Journal of Management Studies

Scholars in management and economics widely share the assumption that business firms focus on profits only, while it is the task of the state system to provide public goods. In this view business firms are conceived of as economic actors, and governments and their state agencies are considered the only political actors. We suggest that, under the conditions of globalization, the strict division of labour between private business and nation‐state governance does not hold any more. Many business firms have started to assume social and political responsibilities that go beyond legal requirements and fill the regulatory vacuum in global governance. Our review of the literature shows that there are a growing number of publications from various disciplines that propose a politicized concept of corporate social responsibility. We consider the implications of this new perspective for theorizing about the business firm, governance, and democracy.

ABSTRACTThis review and introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Strategy Research in Emerging Economies’ considers the nature of theoretical contributions thus far on strategy in emerging economies. We classify the research through four strategic options: (1) firms from developed economies entering emerging economies; (2) domestic firms competing within emerging economies; (3) firms from emerging economies entering other emerging economies; and (4) firms from emerging economies entering developed economies. Among the four perspectives examined (institutional theory, transaction cost theory, resource‐based theory, and agency theory), the most dominant seems to be institutional theory. Most existing studies that make a contribution blend institutional theory with one of the other three perspectives, including seven out of the eight papers included in this Special Issue. We suggest a future research agenda based around the four strategies and four theoretical perspectives. Given the relative emphasis of research so far on the first and second strategic options, we believe that there is growing scope for research that addresses the third and fourth.

abstract  We develop and extend social capital theory by exploring the creation of organizational social capital within a highly pervasive, yet often overlooked organizational form: family firms. We argue that family firms are unique in that, although they work as a single entity, at least two forms of social capital coexist: the family's and the firm's. We investigate mechanisms that link a family's social capital to the creation of the family firm's social capital and examine how factors underlying the family's social capital affect this creation. Moreover, we identify contingency dimensions that affect these relationships and the potential risks associated with family social capital. Finally, we suggest these insights are generalizable to several other types of organizations with similar characteristics.

abstract  Research on organizational knowledge transfer is burgeoning, and yet our understanding of its antecedents and consequences remains rather unclear. Although conceptual and qualitative reviews of the organizational knowledge transfer literature have emerged, no study has attempted to summarize previous quantitative empirical findings. As a first step towards that goal, we use meta‐analytic techniques to examine how knowledge, organization and network level antecedents differentially impact organizational knowledge transfer. Additionally, we consolidate research on the relationship between knowledge transfer and its consequences. We also demonstrate how the intra‐ and inter‐organizational context, the directionality of knowledge transfers, and measurement characteristics moderate the relationships studied. By aggregating and consolidating existing research, our study not only reveals new insights into the levers and outcomes of organizational knowledge transfer, but also provides meaningful directions for future research.

We merge research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and dynamic capabilities to arrive at an integrative perspective, which considers knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm's boundaries. By complementing the concept of absorptive capacity, we advance towards a capability‐based framework for open innovation processes. We identify the following six ‘knowledge capacities’ as a firm's critical capabilities of managing internal and external knowledge in open innovation processes: inventive, absorptive, transformative, connective, innovative, and desorptive capacity. ‘Knowledge management capacity’ is a dynamic capability, which reconfigures and realigns the knowledge capacities. It refers to a firm's ability to successfully manage its knowledge base over time. The concept may be regarded as a framework for open innovation, as a complement to absorptive capacity, and as a move towards understanding dynamic capabilities for managing knowledge. On this basis, it contributes to explaining interfirm heterogeneity in knowledge and alliance strategies, organizational boundaries, and innovation performance.

This paper synthesizes research on the organizational learning phenomenon. The concept of organizational learning systems is proposed and developed. Learning systems are the mechanisms by which learning is perpetuated and institutionalized in organizations. Findings from an exploratory study of organizational learning are used as a basis for developing a typology of organizational learning systems.

abstract  Two major perspectives can be construed in the literature concerning the nature of family owned businesses (FOBs). The first implies that these enterprises have unique characteristics of stewardship. FOB owners are said to care deeply about the long‐term prospects of the business, in large part because their family's fortune, reputation and future are at stake. Their stewardship is said to be manifested by unusual devotion to the continuity of the company, by more assiduous nurturing of a community of employees, and by seeking out closer connections with customers to sustain the business. The second perspective is less flattering. It proposes that FOBs are unusually subject to stagnation: they are said to face unique resource restrictions, embrace conservative strategies, eschew growth, and be doomed to short lives. This paper develops and examines the merits of the two perspectives, neither of which has been systematically articulated or researched. It does so in an empirical study of only small firms that are owned and managed by their founder. Within this sample, it compares firms that are FOBs, that is, family owned and managed, with non‐FOBs, that is, owned and managed by a founder with no other relative involved in the business. The findings show significant support for all three aspects of the stewardship perspective of FOBs, and no support for any elements of the stagnation perspective.