Collaborative Innovation between Family Businesses and Start-Ups : An empirical study on how family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups

(1)

Collaborative Innovation

between

Family Businesses and Start-Ups

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30 Credits

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Global Management AUTHOR: Caren Behrens, Sophie Peters

JÖNKÖPING May 2020

An empirical study on how family business attributes influence

the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups

(2)

Acknowledgement

In the following, we would like to express our gratitude for all those who have supported us in the development of this master thesis. First, we would like to thank our thesis supervisor Tommaso Minola, who guided us through the writing process and supported us with valuable insights and constructive feedback. We also want to thank our fellow students, who provided helpful recommendations to further improve our work during the monthly seminars. Moreover, we highly appreciate the cooperation of all interviewees, who offered their valuable time to share their experiences and perceptions. Their commitment has contributed significantly to the quality of this research study. Lastly, we would like to thank our family and friends for their moral support and continuous encouragement during the past four months.

(3)

Master Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Collaborative Innovation between Family Businesses and Start-Ups Authors: Caren Behrens and Sophie Peters

Tutor: Tommaso Minola Date: 2020-05-17

Key terms: family business, innovation, collaborative innovation, start-ups

Abstract

Background:

Innovation is a key factor in the development of new businesses as well as in the sustainable success of existing organisations. Especially for family businesses, innovation is the main strategic instrument to ensure economic growth, prosperity, and transgenerational survival. However, many organisations are unable to achieve success by themselves; thus, collaborative innovation becomes increasingly important. While collaborative innovation with start-ups is highly promising for corporations, it remains unclear how feasible the decision for this approach is for family firms due to their distinct attributes.

Purpose:

This thesis aims to research how particular family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. Thereby we contribute to existing academic literature and provide valuable insights for family firms to further increase their innovation potential.

Method:

To fulfil the purpose of this exploratory research study, secondary data, in the scope of a literature review as well as additional valuable sources and primary data, in the form of qualitative interviews, are gathered. The in-depth interviews allow us to collect responses on sensitive information on firm insights, while triangulation with secondary data enables us to generate a deep understanding of different perspectives significant to this study. In total, ten semi-structured interviews from six family businesses are conducted. Later, Grounded Theory is used for analysing the data.

Conclusion:

(4)

innovation with start-ups. The other two attributes, long-term orientation and unwillingness to invest in innovation purposes both demonstrate ambivalent findings. Thus, their influence cannot be clearly evidenced in this study.

(5)

3 Methodology ... 21 3.1 Research Philosophy ... 21 3.2 Research Approach ... 22 3.3 Research Strategy ... 23 3.4 Data Collection... 24 3.4.1 Secondary Data ... 24 3.4.2 Primary Data ... 25 3.4.3 Interview Design ... 30 3.5 Data Analysis ... 33 3.6 Research Quality ... 34 3.7 Ethical Considerations ... 36

4 Empirical Findings and Analysis ... 38

4.1 Innovation in Family Businesses ... 38

4.1.1 Importance of Innovation ... 38

4.1.2 Drivers for Innovation ... 40

4.2 Family Firm Attributes ... 41

4.2.1 The Attributes’ Influence on Innovation ... 48

(6)

4.3.2 Arguments for Collaborating with Start-ups ... 53

4.3.3 Arguments against Collaborating with Start-ups ... 54

4.3.4 Forms of Collaboration ... 56

4.4 Comparison of Empirical Findings with Secondary Data ... 57

4.4.1 Innovation in Family Businesses ... 57

4.4.2 Importance of Innovation ... 57

4.4.3 Drivers for Innovation ... 58

4.4.4 Family Firm Attributes ... 59

4.4.4.1 Long-term Orientation ... 59

4.4.4.2 Unwillingness to Invest in Innovation Purposes ... 60

4.4.4.3 Risk Aversion ... 60

4.4.4.4 Unwillingness to Collaborate with External Partners ... 61

4.4.5 Collaboration with Start-Ups ... 62

4.4.5.1 Collaborative Innovation ... 62

4.4.5.2 Arguments for Collaborating with Start-ups ... 63

4.4.5.3 Arguments against Collaborating with Start-ups ... 64

4.4.5.4 Forms of Collaboration ... 65

4.5 Linking the Data ... 66

4.5.1 Long-term Orientation ... 66

4.5.2 Unwillingness to Invest in Innovation Purposes ... 67

4.5.3 Risk Aversion ... 69

4.5.4 Unwillingness to Collaborate with External Partners ... 70

5 Conclusion ... 72

6 Discussion ... 74

6.1 Theoretical Implications... 74

6.2 Practical Implications ... 75

6.3 Limitations ... 76

6.4 Areas for Future Research ... 77

List of References ... vii

(7)

Figures

Figure 1: Identified Lack of Studies ... 20

Figure 2: Example of Grounded Theory Application ... 34

Figure 3: Influence of Long-term Orientation ... 67

Figure 4: Influence of Unwillingness to Invest in Innovation Purposes ... 68

Figure 5: Influence of Risk Aversion ... 69

Figure 6: Influence of Unwillingness to Collaborate with External Partners ... 71

Figure 7: Influence of Family Firm Attributes ... 71

Tables Table 1: Overview of Family Firm Attributes in Current Research ... 15

Table 2: Criteria for Family Firm Selection ... 26

Table 3: Overview of Study Participants ... 30

Table 4: Exemplary Interview Questions ... 32

Table 5: Overview of Family Firm Attributes according to Study Participants ... 43

Appendix Appendix 1: Excerpt from the Literature Review Table ... xvi

Appendix 2: Interview Guideline ... xvii

Appendix 3: GDPR Consent Form ... xviii

Appendix 4: Interview Transcripts ... xx Appendix 5: Excerpt Coding Table ... xliii

(8)

1 Introduction

_____________________________________________________________________________________ This section has the aim to present a general introduction to the topic of this master thesis. First, the background of innovation in family firms is presented, followed by a description of the research problem and the resulting research question. Finally, the purpose of this research study is specified.

______________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

Innovation is a key factor in the development of new businesses as well as in the sustainable success of existing organisations (Frank, Kessler, Bachner, Fuetsch & Suess-Reyes, 2019). Especially in today’s volatile economic world, that is determined by globalisation and digitisation, a company’s ability to innovate becomes a crucial skill for survival (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015; Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Kupp, Marval & Borchers, 2017). Innovation enables the development of new products and services, the entering of foreign markets, the optimisation of processes and thus creates competitive advantage (Martínez-Alonso, Martínez-Romero & Rojo-Ramírez, 2018; Spriggs, Yu, Deeds, & Sorenson, 2013; Peltola, 2012; Kotlar, De Massis, & Feranita, 2017).

For family businesses, innovation is the main strategic instrument to ensure economic growth, prosperity and transgenerational success (Röd, 2016; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Nieto, Santamaria & Fernandez, 2015). Since family businesses are the most widespread form of corporate enterprise in the world and thus significantly contribute to economic growth, their success is of great interest (De Massis, Di Minin & Frattini, 2015; Brines, Shepherd & Woods, 2013). However, despite the sense for family businesses to focus on innovation and their given abilities, in many cases, they are unwilling to do so (Chrisman, Chua, De Massis, Frattini, & Wright, 2015).

One approach to this dilemma could be collaborative innovation (De Massis et al., 2015; De Man & Duysters, 2005). “Collaborative innovation is the pursuit of innovations across firm boundaries through the sharing of ideas, knowledge, expertise and opportunities” (Ketchen, Ireland & Snow, 2007). It allows companies to exploit their innovation abilities

(9)

further and benefit from their collaborating partner in terms of external knowledge and resources to explore new opportunities (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Kotlar et al., 2017). Consequently, collaborative innovation increases the chances of success, minimises risks and thus highlights the opportunities that innovation can bring. Therefore, it could help to dissuade family businesses from their unwillingness to innovate. However, although this approach seems promising, there is still a lack of research on collaborative innovation in family businesses (Feranita, Kotlar & De Massis, 2017).

In recent years, the collaborative innovation has proven to be exceptionally successful for many organisations when working with start-ups, as they are predestined to develop innovations due to their open-mind, agility and creativity (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Gompers, 2002; Kupp et al., 2017; Freytag, 2019; Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015).

Nevertheless, family firms profoundly differ from other types of organisations due to specific characteristics or attributes, such as risk aversion, long-term orientation and the importance of their social capital due to the strong influence of the owning family (Miller, Wright, Breton-Miller & Scholes, 2015; Kotlar et al., 2017; Webb, Ketchen & Ireland, 2010). There is no particular research on how these specific characteristics influence the collaboration between family businesses and start-ups to increase innovation.

1.2 Research Problem

Based on the previous section it becomes clear that innovation is indispensable for organisations to survive and maintain competitive advantage (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015; Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Kupp et al., 2017). This is particularly true for family businesses that must prosper and grow to secure transgenerational success (Röd, 2016; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Nieto et al., 2015).

A promising approach for many organisations to increase innovation is collaborative innovation as external knowledge and resources increase current and add further innovation opportunities and thus improve chances for success (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Kotlar et al., 2017). In the past, the strategy to choose start-ups as a collaborating partner for innovations has proven to show favourable outcomes for numerous large companies (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Kupp et al., 2017; Freytag, 2019; Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015).

(10)

However, we investigated that family firms differ from other types of organisations regarding their attributes (Miller et al., 2015; Kotlar et al., 2017; Webb et al., 2010), especially compared to start-ups who function completely different (Kupp et al., 2017). Besides, start-ups often lack the reputation or organisational similarities to be considered an eligible partner (Mercandetti, Larbig, Tuozzo & Steiner, 2017; De Man & Duysters, 2005; Gu & Su, 2018, Voordeckers Roijakkers, Vanhaverbeke & Lambrechts, 2017).

Thus, it remains unclear if collaborative innovation with start-ups is a considerable approach for family businesses due to their specific attributes and their influence on this decision.

1.3 Purpose

The overall study purpose essentially emerges out of the prior research problem discussion. It is crucial for family firms to understand whether their attributes are hindering them to explore and use their full innovation potential which could secure their long-term transgenerational success. In this regard, awareness is the first step to initiate change. Additionally, this topic is relevant to the overall economy as family firms highly contribute to the world’s economic growth. Furthermore, profound studies on the presumed effect are still lacking and thus, a gap in literature uncovered.

In the process of initiating to shed light on the missing research matter, this thesis addresses the research question of:

“How do family firm attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups?”.

Therefore, we focus on four distinct family business behavioural attributes that emerged in the scope of the literature review as described in the following chapter and further illustrated in Table 1. We analyse if risk aversion, long-term orientation, unwillingness to collaborate with external partners and unwillingness to invest in innovation purposes affect the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups and how.

Thus, this thesis explores how far specific family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. We want to purposefully gain

(11)

knowledge about the effect these attributes may have in order to raise awareness and to be later able to give substantiated recommendations to family firms for approaching collaborative innovation with start-ups. We take a management perspective, focusing on the family business and four of their distinct attributes.

To investigate our research question, we first review the present literature on family businesses, collaborative innovation and the cooperation with start-ups. Based on this information and the identified knowledge gap, we conduct our own data on family businesses that either planned or already do collaborated with start-ups to further analyse and answer our research question and triangulate the different sources. Building on existing scholarly knowledge, we add to the discussion by connecting our findings to improve the understanding of family business attributes and their effect on collaborative innovation.

However, the overall purpose of this study is not solely to contribute to current family business literature and close the corresponding research gap. We further develop first recommendations for fundamental actions for family firms to consider when initiating their innovation process.

(12)

2 Literature Review

_____________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the existing literature about the topic of this master thesis. First, the importance of innovation is outlined, especially in the context of digitisation. Then, the characteristics of family businesses in terms of their innovative capabilities are examined and compared with those of start-ups. The comparison is followed by a discussion of the reasons and benefits of collaboration in innovation management and possible risks are identified. Finally, the different types of collaboration are explored, and success factors are discovered, before lacks in the literature are disclosed.

______________________________________________________________________

2.1 Innovation and its Importance for (Family) Businesses

There has been an increasing interest among scholars in the topic of innovation and its management, due to its economic importance (De Massis, Frattini & Lichtenthaler, 2013; Saha, Kumar, Dutta & Dutta, 20017; Kellermanns, Eddleston, Sarathy & Murphy, 2012). Innovation can be defined as the recombination or reinterpretation of existing knowledge or resources (Schumpeter, 1934) which enables organisations to explore new opportunities and exploit current abilities (Gu & Su, 2018; Brines et al., 2013). According to Schumpeter (1934), there are five different types of innovation which include the development of a new product/service, the creation of a new production method/process, the capture of a new market or supply source and the reorganisation of an industry. More recent literature also concentrates on the aspect of technical innovation (Chrisman et al., 2015; Martínez-Alonso et al., 2018).

