Behavioural Phenomena of Family Firm Control Diversity and R&D Investment with Moderating Role CEO Compensation

References

• De Massis A, Kotlar J, Chua JH, Chrisman JJ. Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family‐oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies. J Small Bus Manage. 2014;52(2):344–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, De Massis A, et al. The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. J Prod Innov Manage. 2015;32(3):310–318. doi:10.1111/jpim.12207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rau SB, Werner A, Schell S. Psychological ownership as a driving factor of innovation in older family firms. J Fam Bus Strat. 2018;10:100246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amit R, Ding Y, Villalonga B, Hua Z. The role of institutional development in the prevalence and value of family firms. In: Finance and Corporate Governance Conference; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Booltink LW, Saka-Helmhout A. The effects of R&D intensity and internationalization on the performance of non-high-tech SMEs. Int Small Bus J. 2018;36(1):81–103. doi:10.1177/0266242617707566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Vito J, Laurin C, Bozec Y. R&D activity in Canada: does corporate ownership structure matter? Can J Administr Sci. 2010;27(2):107–121. doi:10.1002/cjas.152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Mejía LR, Haynes KT, Núñez-Nickel M, et al. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Adm Sci Q. 2007;52(1):106–137. doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daily CM, Dollinger MJ. Family firms are different. Rev Bus. 1991;13(1–2):3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Górriz CG, Fumás VS. Ownership structure and firm performance: some empirical evidence from Spain. Manage Decis Econ. 1996;17(6):575–586. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1468(199611)17:6<575::AID-MDE778>3.0.CO;2-N
   Google Scholar
• Mishra CS, McConaughy DL. Founding family control and capital structure: the risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 1999;23(4):53–64. doi:10.1177/104225879902300404
   Google Scholar
• Morck R, Yeung B. Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2003;27(4):367–382. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00015
   Google Scholar
• Athanassiou N, Crittenden WF, Kelly LM, et al. Founder centrality effects on the Mexican family firm’s top management group: firm culture, strategic vision and goals, and firm performance. J World Bus. 2002;37(2):139–150. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(02)00073-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze WS, Lubatkin MH, Dino RN. Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Acad Manage J. 2003;46(2):179–194. doi:10.2307/30040613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Pearson AW, et al. Family involvement, family influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2012;36(2):267–293. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellweger TM, Nason RS, Nordqvist M. From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Fam Bus Rev. 2012;25(2):136–155. doi:10.1177/0894486511423531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC. Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management; 2007:334–343.
   Google Scholar
• Bozec Y, Di Vito J. Founder-controlled firms and R&D investments: new evidence from Canada. Fam Bus Rev. 2019;32(1):76–96. doi:10.1177/0894486518793237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiseman RM, Gomez-Mejia LR. A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Acad Manage Rev. 1998;23(1):133–153. doi:10.2307/259103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Q J Econ. 1995;110(1):73–92. doi:10.2307/2118511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellweger TM, Astrachan JH. On the emotional value of owning a firm. Fam Bus Rev. 2008;21(4):347–363. doi:10.1177/08944865080210040106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mejia LR, Nunez-Nickel M, Gutierrez I. The role of family ties in agency contracts. Acad Manage J. 2001;44(1):81–95. doi:10.2307/3069338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mejia LR, Larraza-Kintana M, Makri M. The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Acad Manage J. 2003;46(2):226–237. doi:10.2307/30040616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez‐Mejia LR, Makri M, Kintana ML. Diversification decisions in family‐controlled firms. J Manage Stud. 2010;47(2):223–252. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00889.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao S-M, Lin C-H, Chen VY. Family ownership as a moderator between R&D investments and CEO compensation. J Bus Res. 2015;68(3):599–606. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty RP, Zajac EJ. Managerial incentives, monitoring, and risk bearing: a study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. Adm Sci Q. 1994;39:313–335. doi:10.2307/2393238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larraza‐Kintana M, Wiseman RM, Gomez-Mejia LR, et al. Disentangling compensation and employment risks using the behavioral agency model. Strat Manage J. 2007;28(10):1001–1019. doi:10.1002/smj.624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders WG, Hambrick DC. Swinging for the fences: the effects of CEO stock options on company risk taking and performance. Acad Manage J. 2007;50(5):1055–1078. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27156438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alessandri TM, Tong TW, Reuer JJ. Firm heterogeneity in growth option value: the role of managerial incentives. Strat Manage J. 2012;33(13):1557–1566. doi:10.1002/smj.1992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter MA, Sanders WG. The effects of top management team pay and firm internationalization on MNC performance. J Manage. 2004;30(4):509–528. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alessandri TM, Mammen J, Eddleston K. Managerial incentives, myopic loss aversion, and firm risk: a comparison of family and non-family firms. J Bus Res. 2018;91:19–27. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoako-Adu B, Baulkaran V, Smith BF. Executive compensation in firms with concentrated control: the impact of dual class structure and family management. J Corporate Finance. 2011;17(5):1580–1594. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2011.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung Y-L, Stouraitis A, Wong AW. Ownership concentration and executive compensation in closely held firms: evidence from Hong Kong. J Empirical Finance. 2005;12(4):511–532. doi:10.1016/j.jempfin.2004.10.001
   Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S. Managerial Discretion: A Bridge Between Polar Views of Organizational Outcomes. Research in organizational behavior; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Morck R, Shleifer A, Vishny RW. Management ownership and market valuation: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ. 1988;20:293–315. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(88)90048-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amore MD, Failla V. Pay dispersion and executive behaviour: evidence from innovation. Br J Manage. 2018;31:487–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams JS. Inequity in Social Exchange, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier; 1965:267–299.
