generational differences, organizational innovation ...

International Journal of Arts & Sciences, CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 5(1):223–233 (2012) c 2012 by InternationalJournal.org Copyright

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES, ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT OF CHINESE FAMILY SMES IN MALAYSIA John Lee Kean Yew University Malaya, Asia Europe Institute, Malaysia

This study traces the link between generational change, innovation capacity and enterprise development demonstrates how family firms intention to maintain family control of the dominant coalition. One could envision the essence of a family firm to consist of unique, inseparable, and synergistic resources and innovation capacity arising from family involvement and interactions. A vision set by the family controlled dominant coalition and intended for trans-generational pursuance; and pursuance of such a vision towards enterprise development. Researchers in family business believe that family influence makes a family business distinct from a non-family business. But no business can escape family influence; even the decisions of the CEO of a publicly held corporation with no dominant shareholder can be influenced by his or her family. The family business is sometimes influenced by generational change when certain youngsters integrate Chinese management ideas with selected techniques from the west to form a hybrid model of management. Organizational learning has been identified as a lasting source of competitive advantage in uncertain environments. Research has highlighted that knowledge and skills and the capabilities they develop are strategic resources and that effective utilization of these resources enhances firm innovation and performance. However, in spite of this widespread recognition, family businesses, specifically family SMEs, have not been the subject of previous research exploring the strategic impact of organizational learning on innovation and firm performance. In Malaysia, on the other hand, the government ceased large scale entry of immigrants into the country from the 1930s. The stock of Chinese and Indians that were brought in to serve the labor needs of the tin mining and rubber plantations sectors of colonial Malaya were subsequently not replenished. In Malaysia, the descendants of these migrants are now well into their third and fourth generations. Based on the panel data analysis of Taiwan’s family business groups from 1988 to 2001 indicates that family business group’s overlapping investment by the owner-managers significantly influences its leadership succession. This study provides a good comparing start-point for researches interested in understanding the generational change of Chinese family business in Malaysia and Taiwan towards enterprise development. Keywords: Family Controlled, Chinese family business, Small and medium enterprise, Family business, Innovation capacity, Organizational learning, Malaysia.

1.

Introduction

Family businesses have been in existence for thousands of years and continue to be the dominant form of business around the world (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, & Shleifer, 1999). In the U.S., family businesses

223

224

John Lee Kean Yew

represent a major portion of the economy (Heck & Stafford, 2001; Olson, Zuiker, Danes, Stafford, Heck, & Duncan, 2003; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996; Winter, Fitzgerald, Heck, Haynes, & Danes, 1998) and contribute about half of both the U.S. GDP as well as total wages (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Heck & Trent, 1999). Globally, family businesses represent an estimated 80-98% of all businesses in the world’s free economy, 37% of Fortune 500 firms are family-owned, and family firms generate more than 75% of the GDP of most countries outside the U.S. (Poza, 2010, p. 3). According to Yeung (2004), Chinese family firms dominate the market capitalization of Southeast Asian nations: Thailand (90%), Singapore (81%), Indonesia (73%), Malaysia (60%), and the Philippines (50%). While no prevalence studies are known to have been done in Malaysia, one popular business periodical in Malaysia reported that likely up to 80% of Malaysian businesses is family-owned (Draim, 2001). Despite the prevalence and importance of family businesses, more than half of family business start-ups fail during the first five years (Goldberg, 1991; Ryan, Deane, & Ellington, 2001). Furthermore, it is often cited that only a third of all family businesses survive into the second generation, and only a third of these carry over into the third generation (Ward, 1987). While scholarly research and understanding of family business is emerging in Western countries (Sharma, 2004), comparatively little work has been done in emerging economies such as East and Southeast Asia. 2 Malaysian Chinese family businesses are theorized as mainly concerned with dynasty modes, that is, building, maintaining, and growing the power and resources of the business within the family lineage. In their substantive context, traditional Malaysian Chinese founders and westernized successors are hypothesized to be engaged in basic social structural and psychological processes of dynasty across cultures, where they struggle to transition from traditional Chinese to hybrid cultural and modernized forms of family business from one generation to the next. An analysis of extant literature revealed that the emergent theory contributes to family business theorizing in a novel way, and the study itself addresses the lack of literature on rigorous and scholarly theorizing about family businesses outside western contexts and how generational change with effect the innovation capacity towards enterprise development in order to show how family business will sustainable in the next generation. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are widely regarded as the major factors that contribute to the economic success in Taiwan. According to the White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises in Taiwan , published in 2006, SMEs not only dominate the economy of Taiwan in terms of the number of firms (1.226 million - 97.80% of the total establishments) but also take a large share in employment (5.047 million - 68.80% of the total hired employment), total sales value (NT$10.000 trillion – 29.46.% of the total value), and exports (NT$1.518 trillion - 17.60% of the total exports.) In Taiwan, family business always has been the main form of management in Taiwan’s enterprises. Apparently, Family SMEs (FSME) contribute to the economic development of Taiwan. Owning to the growing market globalization, even FSMEs which traditionally focused on domestic markets may have to face this challenge. Therefore, it seems advisable that more effort should be devoted to studying forms of international expansion for family firm. Internationalization is the most complex strategy that any firm can undertake and the importance of it cannot be overlooked. A large body of both theoretical and empirical studies has focused on internationalization strategy in many different countries. However, little attention has been paid to examine the importance of this strategy in the family businesses (Davis & Harveston, 2000; Gallo & Garcia-Pont, 1996; Gallo & Sveen, 1991; Okorafo, 1999). More importantly, although the volume of research on international SMEs has been growing, Taiwan has not taken it seriously and does not believe that it is an important area that requires further detailed investigation. Thus, the indigenous research about FSMEs in Taiwan is scare. SMEs are usually at a disadvantage when accessing resources and capabilities. Their financial difficulties are well known (Chittenden, Hall, & Hutchinson, 1996; Friedman & Friedman, 1994). They tend to have a conservative attitude and be risk adverse (Ward, 1998). Therefore, risky investments aimed at accumulating intangibles could be restrained. Moreover, international expansion is seen as an uncertain decision due to the lack of information about foreign markets and the international process. In addition, family business lack the managerial capabilities required to manage a growth process (Gallo & Garcia-Pont, 1996; Kets de Vries, 1993). The founders are usually reluctant to make changes in the

Generational Differences, Organizational Innovation and International Involvement of Chinese...

225

organizational structures and professional management systems that favor decentralization of the decision-making process. They also find it hard to recruit qualified salaried professionals. These factors hinder the family business's chances to expand its activities to new countries, especially in small cases. In sum, the lack of relevant resources is one of the causes limiting the growth of family small and medium-sized businesses, together with cultural, and political problems. This article focuses on this limitation and suggests possible ways to solve it. The basis of internationalization is to have different types of resources and knowledge that allow the firm to expand outside national borders. A family firm is poorly positioned to obtain these resources, particularly in the case of small companies, and this may help to explain its lack of international phenomenon Therefore, reversing this trend means seeking the necessary resources. 2.

Internalization of Family Business

International expansion is basically based on the opportunities of exploiting abroad the competitive advantages that firms have in domestic markets. The first step in setting up a foreign operation or internationalization is information collection and analysis. Therefore, a lack of knowledge and the uncertainty and complexity of the process usually work against foreign expansion. In fact, most theories of internationalization of firms focus on the importance of having different types of resources or knowledge. The earliest model that was used to explain firms' international development had become one of the most influential theories in explaining different types of stage and process (Cavusgil, 1980; Johansson & Vahlne, 1977, 1990). A basic assumption in these models is that firms internationalize in an incremental, stepwise, and gradual process for gaining increased experiential knowledge and reduced risk (Johanson & Vahlne, 1990). According to the Uppsala School of Internationalization (Johanssson & Vahlne, 1977, 1990), firms begin with their home markets and then gradually internationalize in a stepwise process. This means that the organization slowly builds up its knowledge regarding foreign cultures, languages, political systems, level of industrial development and so on. But the Stage model is unable to explain the non-sequential process such as the born-global firms (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). The international entrepreneurship has tried to explain the above phenomena. Especially, they underline the importance of concrete resources such as the importance intensity and international entrepreneurial orientation (Knight & Cavusgi, 2004). SMEs have entered the global marketplace through internationalization. That means the exploitation of their unique products and knowledge could be exposed to firms of other countries for trading purposes. The definition of the internationalization is the process by which firms both increase their awareness of the direct or indirect influence of international transactions on their future, and establish and conduct transaction with firms in other countries. Different theory have been used to examine the internationalization of SMEs, such as the eclectic paradigm, transaction cost economy, stage model theory, network theory and resource-based view. Because of that, the study is concerned with the role of the firm’s capability of acquiring resources, especially the knowledge to help them with internationalization, a resource based view of internalization used. This article argue that the firm can successfully expand internationally is depend on having necessary resource and knowledge to entry the international marketplace. In principle, FSMEs seems to be less inclined to grow and this tendency is aggravated in the international markets sphere. As a result, FSMEs generally shows weaker growth in the marketplace. The most commonly accepted reasons for FSMEs are limited capital to fund and adequate resources for family needs and business growth needs; the inflexibility and resistance to change of entrepreneurial leadership; disparate family goals, values, and needs; and conflicts among sibling successors (Ward, 1998). In sum, there are disadvantages that limit the access of family firms to the resources and capabilities needed for the internationalization process (Kets de Vries, 1996). Many of these growth difficulties in domestic markets can be more extreme if the decision to expand to foreign markets is taken, especially in the case of small and medium-sized family firms (Gallo & García-Pont, 1996).