Despite the varying research focus on different types of organisations, there is consensus among academics on the importance of innovation for businesses. Innovation capabilities are crucial to the companies’ survival as they enable firms to develop and capture value and thus create a competitive advantage (e.g. Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Chrisman et al., 2015; De Massis et al., 2015; Kotlar et al., 2017; Spriggs et al., 2013). Innovation can take various forms. Corporate venturing, which is a strategic entrepreneurial approach to create a new business within an existing corporate entity, fosters flexibility and adaptability (Minola, Brumana, Campopiano, Garrett & Cassia,

(13)

2016) and empowers employees (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006). Furthermore, innovation has proven to be a driving force for growth and increased performance (e.g. De Man & Duysters, 2005; Frank et al., 2019; Gu & Su, 2018; Kuratko, Covin & Garrett, 2009) to consequently create wealth (Webb et al., 2010).

Particularly for family-owned companies, the fulfilment of a long-term vision through transgenerational success and profitability is of immense significance, which is why innovation is indispensable (e.g. Kotlar et al., 2017; Brumana, Minola, Garrett & Digan, 2017; De Massis et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2015).

2.2 Drivers for Innovation

Today’s world is characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), which is both a consequence of innovation and its driving force (Millar, Groth & Mahon, 2018). Digital transformation through innovation is inevitable and omnipresent in the current economic landscape (Kupp et al., 2017). The consequences become apparent through shortened product life cycles, faster development of new technologies and increased competition due to global access of resources and knowledge (Jung, Presse & Terzidis, 2018; Ketchen, Ireland & Snow, 2007; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Spriggs et al., 2013). Digitisation is disrupting present business models and industries, forcing companies to be more flexible, resilient and most importantly, innovative (Kupp, Marval & Borchers, 2017; Miller et al., 2015). In addition, there is a growing number of start-ups whose agility and technical expertise make them extremely suitable for developing innovations within the volatile digital environment and thus may represent further competition (Bettinelli, Fayolle & Randerson, 2014; Kupp et al., 2017). It is crucial for family businesses, as well as other types of organisations, to manage the challenges of digitisation and use it to their advantage to improve innovation capabilities (Ferreira, Fernandes & Ferreira, 2019).

2.3 Innovation in Family Businesses

In the present literature, there is no agreement on a universal definition of family businesses as of yet. However, there are certain repetitive aspects in the descriptions of academics, such as high family involvement in ownership, management, and governance (Chua, Chrisman & Sharma, 1999; De Massis, Kotlar, Frattini, Chrisman, & Nordqvist, 2016) as well as the aim of a long-term existence and transgenerational success (Cassia

(14)

& De Massis, 2012; Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007). Consequently, this leads to an overlap of the family and the business which influences the decision-making and the preservation of socio-economic wealth (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Chua et al., 1999; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). This unique overlap between family, business and ownership distinguishes family firms from non-family firms. The system’s interactions result in unique resources and capabilities which are referred to as ‘familiness’ (Habbershon, Williams & Macmillan, 2003). There are further attributes that are typical for family businesses, such as long-term orientation (Spriggs et al., 2013; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011) or risk aversion (Röd, 2016; Webb et al., 2010), which will be discussed in a later section of the paper.

As the economic environment of family businesses accelerates, entrepreneurial behaviour becomes inevitable (Anthony, 2012). Consequently, only those family businesses with an entrepreneurial orientation and thus an engagement in innovative processes and activities (Anthony, 2012) are able to capitalise on customer-centric services, explore niche markets, exploit new opportunities and dominate in their industry (Jalilvand et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2018; Minol et al., 2016).

Research on innovation in family businesses asserts that it is essential to implement and facilitate change in the organisation´s culture and vision (De Massis et al., 2015; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006; Marchisio et al., 2010; Nieto et al., 2015; Röd, 2016). Capable social capital as in human resources is a vital element to innovation that needs to be carefully developed in family businesses (Miller et al., 2015). When empowered and inspired by a shared mission for change, employees feel more motivated for and committed to their organisation´s development (Cassia & De Massis, 2012). They are also more likely to initiate valuable ideas for innovation, collaborate and engage more effectively in the exchange of information and ideas (Jalilvand et al., 2019; Röd, 2016). An innovative organisational vision also attracts expert (research and development) personnel and hence, establishes valuable resource allocation to the business (Anthony, 2012).

(15)

2.3.1 Effects of the Business Family on Innovation

Not only do scholars point out the distinct innovation sources of family firms and how these affect the way family businesses are innovative, but they also discuss the impact of the business family itself on innovation endeavours.

The family´s preoccupation in business activities has immediate effects on its strategic framework (Frank et al., 2019) such as innovation operations, inputs, outputs as well as resource and investment allocations (De Massis et al., 2015). In general, family firms invest less input in innovation but have an increased input/output conversion rate. Their innovation output is often still higher than the output of non-family firms. This effect is even more significant when the CEO of the family business is a family member of a later generation (Duran et al., 2016). Hence, “innovation-oriented familiness” represents an essential mechanism for innovation creation to take place in family businesses (Frank et al., 2019) through granting or denying funding (Lumpkin et al., 2011) or providing tacit knowledge (Martinez-Alonso et al., 2018).

The level of entrepreneurship also depends on how successive generations were raised (Anthony, 2012). It has been found that family firms in the hands of early generation successors (2nd and 3rd generation) are more innovation-oriented due to their “stronger innovation-supportive stewardship” from a young age (De Massis et al., 2015). Nevertheless, family members engaging in leading roles within projects often ensure high levels of motivation and commitment due to personal interest (Cassia & De Massis, 2012). Consequently, studies have proven a higher degree of nepotism and usage of business resources for private matters (Miller et al., 2015).

Conflict, misunderstanding and different motivators frequently appear between family members and non-family managers, harming innovation efforts (Chrisman et al., 2015). Scholars have explored the need for an alignment between managers, owner family and multi-generations (Cassia & De Massis, 2012). A perceived imbalance in distributing profits between non-family members and family members irrespective of actual work performance but family membership can lead to demotivation, less innovative thinking and withholding creative energy (Webb et al., 2010). Moreover, with more family member generations involved in business activities, complex inter-family conflicts may arise (Röd, 2016) due to different experiences, goals and management approaches

(16)

between family members (Jalilvand et al., 2019). Nevertheless, multi-generational involvement can also accumulate a diverse set of skills, knowledge and perspectives valuable to innovation (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006; Duran et al., 2016).

2.3.2 Family Business Behavioural Attributes

As mentioned in the previous abstract, family businesses have various attributes that distinguish them from other types of organisations. In the course of scientific research for this paper, four distinct family business behavioural attributes were most frequently highlighted by scholars in terms of this organisational form´s ability to innovate as shown in Table 1. However, it is not only the quantity that mattered, but also the substantive significance of the attributes for the topic of innovation supported their relevance to our study. Furthermore, the attributes were not only extracted from scientific research and academic scholars. They were additionally verified with articles from industry experts and survey reports from leading consultancies that are highly skilled in the fields of family businesses and innovation.

Risk Aversion

First, research scholars are united in their evaluation of family businesses of being highly risk-averse in terms of conservative decision-making, with little to no interest in change. They are mostly relying on tried and trusted methods (Anthony, 2012; Cassia & De Massis, 2012; Chrisman et al., 2015; De Massis et al., 2015; Jalilvand et al., 2019; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006; Kotlar et al., 2017; Marchisio et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2015; Nieto et al., 2015; Röd, 2016). Later generations who tend to focus on preserving what their ancestors created, are especially cautious due to the overlay of business profits and family wealth and hence less risk-taking in terms of innovation resources (Röd, 2016). This becomes expressed through a strong emotional attachment to proven strategies and family history (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006). Therefore, risk-adversity resulting in family member inertia prevents businesses from essential adaptability and flexibility needed for innovative agility (Webb et al., 2010).

However, risk-taking is extremely important in the development of innovation, as it is precisely about changing or redeveloping things whose future is usually not yet predictable. The status quo must be questioned, and new methods tested - this always

(17)

involves a particular risk that (family) businesses must be willing to accept (Jalilvand et al., 2019; Gu & Su, 208; Röd, 2016).

Unwillingness to Invest in Innovation Purposes

Second, most scholars agree that family businesses tend to less intensively invest into innovation ventures (e.g. R&D) and engage in fewer efforts to innovate. Researchers found that family businesses are less quickly to innovate (De Massis et al., 2015; Kotlar et al., 2017; Nieto et al., 2015; Röd, 2016; Rondi et al., 2019; Spriggs et al., 2013) as they are more focused on accumulating incremental, long-term, non-diverse innovation resources (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Chrisman et al., 2015; Kotlar et al., 2017; Nieto et al., 2015; Voodeckers et al., 2017; Webb et al., 2010). Although different voices claim that family businesses are more willing to invest in innovation to build a legacy for the next generation (Classen, Carree, van Gils & Peters, 2014).

In their meta-analysis of 108 empirical studies, comparing family and non-family businesses in terms of their willingness and ability to innovate, Kammerlander and Van Essen (2017) state that family-owned organisations invest less in innovation purposes in terms of their R&D expenses and budget allocation compared to non-family owned businesses. However, their comparative study explored that family businesses are on the contrary more efficient in their innovation with a higher innovation output to input ratio measured in numbers of patents, new products and coherent revenues (Kammerlander & Van Essen, 2017). Duran et al. (2016) confirm by stating that family firms usually have to invest less input to achieve greater innovation output compared to non-family firms. Hence, there is immense leverage potential.

Although investments for innovation purposes do not always yield a direct return, they are essential for testing. From failure, the (family) business can learn and further develop its projects to generate a successful innovation (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; De Massis et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2019).

Long-term Orientation

Nevertheless, family businesses can adapt and overcome present challenges that their complex and competitive environment administrates (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016). They are characterised to succeed in creating unique knowledge valuable to innovation

(18)

activities such as their deep understanding for customer needs because of their continuous engagement and focus on long-term relationships with internal and external stakeholders (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Cassia & De Massis, 2012; Chrisman et al., 2015; De Massis et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2019). This is emphasised through a long-term perspective on collaborative, personalised, enduring and trusting networks (Miller et al., 2015; Spriggs et al., 2013) with industry actors (Voordeckers et al., 2017) and the importance of knowledge preservation and a sustainable vision over generations (Cassia & De Massis, 2012). Thus, the so-called ‘long-term orientation’ of family firms describes their prioritising of future-orientated decisions for transgenerational success. In addition, it constitutes a strategic advantage, which can positively contribute to the financial stability and socioemotional wealth creation in family firms (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011).

In Deloitte´s conducted survey with 791 companies (Allegrett, 2019), the family businesses´ long-term orientation is confirmed by the finding that most family business strategies obtain a long-term focus of a two-to-five-year long time horizon. The surveyed family businesses often struggled with balancing the need for immediate action imposed by volatile market changes with their long-term innovation initiatives (Allegrett, 2019). However, the family firms believe that their decisions will pay off in the future helping them to overcome short-term waiver or failure (Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011).

Lower levels of formal bureaucracy (Chrisman et al., 2015), relationships and communication between family business stakeholders furthermore provide the necessary basis for innovation to be transferred effectively with a long-term perspective (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016).

Unwillingness to Collaborate with External Partners

Even though some scholars assert that the socioemotional wealth (SEW) of family businesses has a positive impact for innovation ability through tacit knowledge creation and resource parsimony (Martínez-Alonso et al., 2018), it is mostly associated with imposing a negative influence on the family business willingness to innovate, collaborate (Cassia & De Massis, 2012) and to invest in new opportunities (De Massis et al., 2015). Family businesses tend to perceive collaboration with external entities as a threat of losing their business´ control, authority and competitive advantage and are hence resistant to

(19)

sharing power and valued information (e.g. Chrisman et al., 2015; De Massis et al., 2015; Nieto et al., 2015; Röd, 2016; Voodeckers et al., 2017). This is particularly true when no protective measures (e.g. patents) are taken to ensure a sense of control (Kotlar, De Massis, Frattini, Bianchi & Fang, 2013).

On the contrary, family businesses tend to develop strong bonds with their stakeholders (Chrisman et al., 2015; Voordeckers et al., 2017; Spriggs et al., 2013) that can also be defined as externals. Collaborative innovation offers various benefits for both parties and increases the chances for success to finally achieve competitive advantage (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Minola et al., 2016; Kotlar et al., 2017).

