Technology Acquisition in Family and Nonfamily Firms: A Longitudinal Analysis of Spanish Manufacturing Firms

Technology acquisition from external sources has been identified as a critical competence for sustained success in innovation, and research has paid a good deal of attention to studying its advantages, drawbacks, determinants, and outcomes. Traditionally, research has modeled the choice to acquire technology from outside a firm's boundaries as the result of a trade-off between the benefits of external acquisition (e.g., higher return on investment, lower costs, increased flexibility, access to specialized skill sets, and creativity) and its drawbacks (e.g., opening the market to new entrants, risk of imitation of core competencies, and reduced value appropriability). Yet, this view does not capture the behavioral considerations that may potentially encourage or discourage managers from sourcing technology outside the firm's boundaries. This behavioral aspect is especially important if one wants to understand the conduct in external technology acquisition of family firms, which are found to favor strategic actions that preserve the controlling families' control and authority over business, even at the cost of giving up potential economic benefits. Thus, external technology acquisition is likely to be interpreted differently in family and nonfamily firms. Despite its importance, how the involvement of a controlling family affects decisions in technology and innovation management and specifically external technology acquisition is an overlooked topic in extant research and requires further theoretical and empirical examination. This study attempts to fill these gaps by extending the tenets of the behavioral agency model and prior research pointing to particularistic decision-making in family firms to uncover the behavioral drivers of external technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms. Theory is developed that relates performance risk, family management, and the contingent effect of the degree of technology protection on external technology acquisition, and the hypotheses are tested with longitudinal data on 1540 private Spanish manufacturing firms. The analyses show that managers are more likely to acquire technology from external sources through research and development contracting when firm performance falls below managers' aspirations. Family firms are generally more reluctant to acquire external technology, and the effect of negative aspiration performance gaps becomes less relevant as family management is higher, which is attributed to family managers' attempts to avoid losing control over the trajectory that technology follows over time. However, family firms become more favorable to considering the adoption of an open approach to technology development when some protection mechanisms (specifically, the filing of patents on the firm proprietary technologies) increase the managers' perceptions of control over the technology trajectory. As such, this study makes a contribution to the understanding of the behavioral factors driving external technology acquisition, and it offers important insights regarding technology strategy in family firms.

[1]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  Variations in R&D Investments of Family and Nonfamily Firms: Behavioral Agency and Myopic Loss Aversion Perspectives , 2012 .

[2]  O. Williamson Transaction Cost Economics: How It Works; Where It is Headed , 1998 .

[3]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Swimming with Sharks: Technology Ventures, Defense Mechanisms and Corporate Relationships , 2008 .

[4]  J. Block,et al.  R&D Investments in Family and Founder Firms: An Agency Perspective , 2012 .

[5]  H. White A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[6]  H. Demsetz,et al.  The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences , 1985, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  J. Cantwell,et al.  Creating Competition? Globalisation and the Emergence of New Technology Producers , 2005 .

[8]  Khaleel Malik,et al.  The Growth and Management of R&D Outsourcing: Evidence from UK Pharmaceuticals , 2008 .

[9]  V. Chiesa,et al.  Organizing for technological collaborations: a managerial perspective , 1998 .

[10]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[11]  D. Gann,et al.  How open is innovation , 2010 .

[12]  U. Lichtenthaler OpenInnovation:rentDebates,andFutureDirections , 2011 .

[13]  Theresa K. Lant,et al.  Aspiration Level Adaptation: An Empirical Exploration , 1992 .

[14]  Alfredo Vittorio De Massis,et al.  Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms : an empirically grounded theoretical framework , 2012 .

[15]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  Performance Feedback, Slack, and The Timing of Acquisitions , 2008 .

[16]  Marianna Makri,et al.  Diversification Decisions in Family-Controlled Firms , 2010 .

[17]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[18]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[19]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  A Behavioral Agency Model of Managerial Risk Taking , 1998 .

[20]  Kevin J. Boudreau,et al.  Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[21]  Barbara Dunn,et al.  Family Enterprises in the UK: A Special Sector? , 1996 .

[22]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  Drivers of Outsourced Innovation: An Exploratory Study* , 2007 .

[23]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[24]  G. Pisano The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[25]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Defining the Family Business by Behavior , 1999 .

[26]  Jong de Jpj,et al.  Open innovation in SMEs : trends, motives and management challenges , 2009 .

[27]  E. Johnsen Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[28]  H. Thomas,et al.  Toward a Contingency Model of Strategic Risk Taking , 1985 .

[29]  Robert G. Donnelley The Family Business , 1988 .

[30]  Joe Tidd,et al.  Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning , 1997 .

[31]  Joel West,et al.  How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies , 2003 .

[32]  Hsiang-Lan Chen,et al.  Family Ownership, Board Independence, and R&D Investment , 2009 .

[33]  K. Scott Swan,et al.  A Product and Process Model of the Technology-Sourcing Decision , 2003 .

[34]  W. Vanhaverbeke,et al.  Choosing Governance Modes for External Technology Sourcing , 2006 .

[35]  Ramon Casadesus-Masanell,et al.  Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence , 2010 .

[36]  U. Lichtenthaler,et al.  Research on Technological Innovation in Family Firms , 2013 .

[37]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  The Determinants of Executive Compensation in Family-Controlled Public Corporations , 2003 .

[38]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms , 2003 .

[39]  Allison W. Pearson,et al.  Family Involvement, Family Influence, and Family–Centered Non–Economic Goals in Small Firms , 2012 .

[40]  Ronald C. Anderson,et al.  Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500 , 2003 .

[41]  A. Gambardella,et al.  The Market for Patents in Europe , 2006 .

[42]  M. K. D. Vries,et al.  Top Executive Locus of Control and Its Relationship to Strategy-Making, Structure, and Environment , 1982 .

[43]  I. Ajzen Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. , 2002 .

[44]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[45]  Ulrich Kaiser,et al.  Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing , 2010 .

[46]  Josip Kotlar,et al.  Goal Setting in Family Firms: Goal Diversity, Social Interactions, and Collective Commitment to Family–Centered Goals , 2013 .

[47]  Deb Chatterji,et al.  Accessing External Sources of Technology , 1996 .

[48]  F. J. Forcadell,et al.  Related diversification and R&D intensity dynamics , 2010 .

[49]  Jean O. Lanjouw,et al.  Patent Protection in the Shadow of Infringement: Simulation Estimations of Patent Value , 1998 .

[50]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Ability and Willingness as Sufficiency Conditions for Family‐Oriented Particularistic Behavior: Implications for Theory and Empirical Studies , 2014 .

[51]  D. Hambrick,et al.  Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers , 1984 .

[52]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change , 2005 .

[53]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[54]  Luis R. Gomez-Mejia,et al.  Perceptions of Benevolence and the Design of Agency Contracts: CEO-TMT Relationships in Family Firms , 2010 .

[55]  J. Astrachan,et al.  Family Businesses’ Contribution to the U.S. Economy: A Closer Look , 2003 .

[56]  G. Dosi Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[57]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[58]  Florencio López‐de‐Silanes,et al.  Corporate Ownership Around the World , 1998 .

[59]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[60]  Federico Frattini,et al.  Product Innovation in Family versus Nonfamily Firms: An Exploratory Analysis , 2015 .

[61]  P. Bromiley Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance , 1991 .

[62]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills , 2007 .

[63]  Markus C. Becker,et al.  The Limits of Design and Engineering Outsourcing: Performance Integration and the Unfulfilled Promises of Modularity , 2010 .