This study examines diversification decisions of family firms and suggests that on average family firms diversify less both domestically and internationally than non-family firms. When they do diversify, family firms tend to opt for domestic rather than international diversification, and those that go the latter route prefer to choose regions that are 'culturally close'. Lastly, we find that family firms are more willing to diversify as business risk increases. The hypotheses are tested using a sample of 360 firms, 160 of them being family-controlled and the rest (200) non-family-controlled. Copyright (c) 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies.

Prior research on M&As and invention outcomes has not systematically examined the influence of two types of knowledge differences. Knowledge relatedness has typically been equated with knowledge similarity and the separate influence of knowledge complementarity has been overlooked. Similarly, studies examining innovation outcomes of M&As have typically focused on the role of technological knowledge and overlooked the influence of scientific knowledge. We develop a model of relatedness and invention performance of high-technology M&As that considers science and technology similarity and complementarity as important drivers of invention. We test the model using a sample of M&As from the drug, chemical, and electronics industries and a fine-grained measure of knowledge relatedness that distinguishes between science and technology relatedness. We find that complementary scientific knowledge and complementary technological knowledge both contribute to post-merger invention performance by stimulating higher quality and more novel inventions. This suggests that high-technology firms seeking acquisitions should search for, identify, and acquire businesses that have scientific and technological knowledge that is complementary to their own. Our results also suggest that similarities in knowledge facilitate incremental renewal, while complementarities would make discontinuous strategic transformations more likely, and that absorptive capacity research should be expanded to consider complementarities as well as similarities.

Theoretical explanations for family firm underinvestment in R&D relative to nonfamily firms remain nascent. We revisit this question using a refinement to the behavioral agency model (BAM)-the mixed gamble-that allows us to examine the socioemotional trade-offs that R&D represents for the family firm and how this differentiates their R&D investment decision from nonfamily firms. We do so in an empirical context where R&D investment is of greatest importance-high-technology industries. Moreover, we examine three contingencies that allow us to explore heterogeneity across family firms in their R&D decisions due to their effect upon the family's socioemotional wealth mixed gamble: institutional investor ownership, related diversification, and performance hazard.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The present study examines the influence exerted by affiliate directors in the diversification decisions of family-controlled, publicly traded firms. Using a relational view based on the development of social capital, we argue that affiliate directors play a different role in boards of family firms vis-à-vis nonfamily firms. Specifically, we develop a set of hypotheses proposing that affiliate directors stimulate family firms to pursue diversification strategies by sharing their knowledge and experience with family executives, and hence reducing the perceived risk that may be associated with growth strategies. Affiliates can play this advisory role without reducing the control of family owners, and this facilitates the firm's willingness to adopt growth-oriented strategies. Namely, affiliates who are business experts or support specialists would tend to encourage diversification. These effects are supported empirically.