In the scope of a qualitative survey with 122 family businesses, PwC (2018) found that many family businesses are open for collaboration but find it challenging to find the right collaboration partners for mutual benefit or are not yet ready in their organisational culture (Shamsrizi, 2016) to collaborate with external partners such as start-ups. Attributes Academic Sources Risk Aversion Unwillingness to Invest in Innovation Unwillingness to Collaborate with External Partners Long-term Orientation

Addae-Boateng, S., & Dzisi, S. (2016). Innovation

enhancement in family business SMEs in Ghana. International Journal of Innovation Science, 8(4), 388–403.

X X

Anthony, S. D. (2012). The new corporate garage. Harvard Business Review, 90(9), 44— 53

X

Cassia, L. and De Massis, A. (2012), ‘‘Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms: an empirically grounded theoretical framework’’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 198-232

(20)

Chrisman, J., Chua, J., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Wright, M. (2015). The Ability and Willingness Paradox in Family Firm Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 310–318.

X X X X

De Massis, A., Di Minin, A., & Frattini, F. (2015).

Familydriven innovation: Resolving the paradox in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 5–19

X X X X

Frank, H., Kessler, A., Bachner, C., Fuetsch, E., & Suess-Reyes, J. (2019). Principles for innovation management in family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 9(3), 319–348.

X

Jalilvand, M., Vosta, L., & Tabaeeian, R. (2019). The Effects of Internal Marketing and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Innovation in Family Businesses. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10(3), 1064–1079. X Kellermanns, F. W., and K. A. Eddleston (2006). “Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A Family Perspective,” Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice 30(6), 809–830.

X

Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., & Feranita, F. (2017). Collaborative innovation in family firms: Past research, current debates and agenda for future research. Journal of Family Business Strategy., 8(3), 137–156.

X X

Marchisio, G., Mazzola, P., Sciascia, S., Miles, M., & Astrachan, J. (2010). Corporate venturing in family business: The effects on the family and its members. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3-4), 349–377.

X

Alonso, R., Martínez-Romero, M., & Rojo-Ramírez, A. (2018). Technological innovation and socioemotional

(21)

wealth in family firm research. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 16(3), 270– 301.

Miller, D., Wright, M., Breton-Miller, I., & Scholes, L. (2015). Resources and Innovation in Family Businesses: The Janus-Face of Socioemotional Preferences. California Management Review, 58(1), 20–40.

X X

Nieto, M., Santamaria, L., & Fernandez, Z. (2015). Understanding the Innovation Behavior of Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 382–399.

X X X

Röd, I. (2016). Disentangling the family firm’s innovation process: A systematic review. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 185–201.

X X X

Rondi, E., De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2019). Unlocking innovation potential: A typology of family business innovation postures and the critical role of the family system. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(4).

X

Spriggs, M., Yu, A., Deeds, D., & Sorenson, R. (2013). Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen: Innovative Capacity, Collaborative Network Orientation, and Performance in Small Family Businesses. Family Business Review, 26(1), 32–50.

X X

Voordeckers, W., Roijakkers, N., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Lambrechts, F. (2017). Exploring open innovation in entrepreneurial private family firms in low- and medium-technology industries. Organizational Dynamics, 46(4), 244–261.

X X X

Webb, J. W., D. J. Ketchen, and R. D. Ireland (2010). “Strategic Entrepreneurship within Family-Controlled Firms: Opportunities and

(22)

Challenges,” Journal of Family Business Strategy 1(2), 67–77.

Table 1: Overview of Family Firm Attributes in Current Research

2.4 Innovation in Start-Ups

In the literature, there is no generally valid definition of start-ups. However, there is a widespread acceptance among academics for the definition of Ries (2011): “A startup is a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty” (p. 27). Hence, start-ups present a specific form of organisation that is unmatched equipped to capture value through new ventures by identifying and creating business opportunities for innovation (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018).

They provide distinct characteristics that distinguish them from other, more mature forms of organisations. Start-ups benefit from passionate, sacrificing founders (Kohler, 2016) and a focus on niche markets, products or services (Kupp et al., 2017). Through the development of specific expertise, they can overcome environmental challenges imposed by superiors. Especially in the context of emerging technologies, they show a significant advantage in knowledge and skills over established organisations (Kohler, 2016; Oakey & Cooper, 1991). Through flat hierarchies and inspiring visions, they attract young, creative talent that is engaged in quick processes and dynamic communication (Alvarez & Barney, 2001), which can further increase the start-up’s innovation advantage. Besides, start-ups obtain a unique ability to integrate sources of external nature through collaborative innovation (Jung et al., 2018).

However, the underlying attributes of start-ups also present significant challenges. Due to their novelty, they lack reputation and thus also customers and market power which are essential to make their innovations profitable (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015; De Man & Duysters, 2005). Furthermore, they usually possess limited resources, especially financially (Park & Bae, 2018; Saemundsson & Dahlstrand, 2005) but also in terms of production facilities or infrastructure (Kohler, 2016; Alvarez & Barney, 2001) which restraints their potential to prevail against superiors as well as competitors.

(23)

2.5 Advantages of Collaboration

As discussed in the previous section, family businesses and start-ups both have their strengths and weaknesses that enable or hinder them from being innovative. The ‘collaborative innovation’ approach could solve this problem by bringing benefits to all parties. "Collaborative innovation is the pursuit of innovations across ﬁrm boundaries through the sharing of ideas, knowledge, expertise, and opportunities" (Ketchen at al., 2007) and thus allows the partnering organisations to jointly create value (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Minola et al., 2016).

By getting access to external resources, skills and knowledge from the respective other partner, innovation capabilities can be enhanced in two ways: leveraging and learning. While leveraging refers to the exploitation of existing resources and thus the sharing of costs and risks, learning relates to the ability to apply new knowledge to improve a product, service or process (Feranita et al., 2017; Kuratko et al., 2009; Freytag, 2019; Mercandetti, Larbig, Tuozzo & Steiner, 2017). These processes have a positive effect on the innovation potential and financial performance and thereby consequently create wealth (Kotlar et al., 2017; Ketchen et al., 2007; Voordeckers et al., 2017). Hence, collaborative innovation is also of strategic importance (Minola et al., 2016; Jung et al., 2018).

