Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Entrepreneurial intention-action gap in family firms: bifurcation bias and the board of directors as an economizing mechanism

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Eurasian Business Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates under which conditions entrepreneurial intentions will transform into entrepreneurial actions in a family firm context. Although entrepreneurial intentions are often a good predictor for entrepreneurial activity, intentions will not always lead to the expected action. We aim to explain this intention-behavior gap in family firms by investigating the moderating role of bifurcation bias, defined as the de facto asymmetric treatment of family vs. nonfamily assets. Our results support the argument that bifurcation bias in family firms hinders the smooth transition of entrepreneurial intentions into entrepreneurial actions. Nevertheless, results also support the notion that the appointment of outside directors in the board could serve as an economizing mechanism for bifurcation biased family firms to transform entrepreneurial intentions into entrepreneurial actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To further alleviate this concern, we also did a robustness test (see result section) where EA was measured with secondary data (in line with Kreiser et al., 2019) enabling us the induce a time lag between the measurement of EI and EA.

  2. According to Cho & Kim (2015), no strict cut-off value should be applied but in general Cronbach alpha’s around or above 0.7 are seen as acceptable levels of alpha.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghaei, I., & Sokhanvar, A. (2019). Factors influencing SME owners’ continuance intention in Bangladesh: A logistic regression model. Eurasian Business Review, 10, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planend behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and prediction social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend, R. J. (2014). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: How firm age and size affect the ‘capability enhancement–SME performance’ relationship. Small Business Economics, 42(1), 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, D. C., & Schulze, W. S. (1999). Fairness in family firms: An organizational justice perspective on agency problems. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 1999 (Vol. 1, pp. C1–C6). Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

  • Barnett, T., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2006). Are we family and are we treated as family? Nonfamily employees’ perceptions of justice in the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 837–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Becker, G. S. (2009). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen, M., & Foss, N. (2015). Family assets and liabilities in the innovation process. California Management Review, 58(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casillas, J., & Moreno, A. (2010). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth: The moderating role of family involvement. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3/4), 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Devaraj, S., & Patel, P. C. (2017). The impact of incentive compensation on labor productivity in family and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 30(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2013). The influence of family goals, governance, and resources on firm outcomes. SAGE Publications Sage CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. SAGE Publications Sage CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic management journal, 10(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2011). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 677–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Garrett, R. (2014). Examining relationships among family influence, family culture, flexible planning systems, innovativeness and firm performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: A generational perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Di Minin, A., & Frattini, F. (2015). Family-driven innovation: Resolving the paradox in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2013). Research on technological innovation in family firms: Present debates and future directions. Family Business Review, 26(1), 10–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, J., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., & Depaire, B. (2015). The effect of family business professionalization as a multidimensional construct on firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 516–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., Jr. (2006). Examining the “family Effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19(4), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emami, A., & Dimov, D. (2017). Degree of innovation and the entrepreneurs’ intention to create value: A comparative study of experienced and novice entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review, 7(2), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 679–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltham, T. S., Feltham, G., & Barnett, J. J. (2005). The dependence of family businesses on a single decision-maker. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, H., & He, Z. (2019). Board structure and role of outside directors in private firms. European Financial Management, 25(4), 861–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Álvarez, E., & López-Sintas, J. (2001). A taxonomy of founders based on values: The root of family business heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 14(3), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieure, C., del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2020). The entrepreneurial process: The link between intentions and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 112, 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, G., Conner, M., & Sheeran, P. (2005). Bridging the intention-behaviour “gap”: The role of moral norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69–119). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G. (2014). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology®: APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3 edn. (pp. 271–327). Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-008.

  • Hair, A. R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application (pp. 77–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Jafri, M. H. (2010). Organizational commitment and employee’s innovative behavior: A study in retail sector. Journal of Management Research, 10(1), 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, M., & Johnson, G. (1997). Entrepreneurial intentions and outcomes: A comparative causal mapping study. Journal of Management Studies, 34(6), 895–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J. E., Dempsey, D., & James, A. E. (2018). Bifurcated HR practices in family firms: Insights from the normative-adaptive approach to stepfamilies. Human Resource Management Review, 28(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. (2018). Family firm internationalization: Heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 158–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 440–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00153.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. (2012). Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark side. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1175–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L., & Åmo, B. W. (2019). Growth intention and growth in small accounting firms. Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of business venturing, 21(6), 866–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M., Anderson, B. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Marino, L. D. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and environmental hostility: A threat rigidity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719891389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S., Astrachan, J., Keyt, A., & McMillan, K. (2006). Guidelines for family business boards of directors. Family Business Review, 19(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laspita, S., Breugst, N., Heblich, S., & Patzelt, H. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 414–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leleux, B., & Glemser, A. (2011). The Mercks of Darmstadt: What family can do. IMD Case Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, J., & Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship research: What we know and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 935–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madison, K., Daspit, J. J., Turner, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2018). Family firm human resource practices: Investigating the effects of professionalization and bifurcation bias on performance. Journal of Business Research, 84, 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majocchi, A., D’Angelo, A., Forlani, E., & Buck, T. (2018). Bifurcation bias and exporting: Can foreign work experience be an answer? Insight from European family SMEs. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matzler, K., Veider, V., Hautz, J., & Stadler, C. (2015). The impact of family ownership, management, and governance on innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton, L. P. (2008). Unleashing the relationship power of family firms: Identity confirmation as a catalyst for performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1063–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Bullón, F., & Sanchez-Bueno, M. J. (2011). The impact of family involvement on the R&D intensity of publicly traded firms. Family Business Review, 24(1), 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. (1990). Applied linear statistical models. Irwin. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, W., & Roberts, J. (2007). ‘Helping the family’: The mediating role of outside directors in ethnic Chinese family firms. Human Relations, 60(2), 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, M. Y., & Morris, K. A. (2005). Keeping it" all in the family:" does nepotism in the hiring process really benefit the beneficiary? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, M. S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C. C., Ladegård, G., & Korhonen-Sande, S. (2018). Growth intentions and board composition in high-growth firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(4), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16, S5–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samara, G., Jamali, D., & Parada, M. J. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of bifurcated compensation in family firms: A multilevel view. Human Resource Management Review, 31, 100728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, J., Voordeckers, W., Steijvers, T., & Laveren, E. (2014). The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: The moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9533-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer, R. (2008). Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 1–30). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(4), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniehotta, F. F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology and Health, 20(2), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songini, L. (2006). The professionalization of family firms: theory and practice. In P. Poutziouris, K. Smyrnios, & S. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of research on family business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenholm, P. (2011). Innovative behavior as a moderator of growth intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenholm, P., Pukkinen, T., & Heinonen, J. (2016). Firm growth in family businesses—The role of entrepreneurial orientation and the entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Why can’ta family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Family Business Review, 25(1), 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heyden, L., Blondel, C., & Carlock, R. S. (2005). Fair process: Striving for justice in family business. Family Business Review, 18(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., & Fink, M. (2015). From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: Self-control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 655–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., Wincent, J., & Biniari, M. (2018). Implementation intentions in the entrepreneurial process: Concept, empirical findings, and research agenda. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 923–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2010). Transaction cost economics (TCE) and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2012). The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family-based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1183–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., Yuan, W., & Kano, L. (2020). A values-based analysis of bifurcation bias and its impact on family firm internationalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37, 449–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9598-4.

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Entrepreneurship and Family Firms (RCEF), Hasselt University, Agoralaan, Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Jelle Schepers, Wim Voordeckers & Tensie Steijvers

  2. University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Eddy Laveren

Authors
  1. Jelle Schepers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Voordeckers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tensie Steijvers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eddy Laveren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jelle Schepers.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schepers, J., Voordeckers, W., Steijvers, T. et al. Entrepreneurial intention-action gap in family firms: bifurcation bias and the board of directors as an economizing mechanism. Eurasian Bus Rev 11, 451–475 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00183-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00183-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation