Personality & Diversity in groups

bwilliams327

Generationaldiversityoverconfidenceanddecision-makinginfamilybusiness_Aknowledgeheterogeneityperspective.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Personality & Diversity in groups

ble at ScienceDirect

Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e59

Contents lists availa

H O S T E D BY

Asia Pacific Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apmrv

Generational diversity, overconfidence and decision-making in family business: A knowledge heterogeneity perspective

Fu-Sheng Tsai a, *, Che-Hung Lin e, Julia L. Lin b, I-Pin Lu c, Aida Nugroho d

a Department of Business Administration, Cheng Shiu University, Taiwan b Department of International Business, I-Shou University, Taiwan c Department of Business Administration, I-Shou University, Taiwan d I-Shou University, Taiwan e Department of Information Management, Cheng Shiu University, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 17 October 2015 Accepted 8 February 2017 Available online 25 April 2017

Keywords: Generational diversity Decision-making Overconfidence Family business Knowledge heterogeneity

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected],

(F.-S. Tsai). Peer review under responsibility of College of M

Kung University.

a b s t r a c t

Is generational diversity really “bad” for collective decision-making effectiveness in the family business? We argue that generational diversity reflects collective knowledge heterogeneity, and that through overconfidence as an important collective psychological mechanism, generational diversity may counter- intuitively benefit organizational consequences. Data from sixty decision-making teams in Indonesian family businesses with Chinese kinship relations suggested: first, generational diversity has positive effect on decision-making; second, generational diversity influences on group overconfidence negatively; third, overconfidence influences decision-making negatively; and fourth, overconfidence mediates in the relationship between diversity and decision effectiveness. All theoretical argument and empirical dis- cussions grounded on knowledge heterogeneity perspective generated implications for theory and practices of decision-making in family businesses context.

1. Introduction

Family business are created with entrepreneurial efforts, resource collection, and decision making done by family members with kinship relations, especially family members of the top management teams (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2004; Ling & Kellermanns, 2010). A major activity these members conduct is the collective decision-making for critical issues of company sur- vival or future directions (Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma, 2005).

Decision making in family business is more complicated than that in other forms of organization (Mustakallio, Auitio, & Zahra, 2002). Decision making does not only mean to solve the constantly emergent problems, but also trying to reduce un- certainties during problem-solving procedures. Unlike other busi- ness, decision makers in family business encounter uncertainties

[email protected]

anagement, National Cheng

Cheng Kung University. Production

from both business and non-business (i.e., family) relations and dynamics, which can lead to tension or dilemmatic situations (Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007; Sirmon, Arregle, Hitt, & Webb, 2008; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). In such situations, decision team members need to rely on professional knowledge to prevent biases toward others and the collectives.

Furthermore, decision making situations would become even more unpredictable if there is intra-group diversity in generations for decision makers. On the one hand, diversity may cause difficulty in collective works, especially the generational diversity here in family business contexts. As abovementioned, professional knowledge plays an important role in balancing potential biases when decision making. However, difficulties happen when mem- bers of different generations, who often represent persons trained with a variety of knowledge disciplines and with different cognition toward external environments, try to transfer information, knowledge, or experiences to one another. Put shortly, the het- erogeneous possessed by members of different generations may impede collective decision making as a collective knowledge pro- cessing activity (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Carpenter, 2002). On the other hand, however, diversity may also generate positive impacts. For example, diversity of a group may indicate a wide array of

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e5954

sources of information, which helps a lot in collecting potential thoughts and ideas for decision making. The merits of diversity have also been observed in family business contexts (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2004).

Research in decision-making of general businesses has shown that there is generational gap between decision makers in terms of knowledge and expertise (e.g., Dror, Katona, & Mungur, 1998). As knowledge is a cornerstone for decision-making, heterogeneity in knowledge among decision makers can cause potential challenges. Knowledge and biases generated from it can affect decision making. Specifically, knowledge heterogeneity in the context of family business decision making teams refers to the deviation or differ- ences between the knowledge, professions, or expertise among members of the team, majorly due to the different education and training, and life/work experiences brought naturally by the generational gap. Research has revealed that higher performance of family business often come from the strengths in commitment, knowledge continuity, reliability and pride. However, knowledge continuity is difficult to be realized in practices of family business governance. For example, while elder generation trained with traditional business administration models often make decisions on an emphasis on efficiency and profit pursuing, the younger generation lived in a freer and dynamically changing business world might often like creative solutions just to show their per- sonal styles in general decisions. Ironically, the education and training the younger generation received may often be the arrangement from their elder generation. Such situation is often the case characterizing family business decision making teams. Therefore, the contingent effects of generational diversity as rep- resenting knowledge heterogeneity needs to be discussed under some specific situations or by identifying important intervening mechanisms (Tsai, Baugh, Fang, & Lin, 2014).