2.5.1 Benefits for Family Businesses

In addition to the shared advantages of collaboration for both parties, some are specifically beneficial for family businesses. Family businesses gain access to new technologies, innovative talent and the start-ups’ network (Feranita et al., 2017; Alvarez & Barney, 2001; Hogenhuis, van Den Hende & Hultink, 2016; Jung et al., 2018). Moreover, family businesses can profit from the flexibility and speed of start-ups that allow them to test innovations quickly and, if successful, to scale up (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015; Freytag, 2019; De Man & Duysters, 2005). Another critical factor is that external partners can use their outside position to question and thus optimise long-standing products, services or even traditional business models. In this way, innovation can be promoted, and a strategic renewal supported that ensures competitive advantage and long-term success (Mercandetti et al., 2017; Webb et al., 2010; Voordeckers et al., 2017).

(24)

2.5.2 Benefits for Start-ups

Innovative collaboration also offers some specific advantages for start-ups, which make this approach attractive to them. They especially benefit from the access to organisational resources such as capital, production facilities, infrastructure and human resources (Kohler, 2016; Alvarez & Barney, 2001). Furthermore, they can rely on the family businesses’ network, reputation and market power which makes them more likely to be accepted by a broader customer base (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Freytag, 2019; Anthony, 2012; Mercandetti et al., 2017). Lastly, they can absorb the family businesses’ knowledge and learn from their experience (Hogenhuis et al., 2016; De Man & Duysters, 2005).

2.6 Risks of Collaboration

Despite the many advantages of collaborative innovation, scholars also point out the risks of this strategy. Most companies fear the loss of control and exploitation by the partner (Kotlar et al., 2017; Alvarez & Barney, 2001) who could even position himself as a competitor with the newly acquired knowledge (De Massis et al., 2015; Ketchen et al., 2007; De Man & Duysters, 2005, Voordeckers et al., 2017). Particularly when it comes to technological innovation, there is concern about the legal protection of innovation and related knowledge (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Alvarez & Barney, 2001; Nieto et al., 2015; Gompers, 2002). In addition, collaboration is extremely resource-intensive, especially in terms of the time and capital invested, but innovation success cannot be guaranteed. On the contrary, the failure of a joint development is likely, which makes many companies shy away from it (Mercandetti et al., 2017; De Man & Duysters, 2005; Gu & Su, 2018, Voordeckers et al., 2017).

2.7 Forms of Collaboration with Start-Ups

In order for family businesses to leverage on mutually benefitting value creation with start-ups, there are many forms of partnerships to choose from with features that serve different collaboration purposes. In the following, the most common, academically discussed forms of collaboration are presented.

Corporate Venturing

Describes entrepreneurial activities that are established within the family business´ borders (Marchisio et al., 2010) or externally through semi-independent or independent

(25)

start-up entities (Brumana et al., 2017). The advantage of this venture form is that the strategic mission is clearly stated and a transparent positioning towards an evident willingness to innovate with start-ups (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015).

Strategic Alliances

Family businesses engage in long-term strategic alliances (Alvarez & Barney, 2001) to share complementing inputs through their cooperation agreement while remaining separate identities (De Man & Duysters, 2005).

Accelerators

Through accelerator programmes organised by family businesses, start-up cohorts receive support in terms of resources, mentoring and know-how for a limited period of time. This allows family businesses to design the project setting, extract company-relevant value whilst start-ups can extensively develop their expertise and retain full ownership (Kohler, 2016).

Further forms of collaboration between family businesses and start-ups are for instance

mergers and acquisitions (M&A) (Gompers, 2002) or a collaborative partnership of the

organisations sharing risks and profits in the form of a joint venture (Jung et al., 2018). Other companies support start-up development through providing training, services, financial support or office space namely incubators (Kupp et al., 2017) or establish

start-up challenges and hackathons to let start-start-ups pitch business-relevant solutions and engage

in networking (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). The concept of open innovation describes the process of sourcing innovative concepts through an external and internal flow of knowledge into the respective organisation (Voordeckers et al., 2017).

2.8 Success Factors for Collaboration

As soon as the partnership is formed, some elements can positively impact the collaboration. The higher the relatedness in terms of strategic fit and market knowledge between the incumbent and start-up, the lower the “costs of redundancy, conflict, and complexity” (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018). Mutual trust, equal treatment and joint commitment are vital values that foster leveraging on the other entity´s core capabilities (Ketchen et al., 2007). Receptiveness to external knowledge, transparency and a fitting governance structure that allows collaboration (Kotlar et al., 2017) are essential for

(26)

creating a win-win situation (Mercandetti et al., 2017). In the end, those organisations that are capable of absorbing and integrating external knowledge effectively, are the ones that will benefit most from the collaboration (Ketchen et al., 2007).

2.9 Identified Lack of Studies

After an intensive review of the literature, we found that there is general knowledge about the individual topics of family businesses, innovation, collaborative innovation and start-ups. We learnt that innovation is essential for all types of organisations to develop competitive advantage and thus ensure long-term survival (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015; Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016; Kupp et al., 2017). That is especially true for family businesses as they must prosper and grow to secure transgenerational success, which is often a predominant goal (Röd, 2016; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Niet et al., 2015). Still, despite their abilities, many family firms are unwilling to innovate (Chrisman et al., 2015).

The literature also states that collaborative innovation is a promising approach for many companies to reach for more innovation as the external input of knowledge and resources improves the chances of success (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Kotlar et al., 2017.). This is particularly true when working with start-ups as their main strength are dynamism and flexibility, technologically savvy employees and most importantly the quick identification of new opportunities - things that many larger corporations often lack (Aggarwal & Wu, 2018; Alvarez & Barney, 2001; Kupp et al., 2017). Hence, it seems to be very reasonable for family businesses to create collaborative innovations together with start-ups.

It must be considered, though, that family firms profoundly differ from other types of organisations. Their distinct attributes contribute to the choices they make - including those relating to innovation. However, we do not yet know how they influence certain decisions. Thus, we want to study which impact specific behavioural attributes (risk aversion, long-term orientation, unwillingness to collaborate with external partners and unwillingness to invest in innovation purposes) have on the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. Consequently, we want to address the following research question, as illustrated in Figure 1: “How do family firm attributes influence the decision

(27)

Figure 1: Identified Lack of Studies

This is important to make family firms more aware of the effect of their distinct attributes in regard to innovation. Since innovation is crucial for their long-term survival and success, it is essential to analyse the decisions for or against collaborative innovation with start-ups and by which attributes these might be influenced. This awareness supports potential change and more openness to future engagement in collaborative innovation. To fill in this knowledge gap, we use secondary information from present literature and studies in this field and build on that by conducting primary data from family businesses to research if and how their behavioural attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups.

