Imprinting Effects of Entrepreneurs in Family Owned Firms

Importance and Key Contributions: Research in entrepreneurship has demonstrated that prior experiences play an important role in the entrepreneurial process (e.g., Shane, 2000; Westhead et al., 2005). Certain experiences... [ view full abstract ]

Importance and Key Contributions:

Research in entrepreneurship has demonstrated that prior experiences play an important role in the entrepreneurial process (e.g., Shane, 2000; Westhead et al., 2005). Certain experiences impart a passing influence on entrepreneurs, while others stay with them, changing the way in which they view and conceptualize the world (Politis, 2005). The concept of imprinting—“a process whereby, during a brief period of susceptibility, a focal entity develops characteristics that reflect prominent features of the environment, and these characteristics continue to persist despite significant environmental changes in subsequent periods” (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013)—has become an important perspective in entrepreneurship research (Geroski, Mata, & Portugal, 2010; Mathias, Williams, & Smith, 2015). For example, Walsh and Bartunek (2011) examine how organizational members’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive reactions to the death of a firm leads to the creation of a new firm with the core characteristics and values of the defunct firm. Other researchers consider founding conditions, and their impact on future firm performance (Bamford, Dean, & McDougall, 2000).
Imprinting may be particularly important (and unique) in the family firm because of the family firm’s primary goal of transferring ownership to future generations. In this context, imprinting has been used to explain the mechanisms through which senior generations imprint the family’s entrepreneurial legacy on the next generation (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015), and to highlight the role of founder imprinting on the likelihood of a multifamily business configuration surviving across multiple generations (Pieper et al. 2015). Thus, the decisions made during sensitive periods in the family firm may provide impact that lasts for multiple generations. In addition, because family firms are often both owned and managed by family members they have more liberty to make decisions that are unilateral and idiosyncratic (Carney, 2005; Chrisman & Patel, 2012). Thus, rather than adopting new behaviors or norms from “historically specific contextual features” that ultimately result in the “stamping” of a particular environment, family firms may have a higher intensified receptivity to the external influences that are a major part of the imprinting perspective (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013: p. 203).
We contribute to the literature in the following ways: First, our research finds that there are a number of sensitive time periods in family firms (when the organization is highly susceptible to environmental influence). These include: founding, family crisis, succession, non-family involvement, and crisis in business performance. Furthermore, our research examines each of these sensitive periods to identify what is actually imprinted onto the organization. We identify “stamping effects” from the external environment (e.g. economic, cultural, legislative, political, and social factors), as well as factors that are internal to the family firm (e.g. founder effects, family effects). Finally, we examine each of these sets of imprints to explore the persistence of imprinting in the family firm.
Building upon our findings we develop propositions regarding sensitive periods, stamps, and persistence in family firms. These propositions further develop the ideas emerging from the data to propose that imprinting may be positive, negative, or both.

Theoretical Base:

The imprinting concept derives from biology where imprinting typically focuses on how the circumstances of the birth of an organism influence subsequent behavior. Marquis and Tilcsik (2013) provide an in-depth historical overview wherein they note that Spaulding (a British amateur biologist), in his work with domestic birds, was the first to document imprinting behavior. Stinchcombe (1965) is credited for introducing the concept of imprinting into organizational research (although he never used the term “imprinting”). His work examined the relationship between organizations and social structures wherein he argued for a “correlation between the time in history that a particular type of organization was invented and the social structure of organizations of that type which exist at the present time.” In essence, the imprinting perspective argues that firms and individuals are shaped by powerful, time-sensitive circumstances, typically early in their development, and that these effects persist over time, even in the case of a changing external environment (Marquis and Tilcsik, 2013).
Although imprinting has been studied at multiple levels of analyses, the bulk of the entrepreneurship literature following Stinchcomb’s work is at the organizational level and examines events that happen early in the life of the firm (Boeker, 1989; Carroll & Hannon, 1989; Doz, 1996; Hannan, Burton, & Baron, 1996; Johnson, 2007; Kimberly, 1979; Koch, 2008; Marquis, 2003). These include exploration of the initial resources of the founder (Kimberly, 1979; Schein, 1983), human and financial capital (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon, & Woo, 1994) and networks (Marquis, 2003). Others have examined early strategic decisions such as strategy (Boeker, 1989; Hannan et al., 1996) and choice of location (Brush et al., 2008). Essentially the argument is that the founding firms’ initial resources, values, and decisions become routinized and structured—thereby impacting future actions.
Scholars agree that imprinting consists of three elements: sensitive time periods (when the organization is high susceptible to environmental influence), a stamping process (whereby the organization reflects an element of the environment), and persistence (outcomes or characteristics that persist even through new environmental changes) (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013; Mathias, Williams, & Smith, 2015).
Our work examines imprinting at the organizational level, but in a new context—that of the family firm. Our work identifies sensitive periods that have occurred over the lifetime of the family firm, examines the stamping process, and the persistence of these events. This research goes beyond the predictable direct effects of an environmental occurrence (external) and exposes internal events which also significantly influence (stamp) the firm and which persist over long periods.

Method:

24 in-depth interviews were carried out with family and non-family executives and board members active in four family firms in Ireland (second to seventh generation). These family firms represented multiple industries and generations. The following criteria were used to distinguish family firms: (1) 50 percent or more of ordinary voting shares owned by members of the family, related by blood or marriage; (2) 50 percent or more of the management team drawn from the largest family group who owns the company; and (3) the company is perceived by the chief executive to be a family business. All interviews were conducted using an interview protocol and recorded and transcribed. Secondary sources such as company websites, annual reports, press articles, court reportings etc. were also collected and utilized to triangulate the data. The empirical material was coded and analyzed using established techniques for qualitative research. These cases were conducted as part of the STEP (Successful Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Practices) project.

Initial Findings:

This study examines imprinting in a new context—that of the family firm. Our work identifies sensitive periods that have occurred over the lifetime of the family firm, examines the stamping process, and the persistence of these events. Our research goes beyond the predictable direct effects of an environmental occurrence (external) and exposes internal events which also significantly influence (stamp) the firm and which persist over long periods.

Entrepreneurship; Family business; Imprinting; Qualitative research [ view full abstract ]

Entrepreneurship; Family business; Imprinting; Qualitative research