Hence, it is critical to link diversity in knowledge to decision making. Note, however, we did not mean to measure knowledge heterogeneity with age diversity. In the contrary, we wish to offer explanation for the relationships of age diversity, overconfidence, and decision effectiveness in the lens of Knowledge Heterogeneity theory. In short, the Knowledge Heterogeneity is a theoretical perspective in this paper but not a specific variable. Hence, what is more important is not only whether, but also why diversity in- fluences positively or negatively on collective decision making.

Based on the above-discussed, the present paper tends to examine on two critical issues. First, we propose and test for the benefits (positive influences) of generational diversity on collective decision making in family businesses, as a counter-intuitive phe- nomenon. Second, we explored a mediating mechanism that ex- plains “why” generational diversity has such benefits. We proposed and explored the mediating role of overconfidence as an important cognitive and psychological mechanism. Assessing the psycholog- ical state of entrepreneurs facilitates our understanding of the micro-dynamics of entrepreneurial development (Baron, 2008; Baron & Tang, 2011; Cardon, 2008; Cardon, Foo, Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2012; Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009; Cardon, Zietsma, Saporito, Matherne, & Davis, 2005). Essentially, family business can be treated as entrepreneurial firms whether the founder or the successors would dominant or share the rights of governance. Thus, we investigate on overconfidence as one important mechanism, because it is inherently among the most important concerns impacting collective decision making across a wide array of business situations (e.g., Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012), especially in entrepreneurial types of businesses (Baron, 2000; Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). Therefore, when considering the link among diversity, col- lective state of overconfidence, and decision making, researchers can further clarify the complex interrelationships among team

composition, collective minds, and decision-making dynamics in entrepreneurial settings.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1. Decision making in family business

The family businesses definition is unclear due to a lack of consensus among researchers. Based on the Sharma (2004), the definition of family business is still new and un-researched and diverse (see also Shanker & Astrachan, 1996). Totally, Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma (1999) found many different definitions of family business in their review of hundreds of articles. The need for a commonly recognized definition of family business was obvious (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003). Generally, family business is one that family members have significant ownership, interests and signifi- cant commitments toward the overall operation, the basic charac- teristic that distinguishes family from other businesses is the influence of family relationships on the business (Hoffman, Hoelscher, & Sorenson, 2006).

Under such circumstances, a trend in family business manage- ment is the multi-generational, team-based decision making, especially in emerging countries. Rae (2006) argues that collective units-of-analysis become important in explaining decision-making practices within family businesses. Aronoff and Astrachan (1996) found many firms searching for consensus and some firms using a democratic voting process. Collective decision making involves complex mechanism of human thinking is becoming more central and indispensable in business life. Organizational performance and survival depend on the effectiveness of strategic collective de- cisions and how well these decisions are implemented. An effective decision making refers to the condition that decisions were derived with serious processes and work in solving practical problems.

Decision making in family business has similar components with non-family business, but it is more complex and unique because a family business connects two worlds of business and both require good governance. Collective decision making in family business is a double-edged sword. The advantages of such decision- making mode include long-term planning, common language, strong support among trustable family members, and shared values (Dyer & S�anchez, 1998; Hoffman et al., 2006). Nonetheless, such decision-making mode may also suffer from risks and disadvan- tages such as work-life conflicts, potential nepotism that makes most of the “seats” in the firm filled by the family members, next generations may commit less than their elder counterparts, and difficulties in separating family and business financial concerns (see review in Chrisman, Kellermanns, Chan, & Liano, 2010).

2.1.1. Generational diversity Diversity can generate contingent effects on family business

decision making. From social identity theory, sub-groups may lead to potential discrimination and conflicts that prevent harmony and coherence (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), in turn causing difficulties in collective problem-solving (Joshi & Jackson, 2003, pp. 277e296). However, the true effects of team diversity are highly dependent on what kind of diversity is affecting on what kind of results through contingent processes (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). For example, several reviews of basic research that relates team diversity to creative decision making support that team het- erogeneity improves decision quality (e.g., McGrath, 1984).