226

John Lee Kean Yew

In sum, lack of relevant resources is one of the causes limiting the growth of Family small and medium-sized businesses, together with cultural and political problems. The basis of internationalization is to have different types of resources and knowledge that allow the firm to expand outside of the national borders. A family firm is less positioned to obtain these resources, particularly in the case of small companies, and this may help to explain its lack of international phenomenon. Therefore, reversing this trend means seeking the necessary resources. The focus of the study is seeking the necessary resources and knowledge of innovation capacity to improve the constraints and hence towards enterprise development. The resource-based view can help to explain how the possession of resources could lead to competitive advantages and provides some insights for explaining how these resources have been or can be acquired through family involvement (Graves & Thomas, 2006), such as the development of tacit knowledge. It is less useful in explaining the resources required to preserve the business as a family institution. The work started by Stafford, Duncan, Danes and Winter (1999) on sustainable family businesses may help fill this gap. In this study, the antecedent factors that can influence the international involvement are considered, namely, generational difference and composition of shareholder. The related conceptual framework of the factors that could influence international involvement in family small and medium-sized enterprise in Malaysia and Taiwan was illustrated in Figure 1. 3.

An Overview of Family Business

Before starting the research, it is important to define what we mean by a family business. Following Chua, Sharma, and Chrisman (1996), we define family business as a business governed and/or managed on a sustainable, potentially cross-generational, basis to shape and perhaps pursue the formal or implicit vision of the business held by members of the same family or a small number of families. Succession is problematic for a majority of family firms. Would it be different for the next generation? Obviously, the attitudes and behaviors of family businesses can vary throughout the generations (Swinth & Vinton, 1993; Welch, 1992). Different generations of owners exhibit different interests, management styles, and objectives (Okorafo, 1999). Each generation of leadership brings new strategic ideas that build on underlying, long-held competencies developed for earlier strategies (Ward, 1998). Drozdow (1989) stresses that often the senior generation assists the junior generation to learn about the family business by giving suggestions based on their past experiences. The later generation can be expected to be more qualified, and people must remember that the owner's background (training, language, international experience) has an influence on the decision to internationalize. The research of Steier’s (2001) exploratory study adds to our knowledge of how tacit knowledge emanating from social capital is transferred during leadership transitions and suggests how different methods of transfer may influence post-succession performance. Steier (2001) points out four modes of succession and transference of social capital across generations. The type of succession that Taiwan uses is called the “natural immersion” where the successors gradually assimilate the nuances of the network relationships. It is only in the “planned” transfers that the leaders recognize the importance of transferring social capital and make deliberate attempts to introduce successors to the social networks of the organization. In short, the second or sequential generations have more information and are better prepared, which could encourage the internationalization process. However, although the senior founders will provide the experience for the younger generations, they fail to provide them with the skills to recognize new opportunities and to develop new strategies to tale advantage of these opportunities. (Drozdow, 1989). As for FSMEs, how could the situation be improved? Davis, Hampton and Lansberg (1996) point out that small businesses in the start-up stage were characterized by informal organizational structures, owner-manager control and having a single product. As time goes by, FSMEs need to professionalize and delegate authority due to growth, lack of management skills within the family, preparation for succession, or to change the norms and values of the business (Dyer, 1989). However, compared to non-family business, owner-managers are less likely to hire


227

professional managers because founder’s reluctance to relinquish control (Boeker & Karichalil, 2002), fear of losing control (Perrigo, 1975), or a belief that professionalization is an unnecessary, expensive overhead. Many researchers of family firms report that founders are generally authoritarian, unwilling to share power (Birley, 1986; Donckels & Frohlick, 1991; Geeraerts, 1984), strategically conservative (Levinson, 1974), entrenched nepotism (Kets de Vries, 1996), their preference of privacy (Gersilck, Davis , Hampton & Lamnsberg, 1997), and they are less likely to put their management through regular formal training. On the other hand, sons are generally impatient for strategic change, personal independence, and an opportunity to prove their worth (Seymour, 1993). It means that informal, subjective, and paternalistic styles of leadership become more formal, objective and professional. Firms can employ outside consultants, advisors, and professional service and the managers use more time engaged in strategic management activities such as involving in the international marketplace. The research of Levinson (1971) also suggested that businesses with significant growth should professionalize themselves by eliminating family members and hiring non-family managers. 4.

Research Objective

Following this line of reasoning, the purpose of this article is twofold: 1.

to confirm the lack of interest in international expansion shown by FSME in Taiwan and Malaysia in comparative study.

2.

to analyze the related factors of counteracting these constraints by providing the approach that could possibly favor the access to the resources that are required for enterprise development generate from innovation capacity between Malaysia and Taiwan in comparative study.

3.

To provide a solution to all these questions, we have to start with a short history of survey from the international expansion or involvement.

5.

Research Framework

The article is organized as follows. The next section contains a review of the problems faced by FSMEs in Malaysia and Taiwan with regards to internationalization, as well as the possible opportunities that may occur when the next generation takes over. The following section is the propositions which are formulated based on the preceding sections. Finally, the article concludes with some recommendations for theoretical and management. 6.

Result Analysis

It is interesting to compare global family firms with family firms in Taiwan and Malaysia. In Western countries, the shareholding ratio of most family firms is really high, but their involvement in the management decision making process is low whereas the family firms in Taiwan display the low shareholding ratio, and how high of involvement in the management decision making process. Although the language used in the definition literature appears to portray family and non-family firms as dichotomous types of organizations, the term “family” maybe be treated as a continuous variable. For example, Shanker and Astrachan (1996) pointed out that, operationally, family firms can be defined narrowly (family is involved in the day-to-day management of the business) or broadly (family sets the strategic direction for the business) implying that there is a range of family. To bolster this point, Tsang (2002) notes that decisions about the strategic direction of a business can be shared in various degrees

228

John Lee Kean Yew

between family and non-family managers. Following this line of reasoning, this paper attempts to elucidate how the composition of shareholder in FSMEs will influence the decisions of international involvement Research Methodology The more family members involved in the management, the less non-family or outsider shareholders will participate in the management. The family firm managers might find themselves having to open the coalition to non-family manager because they possess skills or knowledge that complement those of family members who are involved in management. When FSMEs having another company as a large shareholder will be in a better position to develop their own resources, and maybe they can even access the shareholder's resources (Fernandez & Jesus, 2006). The FSMEs can receive financial, technological, and human resources, marketing expertise, or distribution channels, which could be essential resources to enter foreign markets from the large shareholders or large shareholder’s tie. In other word, they can get property-based resources or/and knowledge-based resources (Miller & Shamsie, 1996; Das & Tseng, 2004). Generational difference and Change -

international experience and knowledge.

-

Professional management. (Compare Malaysia & Taiwan FSME)

-

Enterprise development or international involvement

Composition of shareholders -

Diversity of non-family member shareholders.

-

Scale of non-family member shareholders.

-

(Compare Malaysia & Taiwan FSME)

Figure 1. Research Framework Composition of shareholders and international involvement.

Connecting with large shareholders can generated knowledge, enhance its internationalization process and acquire deeper foreign market knowledge. Fernandez and Jesus (2006) also point out SMEs that have shareholding ties are better prepared to reduce uncertainty and the perceived risk than independent family firms. Hence, these SMEs or FSMes will have a more positive aspiration toward international activities. Some scholars suggest that a family-business connection may yield unique advantages in the acquisition of resources (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Haynes, Walker, Rowe, & Hong, 1999; Stewart, 2003). Using social network theory, however, Barney, Clark, and Alvarez (2002) argue that maintaining family ties reduces family members’ ability to maintain other strong social ties. It means that lack of outsider resources or knowledge. Considering the strong tendency for the assets of family members to be redundant, they argue that family ties are not likely to be a major source of the rare and specialized resources needed for entrepreneurship and value creation. Therefore, they conclude that family firms will


229

not have advantage in acquiring resources. FSMEs must depend on the connections with the non-family shareholders to require the essential resources and knowledge which are rare or are specialized for internationalization. Therefore, we purpose the composition of shareholders so that abundant resources and knowledge could be shared among themselves. On the other hand, Barney et al. (2002) also suggest that family ties may provide an advantage in opportunity identification because of family members’ greater willingness to share information with each other. 7. Conclusion My PHD study has a clear implication concerning management by proposing the generational difference or change and composition of shareholders in terms of knowledge and learning capability will be related to the innovation capacity towards international involvement or enterprise development in FMBS’s Taiwan and Malaysia in comparative study. We suggest that managers in FSMEs must place importance on those factors wherever there are opportunities or constraints. It is hoped that the tentative insights from the discussion will provide the impetus for a new way for thinking about international expanding involvement in FSMEs. References 1.

Barney, J. B., Clark, C., and Alvarez, S. (2002). Where does entrepreneurship come from Network models of opportunity recognition and resource acquisition with application to the family firm. Paper presented at Second Annual Conference on Theories of the Family Enterprise, Philadelphia, December.

2.

Birley, S. (1986). Succession in the family firm: The inheritor’s view, Journal of wmall business management, July, 36–43

3.

Boeker, W. J. and Karichali, R. (2002). Entrepreneurial transitions: Factors influencing founder departure, Academy of management journal, Vol. 45(2), 818–825

4.

Chittenden, F., Hall, G. and Hutchinson, P. (1996). Small firm growth, access to capital markets and financial structure: review of issues and an empirical investigation, Small Business Economics, Vol. 8, 5967.

5.

Chua, J. H., Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. (1996). Defining the family business as behavior, Proceedings of the administrative sciences association of canada, 1–8.

6.

Das, T. K. and Teng, B.S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances, Journal of management, Vol. 26(1), 31–61.

7.

Davis, P. and Harveston, P. (2000). Internationalization and organizational growth: The impact of Internet usage and technology involvement among entrepreneur-led family businesses, Family Business Review, Vol. 13(2), 107-120.

8.

Donckels, R. and Frohlick, E. (1991). Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS, Family Business Review, Vol. 4(2), 149-160.

9.

Drozdow, N. (1989). Thinking that is intuitive to the boss must be chartered for the next generation, Business week newsletter for family-owned business, Vol. 1 (19).

10.

Dyer, J. G. (1989). Integrating professional management into a family owned business, Family business review, Vol. 2(3), 221–235

11.

Fernández, Z. and Nieto, J. N. (2006) .Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SME, Journal of international business studies, Vol. 37, 340–351

12.

Friedman, M. and Friedman, S. (1994). How to run a family business, Cincinatti, OH: Betterway Books.

230

John Lee Kean Yew

13.

Gallo, M. A. and Sveen, J. (1991). Internationalizing the family business: Facilitating and restraining factors, Family Business Review, Vol. 4, 181–190.

14.

Gallo, M. A. and Garcia-Pont, C. (1996). Important factors in family business internationalization, Family Business Review, Vol. 9(1), 45–59.

15.

Geeraerts, G. (1984). The effect of ownership on the organization structure in small firms, Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 29, 232–237.

16.

Gersick, K., Davis, J., Hampton, M. and Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.

17.

Graves, G. and Thomas, J. (2006). Internationalization of Australian family business: A managerial capabilities perspective, Family Business Review. Vol. 19(3). 207–224

18.

Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm, Journal of international business studies. Vol. 8(2), 12–32.

19.

Johanson, J. and Vahlne, Jan-Erik. (1990). The mechanism of internationalization, International marketing review, Vol. 7(4), 11–24.

20.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21, 59–71.

21.

Kets de Vries. (1996). Leaders who make a difference, European management journal, Vol. 14(5), 486–593.

22.

Knight, G. A. and Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35(4), 124–141.

23.

Levinson, H. (1971). Conflicts that plague family business, Harvard business review, Vol. 49(2), 90–98.

24.

Miller, D. and Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965, Academy of management journal, Vol. 39 (3), 519–543.

25.

Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2006). White paper on small and medium enterprises in Taiwan, Taipei: Ministry of economic affairs press.

26.

Okorafo, S. C. (1999). Internationalization of family businesses: Evidence from Northwest Ohio, USA. Family Business Review, Vol. 12, 147–158.