   Google Scholar
• Miller D, Le Breton‐Miller I, Lester RH. Family ownership and acquisition behavior in publicly‐traded companies. Strat Manage J. 2010;31(2):201–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller D, Le Breton‐Miller I, Lester RH. Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: social context, identity, and institutional logics. J Manage Stud. 2011;48(1):1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00896.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block JH. R&D investments in family and founder firms: an agency perspective. J Bus Vent. 2012;27(2):248–265. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepper A, Gore J. Behavioral agency theory: new foundations for theorizing about executive compensation. J Manage. 2015;41(4):1045–1068. doi:10.1177/0149206312461054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt JW, Zeckhauser R. Principals and agents: the structure of business. 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty RP, Zajac EJ. Top management incentives, monitoring, and risk-bearing: a study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. In: Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management; 1990:10510.
   Google Scholar
• Zajac EJ, Westphal JD. The costs and benefits of managerial incentives and monitoring in large US corporations: when is more not better? Strat Manage J. 1994;15(S1):121–142. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Rabin M. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton university press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Claessens S, Djankov S, Fan JPH, et al. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. J Finance. 2002;57(6):2741–2771. doi:10.1111/1540-6261.00511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block J. Long-Term Orientation of Family Firms: An Investigation of R&D Investments, Downsizing Practices, and Executive Pay. Springer Science & Business Media; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ. 1976;3(4):305–360. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brickley JA, Lease RC, Smith C. Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. J Financ Econ. 1988;20(1–2):267–291. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(88)90047-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munari F, Oriani R, Sobrero M. The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: a study of Western European firms. Res Policy. 2010;39(8):1093–1104. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrisman JJ, Patel PC. Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Acad Manage J. 2012;55(4):976–997. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RW. A survey of corporate governance. J Finance. 1997;52(2):737–783. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashwin A, Krishnan RT, George R. Family firms in India: family involvement, innovation and agency and stewardship behaviors. Asia Pacific J Manage. 2015;32(4):869–900. doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9440-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J-B, Krinsky I, Lee J. Institutional holdings and trading volume reactions to quarterly earnings announcements. J Account Audit Finance. 1997;12(1):1–14. doi:10.1177/0148558X9701200101
   Google Scholar
• Laverty KJ. Economic “short-termism”: the debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Acad Manage Rev. 1996;21(3):825–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirmon DG, Arregle J, Hitt MA, et al. The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2008;32(6):979–998. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00267.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedajlovic E, Carney M, Chrisman JJ, et al. The adolescence of family firm research: taking stock and planning for the future. J Manage. 2012;38(4):1010–1037. doi:10.1177/0149206311429990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang JS, Cole RA, Lin JW. Agency costs and ownership structure. J Finance. 2000;55(1):81–106. doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen MC. Agency problems and residual claims. J Law Econ. 1983;26(2):327–349. doi:10.1086/467038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RC, Mansi SA, Reeb DM. Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt. J Financ Econ. 2003;68(2):263–285. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00067-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart A. Help one another, use one another: toward an anthropology of family business. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2003;27(4):383–396. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.00016
   Google Scholar
• Becker GS. Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: economics and sociobiology. J Econ Lit. 1976;14(3):817–826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berghoff H. The end of family business? The Mittelstand and German capitalism in transition, 1949–2000. Bus Hist Rev. 2006;80(2):263–295. doi:10.1017/S0007680500035492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer WG, Whetten DA. Family firms and social responsibility: preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2006;30(6):785–802. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00151.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders WG. Behavioral responses of CEOs to stock ownership and stock option pay. Acad Manage J. 2001;44(3):477–492. doi:10.2307/3069365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan HE, Wiggins RA. The interactions between R&D investment decisions and compensation policy. Financial Manage. 