Résumés
Résumé
Les entreprises familiales (EF) sont réputées prendre un soin particulier de leurs employés, avec l’objectif de créer une « communauté » interne très soudée. Leurs relations et contacts avec leurs partenaires extérieurs seraient aussi plus approfondis et personnels. Ces deux attitudes favoriseraient la viabilité d’une entreprise qui doit faire vivre la famille propriétaire, ainsi que les générations suivantes. Ces liens sociaux nous paraissent pouvoir compenser le manque de capital, de produits et d’infrastructure propre aux économies émergentes dynamiques. Cette étude, menée dans un secteur très compétitif de marché émergent, les entreprises de haute technologie en Corée, examine trois points majeurs :
(1) Les relations internes et les liens avec l’extérieur sont plus développés dans les EF que dans les autres. (2) Ces relations améliorent la performance des secteurs de haute technologie dans les marchés émergents, pour lesquels il est indispensable, du fait de leur nature compétitive complexe et évolutive, de disposer d’une expertise pointue et d’un capital social à l’intérieur comme à l’extérieur de l’entreprise. (3) Les performances des EF sont plus dépendantes de ces relations communautaires et de ces liens avec l’extérieur que celles des autres entreprises, parce que dans ce cadre personnel et intime, les employés et les partenaires extérieurs ont généralement tendance à récompenser la générosité, ou au contraire à punir l’égoïsme, d’une famille propriétaire qu’ils voient à l’oeuvre de leurs propres yeux. Nos observations empiriques confirment la plupart de ces hypothèses de façon significative.
Mots clés:
- entreprise familiale,
- direction des ressources humaines (DRH),
- relations entre organisations,
- lacunes institutionnelles,
- capital social,
- marché émergent
Abstract
We argue that family businesses (FBs) will tend to treat their employees with unusual consideration to form a cohesive internal “community”. They are also expected to develop deeper, more extensive “connections” or relationships with outside stakeholders. Both behaviors should increase the viability of a business intended to support an owning family and its later generations. Such social linkages, we believe, may compensate for the lack of capital, product and labor institutional infrastructures in dynamic emerging economies. This survey study of a most challenging emerging market sector, namely, Korean high technology businesses, largely supports these expectations.
Keywords:
- family firms,
- human resource management (HRM),
- inter-organizational relationships,
- institutional gaps,
- social capital,
- emerging markets
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1):17–40.
- Allouche, J., & Amann, B. 1997. Le retour du capitalisme familial. L’expansion: Management Review, 85(1): 92–99.
- Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301–1328.
- Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M., Sirmon, D., & Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 73–95.
- Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Winter Special Issue): 175–190.
- Beehr, T., Drexler, J., & Faulkner, S. 1997. Working in small family businesses: Empirical comparisons to non-family businesses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3): 297–312.
- Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. 2006. The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2): 73–96.
- Bubolz, M. 2001. Family as source, user and builder of social capital. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(1): 129–131.
- Carney, M. 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2): 249–265.
- Chandler, A. D. 1990. Scale and scope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Choi, J. 2004. Transformation of Korean HRM based on confucian values. Seoul Journal of Business, 10(1): 1–26.
- Collins, J. 1995. Built to last. New York: HarperBusiness.
- Cooper, A. C., Willard, G. E., & Woo, G. 1986. Strategies of high performing new and small firms: A reexamination of the niche concept. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2): 247–260.
- Davis, S., & Meyer, C. 1998. Blur. New York: Warner Books.
- Donckels, R., & Fröhlich, E. 1991. Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS. Family Business Review, 4(2): 149–160.
- Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. 1990. A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3): 297–312.
- Dyer Jr., W. G. 1986. Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and family transitions. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
- Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-Lamastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1): 51–59.
- Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, R., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4): 500–507.
- Galbraith, J. 2000. Designing the global corporation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
- Gersick, K. E., Davis, J., Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. 1997. Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Gomez-Mejia, L., Haynes, K., Nuñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. 2007. Family owned firms: Risk loving or risk averse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 106–137.
- Gomez-Mejia, L., Nuñez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, I. 2001. The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 81–95.
- Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue): 109–122.
- Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1): 25–41.
- Guzzo, R., & Abbott, S. 1990. Family firms as utopian organizations. Family Business Review, 3(1): 23–33.
- Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. 1999. A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1): 1–26.
- Hagel, J., & Singer, J. 1999. Net worth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Jacobs, M. T. 1991. Short-term America. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- James, H. S. 1999. Owner as manager, extended horizons and the family firm. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6(1): 41–55.
- Jorissen, A., Leveren, E., Martens, R., & Reheul, A. M. 2005. Real versus sample-based differences in comparative family business research. Family Business Review, 18(3): 229–246.
- Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.
- Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1999. The right way to structure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(4): 125–134.
- Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets?: An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(4): 867–891.
- Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2006. Emerging giants? Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 60–69.
- Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2000. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45–74.
- Koch, C. 2007. The science of success. New York: Wiley.
- Landes, D. 1949. French entrepreneurship and industrial growth in the nineteenth century. Journal of Economic History, 9(1): 45–61.
- LaPorta, R., Lopes-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(3): 471–517.
- Lazonick, W. 1986. The cotton industry. In B. Erbaum & W. Lazonick (Eds), The decline of the British economy: 18–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lee, J. 1998. Characteristics of successful high-technology venture companies. The Korean Venture Management Review,1(1): 101–128.
- Lee, J., & Chang, S. 1999. Characteristics of successful high-tech ventures. The Korean Small Business Review, 21(1): 105–133.
- Lee, J., & Lee, M. 1994. Korean management in global competition. Seoul: Gim-Young Sa.
- Lee, J., & Miller, D. 1999. People matter: Commitment to employees, strategy and performance in Korean firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4): 579–593.
- Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study of technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 615–640.
- Mackie, R. 2001. Family ownership and business survival: Kirkcaldy, 1870–1970. Business History, 43(1): 1–32.
- Miller, D. 2003. An asymmetry-based view of advantage: Towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 961–976.
- Miller, D., & Lee, J. 2001. The people make the process: Commitment to employees, decision making, and performance. Journal of Management, 27(2): 163–189.
- Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2005. Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2003. Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3): 513–531.
- Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R., & Cannella, A. 2007. Are family firms really superior performers? Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5): 829–858.
- Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholnick, B. 2008. Stewardship versus stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family vs non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1): 50–78.
- Moorman, S., Blakely, G., & Niehoff, B. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(2): 351–357.
- Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D., & Yeung, B. 2005. Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(3): 655–720.
- Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.
- Nam, Y. H. 2002. A study on the characteristics of Korean family businesses. The Korean Small Business Review, 24(4): 201–224.
- Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14–37.
- Nonaka, I. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
- O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 492–499.
- Orpen, C. 1995. The effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 78(3): 569–583.
- Park, G. D. 1982. A study on the family business of Korea. Korean Management Review, 11(1): 39–60.
- Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
- Reid, R., & Harris, R. 2002. The determinants of training in SMEs in Northern Ireland. Education & Training, 44(1): 8–9.
- Saxton, T. 1997. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2): 443–461.
- Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M., Dino, R., & Buchholtz, A. 2001. Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(1): 99–116.
- Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. 1996. Myths and realities: Family business’ contribution to the US economy: A framework for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review, 9(2): 107–123.
- Shin, Y. K. 1993. Korean management: Present and future. Seoul: Bak-Young Sa.
- Singell, L. 1997. Nepotism, discrimination, and the persistence of utility-maximizing, owner-operated firms. Southern Economics Journal, 63(4): 894–920.
- Sirmon, D., & Hitt, M. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3): 339–358.
- Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. 2006. How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(3): 385–415.
- Ward, J. 2004. Perpetuating the family business. Marietta: Family Enterprise Publishers.
- Williamson, O. E. 1999. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 1087–1108.
- Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J., & Salvato, C. 2004. Entrepreneurship in family vs non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4): 363–381.