and Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity : Past , Present and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025. [Google Scholar]
  47. Osnes, G. (2016). Family Capitalism: Best practices in ownership and leadership. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pacheco, L. (2019). Performance vs. Family ownership and management: The case of portuguese wine firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(3), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070301. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pearson, A.W., Carr, J.C., and Shaw, J.C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(6 SPEC. ISS.), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x. [Google Scholar]
  50. Poza, E., and Daugherty, M. (2014). Family Business (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sharma, P. (2004). An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2004.00001.x. [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith, W.K., and Tushman, M.L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stewart, A. (2014). The anthropology of family business: An imagined ideal. In: L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, and P. Sharma (eds.), SAGE handbook of family business (pp. 66–82). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  54. Stravrou, E., and Swiercz, P. (1998). Securing the future of the family enterprise: A model of offspring intentions to join the business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(2), 19–39. [Google Scholar]
  55. Surdej. A., and Wach, K. (2010). Przedsiębiorstwa rodzinne wobec wyzwań sukcesji. Warszawa: Difin. [Google Scholar]
  56. Turner, N., Swart, J., and Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vaismoradi, M., and Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3376. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, C. L., Senaratne, C. and Rafiq, M. (2015). Success traps, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12066. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wapshott, R. and Mallett, O. (2013). The unspoken side of mutual adjustment: Understanding intersubjective negotiation in small professional service firms. International Small Business Journal, 31(8), 978–996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612450728. [Google Scholar]
  60. Witzel, A. and Reiter, H. (2012). The Problem-centred Interview. Principles and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  61. Woodfield, P. and Husted, K. (2017). Intergenerational knowledge sharing in family firms: Case-based evidence from the New Zealand wine industry. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.01.001. [Google Scholar]
  62. Woodfield, P.J., Shepherd, D. and Woods, C. (2017). How can family winegrowing businesses be sustained across generations? International Journal of Wine Business Research, 29(2), pp. 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-12-2015-0052. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. In: L. Bickman and D.J. Rog (eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Intergenerational Familial Ambidexterity in Polish Family Firms. (2020). Intergenerational Familial Ambidexterity in Polish Family Firms. Central European Management Journal, 28(4), 107-133. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.37 (Original work published 12/2020AD)

MLA style

“Intergenerational Familial Ambidexterity In Polish Family Firms”. 12/2020AD. Central European Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, 2020, pp. 107-133.

Chicago style

“Intergenerational Familial Ambidexterity In Polish Family Firms”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 28, no. 4 (2020): 107-133. doi:10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.37.