2002;31:5–29. doi:10.2307/3666319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles JL, Daniel ND, Naveen L. Managerial incentives and risk-taking. J Financ Econ. 2006;79(2):431–468. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghafoor S, Wang M, Chen S, Zhang R, Zulfiqar M. Behavioural investigation of the impact of different types of CEOs on innovation in family firms: moderating role of ownership divergence between cash flow rights and voting rights. Econ Res. 2021;2021:1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Zulfiqar M, Zhang R, Khan N, et al. Behavior towards R&D investment of family firms CEOs: the role of psychological attribute. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2021;14:595. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S306443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Breton‐Miller I, Miller D. Socioemotional wealth across the family firm life cycle: a commentary on “family business survival and the role of boards”. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2013;37(6):1391–1397. doi:10.1111/etap.12072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block JH. How to pay nonfamily managers in large family firms: a principal agent model. Fam Bus Rev. 2011;24(1):9–27. doi:10.1177/0894486510394359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carney M. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family–controlled firms. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2005;29(3):249–265. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennedsen M, Nielsen KM, Perez-Gonzalez F, et al. Inside the family firm: the role of families in succession decisions and performance. Q J Econ. 2007;122(2):647–691. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.2.647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carney M, Zhao J, Zhu L. Lean innovation: family firm succession and patenting strategy in a dynamic institutional landscape. J Fam Bus Strat. 2019;10:100247. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kale JR, Shahrur H. Corporate capital structure and the characteristics of suppliers and customers. J Financ Econ. 2007;83(2):321–365. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez B, Requejo I. Does the type of family control affect the relationship between ownership structure and firm value? Int Rev Finance. 2017;17(1):135–146. doi:10.1111/irfi.12093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claessens S, Djankov S, Lang LH. The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. J Financ Econ. 2000;58(1–2):81–112. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alam MS, Atif M, Chien-Chi C, et al. Does corporate R&D investment affect firm environmental performance? Evidence from G-6 countries. Energy Econ. 2019;78:401–411. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.11.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honoré F, Munari F, de La Potterie BP. Corporate governance practices and companies’ R&D intensity: evidence from European countries. Res Policy. 2015;44(2):533–543. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C-J, Lin B-W, Lin Y-H, et al. Ownership structure, independent board members and innovation performance: a contingency perspective. J Bus Res. 2016;69(9):3371–3379. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wei Y, Song FM. Uncertainty and corporate R&D investment: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Int Rev Econ Finance. 2017;47:176–200. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2016.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diéguez-Soto J, Manzaneque M, González-García V, et al. A study of the moderating influence of R&D intensity on the family management-firm performance relationship: evidence from Spanish private manufacturing firms. Bus Res Quart. 2019;22(2):105–118. doi:10.1016/j.brq.2018.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang D, Chen J, Tripe D, et al. Family firms, sustainable innovation and financing cost: evidence from Chinese hi-tech small and medium-sized enterprises. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2019;144:499–511. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler BB, Caner T. New product introductions below aspirations, slack and R&D alliances: a behavioral perspective. Strat Manage J. 2016;37(5):896–910. doi:10.1002/smj.2367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang F, Jiang Z, Kim KA, et al. Family-firm risk-taking: does religion matter? J Corporate Finance. 2015;33:260–278. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song W-L, Wan K-M. Does CEO compensation reflect managerial ability or managerial power? Evidence from the compensation of powerful CEOs. J Corporate Finance. 2019;56:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czarnitzki D, Kraft K, Thorwarth S. The knowledge production of ‘R’and ‘D’. Econ Lett. 2009;105(1):141–143. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.06.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng X, Rui OM, Chen D, Lee J. How does quality of government moderate the influence of family firm governance on the R&D Intensity? The empirical research on Chinese listed family firms. The Empirical Research on Chinese Listed Family Firms (April 19, 2016). 