Abstract
The aim of the present article is to find out differences and similarities in inter-firm cooperative relationships among family and non-family businesses, in order to contribute to an integrated theory on strategic alliances and family businesses within the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) context. We found important divergences between both types of businesses, namely in the perceived difficulties and in performance evaluation. The results underpin the importance of trust when family businesses undertake cooperative relationships. An argument for cooperation between family businesses is made. We also present new research issues in family business and strategic alliance research. Key words: Family businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises, cooperation, alliances, Portugal.
Highlights
Faced with market globalisation, competitive pressures and technological changes, firms need to be flexible and are challenged to include these aspects in their strategy, in order to achieve the necessary competitiveness
The aim of the present article is to find out differences and similarities in inter-firm cooperative relationships among family and non-family businesses, in order to contribute to an integrated theory on strategic alliances and family businesses within the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) context
We found important differences between small and medium-sized family and non-family businesses when analyzing difficulties and performance evaluation with regard to cooperative relationships
Summary
Competitive pressures and technological changes, firms need to be flexible and are challenged to include these aspects in their strategy, in order to achieve the necessary competitiveness. As Contractor and Lorange (1988) argued, a successful strategy often requires adoption of cooperative alliances that lead firms to obtain a competitive advantage. Alliances enable firms to complement their core competencies and to obtain additional resources; they have grown in popularity over the last years (Dyer et al., 2001; Augustine and Cooper, 2009). Such arrangements are difficult to manage (Fryxell et al, 2002) and have high rates of failure (Kogut, 1989; Geringer and Hebert, 1991; Park and Ungson, 1997; Yan and Zeng, 1999). As referred to by Harrigan (1988), the dissolution rate is about fifty percent, and Kale et al (2002) observed a similar rate of failure
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