27.

Oviatt, B. M. and McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of international business studies, Vol. 25(1), 45–64.

28.

Seymour, K. C. (1993). Intergenerational relationships in the family firm: The effect on leadership succession, Family business review, Vol. 6(3), 263–281.

29.

Shanker, M. C. and Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: Family businesses’ contribution to the US Economy- A framework for assessing family business statistics, Family business review, Vol. 9, 107–123.

30.

Stafford, K., Duncan, K., Danes, S. and Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable family businesses, Family business review, Vol. 12, 197–208.

31.

Steier, L. (2001). Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital, Family business review, Vol. 14, 259–276.

32.

Swinth, R. and Vinton, K. (1993). Do family-owned business have a strategic advantage in international joint ventures? Family business review, Vol. 6(1), 19–30.

33.

Tsang, E. (2002). Learning from overseas venturing experience: The case of Chinese family businesses, Journal of business venturing, Vol. 17, 21–40.

34.

Ward, J. L. (1998). Growing the family business: special challenges and best practices, Family business review, Vol. 10, 323–337.

35.

Welch, L. S. (1992). The use of alliances by small firms in achieving internationalization, Scandinavian international business, Vol. 1(2), 21–37.


Appendix Table 1. Comparative Analysis by Research Area (Family Business) –– Comparative Analysis of 42 Articles by Research Area. Research Area (No. of articles)

Author (Year)

Business Growth (6)

Ahlstrom et al. (2004)

Chung (2005) Chung & Hamilton (2009) Lee & Tan (2001) Tan & Fock (2001) Yeung (2000) Competitiveness (5)

Carney (1998)

Carney et al. (2003) Chung & Yuen (2003) Ding et al. (2007) Yu (2001) Family relations (2)

Lee (2006)

Yan & Sorenson (2004) Governance (4)

Chen & Hsu (2009)

Filatotchev et al. (2005) Ng & Roberts (2007) Tsai et al. (2006) Internationalization (4)

Tan & Fock (2001)*

Tsang (2001) Tsang (2002) Yeung (2000)* Management culture (6)

Davies & Ma (2003)

Efferin & Hopper (2006) Gatfield & Youseff (2001) Gomez (2007) Thong (1987) Wong et al. (1992) Modernization (5) Hwang (1990) Lee (1996)

Chen & Hsu (2009)*

231

232

John Lee Kean Yew

Whyte (1996) Yeung (2006) Chu (2009)

Performance (4) Filatotchev et al. (2005)* Luo & Chung (2005) Tsao et al. (2009)

Tsui-Auch (2003)

Professionalization (3) Tsui-Auch (2004) Zhang & Ma (2009)

Au & Kwan (2009)

Start-up (2) Pistrui et al. (2001)

Chau (1991)

Succession (6) Chung & Yuen (2003)*

Table 2. Comparative Analysis by Country –– Comparative Analysis of 24 Empirical Articles by Country and Methods. Country (No. of articles)

Author (Year)

Methodology

Britain (1)

Gomez (2007)

Quantitative (public data)

China – mainland (5)

Au & Kwan (2009)

Quantitative (survey data)

Tsang (2001)

Qualitative (case study)

Tsang (2002)


Ding et al. (2007)


Pistrui et al. (2001)


Hong Kong (5)

Au & Kwan (2009)*


Chung & Yuen (2003)


Ahlstrom et al. (2004)

Qualitative (interview data)

Davies & Ma (2003)


Zheng (2002)


Indonesia (1)

Efferin & Hopper (2006)


Malaysia (2)

Gomez (2007)*


Tong (2005)* Singapore (9)

Qualitative (case study) Ahlstrom et al. (2004)*


Tsang (2001)*


Tsang (2002)*


Lee (2006)


Lee & Tan (2001)



Ng & Roberts (2007)


Tan & Fock (2001)


Tong (2005)


Tsui-Auch (2003)


Taiwan (7)

Ahlstrom et al. (2004)*


Chen & Hsu (2009)


Chu (2009)


Filatotchev et al. (2005)


Luo & Chung (2005)


Tsai et al. (2006)


Tsao et al. (2009)


USA (1) Multinational (6)

Wong et al. (1992)

Qualitative (historical data) Ahlstrom et al. (2004)*

Au & Kwan (2009)* Gomez (2007)* Tong (2005)* Tsang (2001)* Tsang (2002)* * Repeated articles grouped under more than one country category

233