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchini S, Krafft J, Quatraro F, Ravix J. Corporate Governance, Innovation and Firm Age: Insights and New Evidence. University of Turin; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Lim EN. The role of reference point in CEO restricted stock and its impact on R&D intensity in high‐technology firms. Strat Manage J. 2015;36(6):872–889. doi:10.1002/smj.2252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyden ML, Reimer M, Van Doorn S. Innovating beyond the horizon: CEO career horizon, top management composition, and R&D intensity. Hum Resour Manage. 2017;56(2):205–224. doi:10.1002/hrm.21730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao J, Cumming D, Wang X. One-child policy and family firms in China. J Corporate Finance. 2015;33:317–329. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claver E, Rienda L, Quer D. Family firms’ international commitment: the influence of family-related factors. Fam Bus Rev. 2009;22(2):125–135. doi:10.1177/0894486508330054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieto MJ, Santamaria L, Fernandez Z. Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(2):382–399. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu W. Family ownership and firm performance: influence of family management, family control, and firm size. Asia Pacific J Manage. 2011;28(4):833–851. doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9180-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zulfiqar M, Huo W, Wu S, et al. Behavioural psychology of unique family firms toward R&D investment in the digital era: the role of ownership discrepancy. Front Psychol. 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen VY, Tsao S-M, Chen G-Z. Founding family ownership and innovation. Asia-Pacific J Account Econ. 2013;20(4):429–456. doi:10.1080/16081625.2012.762971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prencipe A, Markarian G, Pozza L. Earnings management in family firms: evidence from R&D cost capitalization in Italy. Fam Bus Rev. 2008;21(1):71–88. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00112.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi YR, Zahra SA, Yoshikawa T, et al. Family ownership and R&D investment: the role of growth opportunities and business group membership. J Bus Res. 2015;68(5):1053–1061. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randolph RV, Alexander BN, Debicki BJ, et al. Untangling non-economic objectives in family & non-family SMEs: a goal systems approach. J Bus Res. 2019;98:317–327. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Massis A, Ding S, Kotlar J, et al. Family involvement and R&D expenses in the context of weak property rights protection: an examination of non-state-owned listed companies in China. Eur J Finance. 2018;24(16):1506–1527. doi:10.1080/1351847X.2016.1200994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debellis F, De Massis A, Petruzzelli AM, Frattini F, Del Giudice M. Strategic agility and international joint ventures: the willingness-ability paradox of family firms. J Int Manage. 2020;2020:100739.
   Google Scholar
• Prencipe A, Bar-Yosef S, Dekker HC. Accounting research in family firms: theoretical and empirical challenges. Eur Account Rev. 2014;23(3):361–385. doi:10.1080/09638180.2014.895621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao S-M, Chang Y-W, Koh K. Founding family ownership and myopic R&D investment behavior. J Account Audit Finance. 2019;34(3):361–384. doi:10.1177/0148558X17704084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daspit JJ, Chrisman JJ, Sharma P, Pearson AW, Mahto RV. Governance as a Source of Family Firm Heterogeneity. Elsevier; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Fang HC, Siau KL, Memili E, et al. Cognitive antecedents of family business bias in investment decisions: a commentary on “Risky decisions and the family firm bias: an experimental study based on prospect theory”. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2019;43(2):409–416. doi:10.1177/1042258718796073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RC, Reeb DM. Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500. J Finance. 2003;58(3):1301–1328. doi:10.1111/1540-6261.00567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Le Breton-Miller I, et al. Governance mechanisms and family firms. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2017;42(2):171–186. doi:10.1177/1042258717748650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozec Y, Di Vito J. Founder-controlled firms and R&D investments: new evidence from Canada. Fam Bus Rev. 2018;2018:894486518793237.
   Google Scholar
• Le Breton‐Miller I, Miller D. To grow or to harvest? Governance, strategy and performance in family and lone founder firms. J Strat Manage. 2008;1:41–56. doi:10.1108/17554250810909419
   Google Scholar
• Combs JG, Penney CR, Crook TR, et al. The impact of family representation on CEO compensation. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract. 2010;34(6):1125–1144. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00417.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diéguez-Soto J, Manzaneque M, Rojo-Ramírez AA. Technological innovation inputs, outputs, and performance: the moderating role of family involvement in management. Fam Bus Rev. 2016;29(3):327–346. doi:10.1177/0894486516646917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zulfiqar M, Hussain K, Yousaf MU, et al. Moderating role of CEO compensation in lean innovation strategies of Chinese listed family firms. Corporate Govern. 2020;20(5):887–902. doi:10.1108/CG-03-2019-0092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar