|
荷兰assignment 演替过程中的隐性知识转移
如今,很多企业老板都退休了,并且不得不交出业务(KvK,2009)。由于荷兰人口的老龄化，预期未来几年这个数字将增加。预计在即将到来的这一年将出现18000起业务转移。四分之一的业务转移是发生在家族企业中, 具体的业务知识是家族企业的成功的关键因素, 隐性知识的转移不佳将导致企业的失败。当前的业务所有者和未来的业务所有者的个人关系对转移知识至关重要(Accountancynieuws,2008)。
本研究将探讨家族企业在哪些方面的知识更容易转移给家庭成员,以及这是否会导致一个家庭接班人的选择。
理论背景
对家族企业的定义
Flsren (1998)定义了一个家族企业的公司要满足一下的其中一个因素:(1)50%或更多的股票属于一个家庭;(2)一个家庭有重大的影响;(3)重要的管理委员会的成员来自一个家庭。
萨拉,海顿和萨尔瓦托(2004)将家族企业定义为至少一个家庭成员在公司的所有权占有一定的份额，并且几代人都在公司中追求领导地位。
Transfer Of Tacit Knowledge In The Succession Process Essay
Nowadays, a lot of business owners are retiring and have to hand over the business (KvK, 2009). Expectations are that this number will increase the next years due to the aging of the Dutch population. Expectations are that there will occur 18.000 business transfer in upcoming years. In a quarter of business transfers in family businesses, the crucial success factor of a family business, specific business knowledge, perish due to a suboptimal transfer of this implicit knowledge. A personal relationship between the current business owner and the prospective business owner is essential for transferring knowledge (Accountancynieuws, 2008).
This research investigates in what way knowledge in family firms is more easily transferred to family members, and whether this leads to the choice for a family successor.
Theoretical Background
Definition of family business
Fl?ren (1998) defines a company as a family business when it fulfills one of these factors: (1) 50% or more of the shares are owned by one family; (2) one family has major influence; and (3) a significant degree of the members of the management board are from one family.
Zahra, Hayton and Salvato (2004) defined family firms as the companies where at least one family member has a distinguishable share in ownership and where multiple generations pursue leadership positions within the firm. Most existing definitions of family business take ownership and management/control into account (Chua, Chrisman and Sharma, 1999). Chua et al. (1999) propose that a definition of family business must reflect the uniqueness of family businesses. This uniqueness is not reflected in ownership or control, but as scientific researchers believe, the family element moulds the company in a way that family members of executives in non-family firms cannot (Lansberg, 1983). To reflect the uniqueness of family business and to avoid excluding some family businesses because of a too narrow definition, Chua et al. (1999) define a family business as a business directed with the intention to mould and pursue the vision of the company by a small group of family in a way that is maintainable across family generations.
2.2 Succession process (voor- en nadelen van een familie-successor bespreken?)
As Chirico (2008) summarizes, commitment, psychological ownership, and family relationships are some of the most important factors facilitating the creation, sharing and transfer of knowledge in the succession process to a high degree.
The sharing of tacit knowledge is positively influenced by strong relationships between two generations of a family, because this positively influences the training and development of successors (Chirico, 2008).
Resource based theory for investigating family businesses
According to the resourced based view, the unique set of resources are the basis for a firm’s competitive advantage (Grant, 1991; Rangone, 1999). According to Aaker (1989) the assets and skills of a firm provide the foundation of a sustainable competitive advantage and long-term performance. The RBV states that the long-term competitiveness of a company depends on its endowment of resources that differentiate the firm from its competitors, that are durable and that are difficult to imitate and substitute (Grant, 1991; Rangone, 1999). So a firm may have strategic resources, but does not necessarily achieve a competitive advantage, because the firm has to use the strategic resources in a right way to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The resource based view does not consider all the resources a company possesses, but focuses only on critical or strategic resources (Rangone, 1999). Four categories of firm resources are: (1) physical capital resources (plant, raw materials); (2) human capital resources (skills, knowledge, relationship, training); (3) organizational capital resources (competencies, policies, culture, control, information, technology); and (4) process capital resources (knowledge, skills, disposition, and commitment to communication, leadership, and
the team) (Habbershon and Williams, 1999).
This resources are the basis of the sustainable competitive advantage of a company, and include: financial resources, physical assets, human resources, organizational resources, skills, know-how and competencies, brand and reputation (Rangone, 1999).
To determine if a resource is critical, a resource has to be competitive superior, inimitable, durable, appropriable and non-substitutable (Rangone, 1999). If a resource differentiates the firm from its competitors, it is competitive superior. Inimitablity means that it is difficult for competitors to imitate the resource. A durable resource means that the resource benefits the firm in the long-term. If a firm is getting the value created from the resource, the resource is appropriable. If a resource is non-substitutable, it is difficult to replace the resource with an alternative that gives the same advantages. A RBV analysis has to take into account the individual resources of as firm and after determining these, analyze the collaboration of these resources to create capabilities in order to create a competitive advantage (Grant, 1995).
Because family firms have been described before as unusually dynamic, complex, and in the possession of much intangible resources (Habbershon and Williams, 1999), the resource-based view is an appropriate method for analyzing family firms (Cabrera-Suárez, De Saá-Perez and García-Almeida, 2001).
Family business resources
Sirmon and Hitt (2003) qualify five unique characteristics, derived from the incorporation of the family in the firm:
Human capital: there are advantages and disadvantages of the dual relationships of family members. Disadvantages are that the acquirement of personnel can be difficult, because family firms have other requirements and other goals with acquiring personnel. Advantages are remarkably commitment, close relationships and the potential for firm specific tacit knowledge.
Social capital consist of three components: (1) structural component, consisting of network ties; (2) cognitive component, consisting of shared language and stories; and (3) relational component, based on norms, trust and commitment.
Survivability capital: due to the loyalty, strong ties and long-term commitment in family firms, family firms have the advantage of survivability capital, which a nonfamily firm has not. Survivability capital can help sustain the business, e.g. during the recent economic recession, in that the above mentioned factors makes all employees more willing to save the firm.
Patient capital: finance within a family company has positive and negative sides. Most family firms avoid sharing equity with nonfamily members, so they have limited sources of external financial capital. On the other hand, family firms have generally the incentive to exist for a long time, which creates patient capital, which is capital provided for the long term. This patient capital enables a firm to pursue more creative and innovative strategies.
Governance structure: the governance structure of family business will be more desirable because the lack of agency costs.
Productivity is another factor which is different in family versus non-family firms. Family members have been described as more productive than nonfamily employees, because more efficient communication and greater privacy in exchanging information is provided through the ‘family language’ (Habershon and Williams, 1999). If the current business owner and the successor are on the same communication level, the likelihood of effective succession increases (Dyck, Mauws, Starke and Mischke, , 2002).
Tagiuri and Davis (1996) mention the generation of unusual motivation, powerful loyalties and a high level of trust as a result of family relationships.
As an example of the advantage of family companies, Swinth and Vinton (1993) mention that shared family values across cultures endure cultural barriers more effectively.#p#分页标题#e#
Zahra et al. (2004) state that organizational culture is an important strategic resource a firm can use to obtain a competitive advantage. Family firm cultures are difficult for rivals to imitate because of the ambiguity about their origins and their roots in family history and dynamics, which makes culture of more strategic significance for family firms than for non-family firms. The unique set of resources and capabilities of a family business are difficult to imitate for competitors, because they are the result of family involvement (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). Taking agency theory and transaction cost economics into account, family firms possess also advantages over nonfamily firms. As Habberson and Williams (1999) mention, more efficient organizational processes, as a distinctive characteristic of family businesses, reduce agency costs and gives family firms a competitive advantage. A high level of trust in family businesses, compared with non family business, leads to a decrease in transaction costs (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). This can be explained by the fact that a shared history and personal ‘family-language’ (Tagiuri and Davis, 1996) leads to more efficient communication.
The unique resources family firms posses are described as the “familiness” of the ?rm (Cabrera-Suarez, De Saa-Perez, and Garcia-Almeida, 2001; Habbershon & Williams, 1999). Familiness is defined as the unique set of resources a particular firm has because of the systems interaction between the family, the individual employees, and the business (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). Tokarczyk, Hansen, Green and Down (2007) propose that familiness plays a positive and important role in the long-term financial success of family businesses. Divergent qualities and resources of family businesses favour a market-oriented culture, which has been associated to have a positive influence on the performance of a firm (Tokarczyk et al., 2007).
The specific knowledge of a family firm and the ability to transfer this knowledge are a key to a competitive advantage and is associated in a positive sense with a higher level of performance (Chirico, 2008).
Transfer of tacit knowledge
The key of the knowledge-based theory is that knowledge is the most fundamental asset of the firm where all other resources are dependent upon (Grant, 1996). The RBV sees firms as heterogeneous and the idiosyncratic, immobile, inimitable, and sometimes intangible bundle of resources present in the firm gives the firm an opportunity for competitive advantage and superior performance (Rangone, 1999).
Grant (1996) defines tacit knowledge as ‘knowing how’ as the contrary of explicit knowledge, which deals with ‘knowing about’. Tacit knowledge is stored within individuals and can only be communicated when individuals possess shared understanding (Grant, 1996).
Transferability and transfer mechanisms distinguish tacit from explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is easily communicated through marginal costs, whereas tacit knowledge can only be observed through its utilization and achieved through practice, which is costly, slow, and uncertain (Grant, 1996). Chirico (2008) describes tacit knowledge as the ability to apply the accumulated explicit knowledge through the experience gained. Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) describe tacit knowledge as unique, imperfect moveable, imperfect imitable and non-substitutable and propose that tacit skills is a better term than tacit knowledge. So, tacit knowledge is difficult to define and can only be transferred through utilization and experience. Which makes tacit knowledge a powerful tool for deeper firm specific knowledge for family firms than for non family firms (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003).
Tacit knowledge captures a central role within an organization (Chirico, 2008).
Sirmon and Hitt (2003) propose that human and patient capital makes family firms more capable of bundling and leveraging resources, if they have developed heterogeneous and deep managerial tacit knowledge.
The possibility to transfer the resources and capabilities of a firm is a critical determinant for a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1986). As Grant (1996) mentions, transferability of knowledge is important between firms, but, more important, within a firm.
However, tacit knowledge is hard to transfer, because it is invisible and very personal. It is a complex and a lengthy process to share or transfer it, and requires observation, face-to-face interaction and exhaustive personal contact (Chirico, 2008).
Transfer of tacit knowledge in family business
Tacit knowledge is needed for integrating, coordinating and mobilizing the unique family- resources and capabilities in a successful way (Grant, 1991). To achieve a competitive advantage, the family firm has to ascertain and manage the family resources. To do this, tacit knowledge is important, because information about the resources of the family firm are frequently in the mind of the family business founder (Cabrera-Suárez, De Saá-Perez and García-Almeida, 2001). This leads to the question how to transfer this tacit knowledge in the succession process.
The transfer of tacit knowledge in family business is different than that in non-family businesses. The emotional involvement, the same history and the use of personal language enhance communication between family members, which allows them to exchange knowledge more efficiently and in a private setting compared to non-family businesses (Tagiuri and Davis, 1996). This is especially true for tacit knowledge (Chirico, 2008). Tacit knowledge is usually hard to exchange, because it needs to be acquired through practice and observation (Grant, 1996b), but shared understanding between actions facilitates the sharing and transfer of tacit knowledge (Chirico, 2008). Intense family relationships ties facilitates face-to-face interactions (Chirico, 2008). Family firms are often reflected as having a high level of trust, which increases the level of openness and the opportunities for creating, sharing and transferring tacit knowledge (Chirico, 2008). Trust also decrease transaction costs (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). Thereby, trust between the current business owner and the successor increases the likelihood of effective succession (Dyck et al., 2002).
Another important feature of the family business is that family members identify themselves with the family business, feeling that the business is an extension of themselves. This leads to the accumulation of knowledge across generations, and a strong emotional sympathy towards the business. Chirico (2008) concludes that knowledge accumulation is seen as an coexistence enabler in family business, with learning beginning in the family and continuing within and outside the company. Knowledge accumulation in family firms is different than in non-family firms, because of emotional factors, like trust and commitment, and openness factors, positively influencing obtaining knowledge from outside the company.
A high degree of tacit knowledge, makes it very difficult to transfer it from one to another (Cavusgil, Calantone and Zhao, 2003). The transmission of tacit knowledge is very difficult and only possible by utilization it in practice by a continuous and direct contact of the successor with the current business owner (Cabrera-Suárez, De Saá-Perez and García-Almeida, 2001). The unique bundle of resources of a family have to be maintained after the succession to maintain the competitive advantage from this family resources (Cabrera-Suárez, De Saá-Perez and García-Almeida, 2001). The importance of the family-aspect of the resources could make the founders’ sons and daughters more suitable candidates when selecting a successor, because they have a head start in contrast to a non-family member. Moreover, the possibility of the son or daughter to ask the parent on advice when he is retired is another advantage of choosing for a son or daughter.
Bjuggren and Sund (1998) point towards advantages based on idiosyncratic knowledge of a family character as the main motive for intergenerational succession. This knowledge can be more easily transferred to the next generation within a family. In their article of 2001, they state that a family member has a relative high degree of loyalty towards the family, the firm and the local community than a non-family member, which makes succession within the family favourable for a family business.
Conceptual model
Research question: In what way is tacit knowledge in family firms more easily transferred to family members, and does this lead to a family successor?
Research question in onderzoeksvoorstel:
In what way is tacit knowledge in family firms more easily transferred to family successors?
Familie language, the same history, a high level of trust, commitment and psychological ownership are factors facilitating the transfer of tacit knowledge in family firms.
All these factors have an influence on the level of tacit knowledge en the difficulty for other firms/persons to acquire the tacit knowledge. A high level of tacit knowledge due to ‘familiness’ factors, leads to a higher possibility of family succession, because it will be easier to acquire the tacit knowledge of ‘familiness’ factors for a family successor than for a nonfamily successor.#p#分页标题#e#
Family factors
‘Family language’
+
+
Same history
High possibility of family successor
Easier transfer of
Tacit Knowledge
+
Trust
+
Commitment
+
Psychological ownership/ emotional sympathy
Proposed hypotheses:
H1: The more the existence/use of a ‘family language’ in a firm, the harder it is to transfer tacit knowledge to a non family successor.
H2: A high embedded shared history of the family embedded in the family firm, leads to more difficulties in transferring tacit knowledge to a non family member.
H3: Family relationships facilitates a high level of trust, leading to an easier transfer of tacit knowledge to a family member.
H4: Commitment of family members leads to an easier transfer of tacit knowledge.
H5: Emotional sympathy of a family member facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge.
H6: A high degree of all the factors mentioned above increase the tacitness of knowledge, and makes it very hard to transfer the tacit knowledge to a non-family member, leading to a high possibility of the choice of a family successor in case of business transfer.
Research method
For selecting three family businesses, the definition of family business of Chua et al. (1999) will be used. This means that family business would not be selected on the basis of ownership or control, but by how the family members use their involvement to pursue the family’s vision. So a firm with family members owning 49% of the shares can be selected, when these family members use their involvement to pursue the family’s vision, in spite of the fact that the majority of shares are in the possession of non-family members.
For selecting three non-family businesses, the firm’s vision is not directed to a specific family vision.
Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) point towards the difficulties in investigating tacit knowledge, because tacit knowledge cannot be readily articulated by individuals, which makes surveys and structured interviews a less appropriate research instrument to use in this paper.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