(28)

3 Methodology

_____________________________________________________________________________________ This section will present the methodological approach that was used in order to gather empirical data and thus answer the research question. To begin with, the research philosophy is explained, before outlining the research strategy and following approach. Then the data collection and analysis are described. Lastly, the research quality and ethical considerations are being discussed.

____________________________________________________________

3.1 Research Philosophy

To determine the research philosophy is crucial in order to clarify how the researchers interpret the environment and their reflexive role in the research methods to develop knowledge and contribute to their research field. In addition, it will help to define the research design and to recognise which approaches will work best. Therefore, the research philosophy profoundly influences the research methodology and its outcome (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson, 2015).

Researchers distinguish between ontology, the assumptions about the nature of reality and existence, and epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge. Considering that we analysed a variety of family businesses and thus included their individual experiences and opinions, there are many truths depending on the respective viewpoint. Through this interaction, we discovered that some findings might be valid for some organisations while the opposite is true for others due to individual influence of variables. Taking these aspects into consideration and the circumstance that we became part of the investigated reality as researchers, we figured that the relativist ontology best suits in developing research for this study (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).

In regard to the epistemology, we decided to take the perspective of constructionism which corresponds to a relativism approach. Constructionism aims to develop a theory-based upon qualitative questions and the comparison and triangulation of their results. It takes the observers interaction with their environment into consideration. The research is usually conducted through a small number of cases and aims for convergence (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Within our study, we interviewed a number of family firms to analyse,

(29)

compare and triangulate the data so that we generate reasonable answers to our research question. We believe that there is no single truth, but there are converging findings that allowed us to develop a consistent theory to fulfil our research purpose.

3.2 Research Approach

Following our research philosophy, we developed our research approach to build the foundation for our research strategy and to provide guidance for our research design, the data collection and later our analysis (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).

First, it had to be decided whether the purpose of the study is of descriptive, explorative, or explanatory nature. While a descriptive study presents an accurate image of a situation, organisation, event or group of people, an exploratory study produces new insights, or a reinterpretation of a given phenomenon. An explanatory study aims to interpret the relationships between different variables, as done in quantitative studies (Robson, 2002; Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). As our research has the intention to provide new insights by analysing how family firm attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups, we decided for an explorative study. According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009), an exploratory design can be conducted in three ways: (1) by gathering data through research of fundamental literature; (2) by interviewing focus groups or individuals; or (3) by interviewing experts of a specific field. For our research, we used both existing literature and expert interviews as their combination best allowed to gain in-depth insights.

Another aspect to consider was whether to choose a deductive, inductive or abductive approach. A deductive approach has the aim to test a theory that the researcher has developed from existing literature. This theory will then either be confirmed or denied in the scope of the data analysis. Deductive research is mostly associated with quantitative, positivist research studies as it assumes one exclusive reality to be recognised and described through theory. In contrast, an inductive approach has the aim to develop a theory that is based on collected empirical data. By identifying motives and patterns from rich data, the researcher gains a deep understanding of a given event that builds the foundation for his theory. Inductive research is mostly associated with qualitative, constructionist research studies, as it accepts a subjective reality (Saunders et al., 2012).

(30)

Lastly, the abductive approach is introduced to address weaknesses associated with deductive and inductive reasoning. Thereby, the research process starts with an empirical phenomena (observation) that cannot be explained by existing theories. Thus, the aim is to find possible explanations and choose the most plausible one (Aliseda, 2007; Awuzie & McDermott, 2017). Considering our research philosophy and the aim to develop a theory based on the empirical data we were collecting, without evaluating different explanations; it becomes clear that inductive research was the most reasonable approach for our study.

3.3 Research Strategy

As described in the previous sections, we aimed to explore how different family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups. Therefore, we needed to build a deeper knowledge of and understanding for the family firms, especially in regard to their behaviours. The fact that we used the epistemology of constructionism and an inductive research approach, which is mostly affiliated to qualitative research (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015), supported our decision to take a qualitative approach for this study.

More precisely, we conducted primary data through semi-structured in-depth interviews and triangulated them with secondary data from literature and other reasonable sources such as consultancy reports. By coding and analysing this data, we developed a theory, as suggested by the Grounded Theory approach. This approach allowed us to analyse and combine different types of data to enable some degree of generalisation while also sensitising for individual opinions and experiences (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Concerning the time horizon, we decided on a cross-sectional study. This type of study represents a ‘snapshot’ taken at a specific time, including a plurality of research objects. In contrast, there are also longitudinal studies that examine only a particular object of research over an extensive period of time (Saunders et al., 2012). We aimed to analyse the present status of collaborative innovation within different family firms due to their specific attributes in order to develop recommendations for an immediate increase in

(31)

innovation. Therefore, it was advantageous to get an up-to-date picture of numerous family businesses by using a cross-sectional study.

3.4 Data Collection

Following our approach of an exploratory study, we considered it useful to collect both primary and secondary data to get a holistic picture of our topic and to conduct an in-depth analysis. Therefore, we gathered primary data from in-in-depth interviews within family firms and complemented them with secondary data from existing literature. Combining these different sources of data enabled us to examine our research question from various angles and improved the data quality (Saunders et al., 2012).

3.4.1 Secondary Data

To gain a deep understanding of the background of our research, we utilised secondary data in the form of a literature review and the application of other valuable data sources such as consultancy reports, news or websites. Secondary data can be defined as (written) sources that were initially created to serve a different purpose but have relevance for the present research. They save time and effort and also add further perspectives on the study. However, care should be taken to ensure that the content fits the topic (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Furthermore, we used secondary data to redefine our research topic. The present literature enabled us to analyse the relevance of our study and existing work in this field which finally supported us in narrowing down our research question.

In order to ensure the credibility and high quality of our literature review, we critically assessed our sources at all times. For this study, we focused on academic, peer-reviewed articles that have been published by journals with a high impact factor (> 2 ). In the exceptional case of using a journal with a lower impact factor, we have always supported its content with additional sources. To research and access the articles, we used the university’s database ‘JU Library’ as well as the online platform ‘Web of Science’. We identified key search terms (“family firm*”, “family business”, “collaborative innovat*”, “open innovat*”, “start-up*”, “startup*”, “start up”) and connected them through ‘Boolean operators’. Then, we scanned the search results by reading the articles’ abstracts and chose the most relevant ones for further readings. From there on, we applied the snowball principle to discover and analyse pertinent other articles.

(32)

To have a clear overview, we developed an Excel spreadsheet to record the most important elements of the respective articles in a systematic and structured way (Appendix 1). Thereby, we also clustered the thematic correlations between the articles, which helped us to define the subtopics of our theoretical framework. The literature review enabled us to summarise significant academic findings within the relevant field and to develop constructive interview questions for our primary data collection. It was further useful in the analysis as a reference point for the triangulation of sources.

In addition, we also used secondary data in the form of consultancy reports, news and website information of the case companies to get further information and insights. These are included in the analysis part.

3.4.2 Primary Data

To collect primary data for our research, we found a qualitative design most suitable in establishing linkages between family businesses´ relationships with start-ups and the scarcity of existent theory on this topic (Yin, 2013). First, we identified and chose those sample family firms appropriate according to the specific purpose of generating primary data to later answer to our research question. Hence, we applied purposive sampling to involve only participants of eligibility (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). We focused on family firms where the majority ownerships lies within the family, so that the influence and thus, decision-making of the business family becomes apparent. Furthermore, all case companies are medium-sized to large firms, having more than 50 employees (lfM Bonn, 2020). It allowed us to avoid restrictions imposed by small and micro family firms. In addition, at least a second-generation after the founding generation is somehow involved in the business. Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic restrictions imposed by the WHO (World Health Organisation) on international border crossing, this research was limited in its scope to the German market. Therefore, sample participants had to be employed in a German family firm. Thereby we also avoided biases through cultural differences. We applied further criteria to systematically select the participants for our sample (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015) as illustrated in Table 2. Our selected participants possess a profound understanding of business and innovation development within their family firm framework because of their job position. The interviewees are employed in

(33)

innovation-related or business development departments or directly involved in start-up collaboration. One of the participants, is a second-generation employee in the family business as well as engaging in his recently founded start-up, which is linked to the company.

Criteria Selection Definition

Company Type Family Firms We conduct research on family firms where the majority ownership lies within the family. The firms must have more than 50 employees, and the second (or later) generations are involved in the business.

Job Position Business

Development, Innovation-related, Start-up connection

We engage with participants who are involved and experienced in business development/ innovation and start-up collaboration related tasks.

Geographic Location Germany We include German family firms.

Table 2: Criteria for Family Firm Selection

Additionally, in order to identify more sample participants from the same company that are eligible to answer to our research, we employed snowball sampling in which we asked participants for other suitable interviewees they know from their network to connect us with (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). In three cases, this led us to conduct interviews with at least two employees of the same company, which allowed us to gain diversified insights into the family businesses and their collaboration with start-ups.

In total, we conducted ten interviews with six different German family-owned companies from various industries and with a start-up that is affiliated with one of the family businesses. These companies are presented under consideration of an anonymisation.

(34)

Company A:

Company A has been a family-owned company since the early 20th century, and the third generation is already involved in the business. The company employs more than 17,000 employees in over 70 countries and offers a wide product range in heating and cooling solutions. The development of efficient, sustainable energy systems is focussed in innovation and R&D projects. Furthermore, to add value to their business processes and innovation purposes, the company is engaging in multiple collaborations with partners such as start-ups.

Source: company website, information from interviewees

Company B:

Company B is a family business headquartered in Northern Germany with more than 2,000 employees and an international market presence in the food industry. The company is engaging in self-production and selling their products through retailers worldwide. It was founded over 120 years ago and is still owned by the family successor who is also chair to the management board. Innovation is an important matter to the company, thus trends, changing customer tastes and product development are taken seriously. The company is actively engaging in start-up collaboration for innovation purposes.

Source: company website, information from interviewees

Company C:

Company C is a medium-sized family firm from Northern Germany, which is active in the food industry. The business is still in the hands of the founder but is managed by an external CEO. However, the second generation of the family is already involved in the company. The firm is specialised in refining purchased raw materials and reselling them to supermarkets and food producers. Company C operates worldwide but has a strong focus on Europe. Innovation represents a critical company value - but so far there is no collaboration with start-ups.

Source: Company Website, Information from Interviewees.

Company D:

Company D is a medium-sized family business which is active in Germany. It is one of the nation's leading IT service providers in a specific field and is part of a large system

(35)

house. Between 50-100 employees work in the company. In addition, a small start-up in the field of cybersecurity belongs to the firm, in which one of the family members is involved as a founder. The company also collaborates with other external companies in the field and is in the process of founding another start-up.

Company E:

Company E is a comparatively large family business in the real estate sector and is run by the son of the founder. With over 3,000 employees, the company operates worldwide, but the majority of its business is focused on Europe. The company has a department particularly dedicated to digital innovation. Also, there are already several established co-operations with start-ups, but not in the context of collaborative innovation. The focus is rather on implementing ready-made solutions of mature start-ups.

Company F:

Company F is a family business that designs, builds or reconstructs retail, hotel and office spaces. Their service offering includes the associated conception, planning logistics and final implementation. The company engages in innovation concerning the enhancement of service offerings, but not through collaborating with start-ups yet. The founding family member is still acting as CEO while the second generation is involved in the business development.

Source: company website, information from interviewees

The following Table 3 presents an overview of the contexts of interview participants concerning their position, their relationship to the owner family, form of organisation, the involvement in start-up collaborations of their respective family business, and used tools to conduct the interview from a distance. In total, we interviewed ten people. The overall length amounted to 10 hours and 10 minutes of qualitative interview time.

Company Participant Position Family member Existing Start-up collabor Family Business (FB) / Interview Type Length (in min)

(36)

ation Start-up (S) Company A A1 Innovation manager no yes FB Google Hangout 68 Company A A2 Innovation manager no yes FB Google Hangout 63 Company A A3 Head of Venture Developme nt no yes FB Google Hangout 58 Company B B1 Head of Business Developme nt no yes FB Microsoft Teams 57 Company B B2 Co-founder start-up incubator no yes FB Microsoft Teams 61 Company C C1 Managing Director no no FB Phone Call 65 Company D D1 Co-Founder no yes S Facetime 57 Company D D2 Innovation Manager (FB) / Co-Founder (S)

yes yes FB & S WhatsApp Call 61 Company E E1 Chief Digital Officer no no FB Microsoft Teams 62 Company F F1 Business Developme

Collaborative Innovation between Family Businesses and Start-Ups : An empirical study on how family business attributes influence the decision for collaborative innovation with start-ups