Among different kinds of team diversity, generational diversity is of the most relevant in family business context, because it rep- resents the degree of knowledge heterogeneity and can also generate contingent effects on decision making. Knowledge het- erogeneity implies different degree of uncertainty acceptance,

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e59 55

educational and functional training received, different ways of thinking, and different styles of communication (Tsai et al., 2014), thus may affect decision making quality of each of the sub-groups of young, elder, and even retired (Dror et al., 1998). Sanz de Acedo Liz�arraga, Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, and Cardelle-Elawar (2007) indicate that the youths and their adult counterparts experience different degree of pressure when conducting decision making tasks. Youth as individuals who more lack in knowledge and experience in certain decision areas were tend to less aware to decision complexity. In the contrary, elder people generally have experienced higher anxiety (Mueller, Kausler, Faherty, & Oliveri, 1980), lower concentration (Chagnon & McKelvie, 1992), and more likely to be distracted by irrelevant information than younger people. Other report (Johnson, 1990) showed that although young and elderly participants complete their tasks in similar amounts of time, young participants consider more options in that time frame and therefore make better decisions.

In aggregate, these results showed that there are both positive and negative influences of both younger and elder decision makers in family businesses. Therefore, generational diversity may not al- ways be a poison for decision making of family business's multi- generational teams. This argument is especially applicable when considering the composite portfolio of knowledge heterogeneity that a multi-generational team may have in the context of family business. Team as an organizational design has thus being increasingly used for better decision making with its capacity in overcoming bounded rationality of individual. Hence, the effec- tiveness of group decision making relies on effective wide-array knowledge exchanges, integration and application. As was mentioned above, the elder members of the decision-making team usually have more experiences and cognitive bases for operational strategies and practices in industries. But the younger generation generally have been arranged to be successors and would receive newer educational in scientific disciplines. If members can over- come the barriers brought by generational diversity by the effective function of attachment of family relations which is special from other kinds of business (Sharma, 2004), or by even the organization-family attachments (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999), they can enjoy the merit of diverse sets of information and knowledge brought by generational diversity. Thus, generational diversity as it brings in knowledge heterogeneity can also counter- intuitively benefit collective decision making in multi-generational decision teams.

H1: Generational diversity is positively associated with collec- tive decision-making effectiveness

2.2. Overconfidence

Overconfidence represents a belief that leads managers to over- estimate what they have and what they can do (Gervais, Heaton, & Odean, 2002), and thus may cause failures and risks (Malmendier & Tate, 2005), especially for higher management who might be very confident on their own experiences and judgment and could attribute failure to external factors (Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka,1970). Research has shown that higher managers are more positive in predicting future (Taylor & Brown, 1988), espe- cially when they know they are powerful (March & Sharpia, 1987) or have been highly empowered (Weinstein, 1980). This make makes a higher possibility of coming out of highly risky decisions. Extant studies have also pointed out that in professional areas people often displayed overconfidence, such as company managers (Malmendier & Tate, 2005), especially for decision making for highly difficult issues (Griffin & Tversky, 1992).

Thus, overconfident people may come out biased decisions and

a collection of overconfident people may make the bias even worse. In family business, overconfidence is often formed due to non- calculate trusts toward family members. It may bring negative ef- fects to decision making because non-professional concerns from political, social, or kinship perspectives may constrain information use and distribution. This impedes the amount of free information usage and neglect the needs for updating out-domain knowledge and information, or have specific person's information importance over-weighted (Wittenbaum, 1998). Therefore, we argue that overconfidence may not be beneficial for collective decision making effectiveness.

H2: Overconfidence is negatively associated with collective de- cision making effectiveness in family business

Despite the merits of informational richness brought by gener- ational diversity, authority atmosphere may still exist in most family firms, especially for those with Chinese kinship roots. The influencing factor of collective decision making teams of diverse generation do not just come from explicit verbal or non-verbal sighs, but also dominant by the interpersonal social-psychological interpretations between generations. Elder generation today is more open than ever in keeping inflow information from younger generations, in the premise of respecting professional opinions. Thus, the co-existence of traditional and professional respects characterizes many of the Chinese family businesses in Taiwan, China, or Singapore (Redding, 1980; Westwood & Chan, 1992).

In such vein, we argue that generational diversity can mitigate the negative influences of being self-hubristic, pride, and autono- mous when making decisions. Put differently, generational di- versity forms an atmosphere of “leaving space” for others’ opinions in minds and not just fills up with self perceptions of decision makers.

H3: Generational diversity is negatively associated with over- confidence in decision making

Family is a special governance form with unique power and incentive structures (Anderson, Mansi, & Reeb, 2003). With this reason family members often control decisive equity shares and occupied positions in higher management, taking family business as an asset that can be transferred to younger generation and emphasize on long-term development (Zahra, 2005). Facing such situation, decision group of family business would struggle for minimizing information asymmetry among stakeholders and managers, and hold multiple roles in gaining the rights for equity control and company executions, to prevent own financial loss when making ineffective decisions (Gedajlovic, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2004). Put differently, the stronger binding of the owner- ship and execution roles of the family business decision makers make them more careful in assessing and saying everything, especially when the collective decision team involve diverse peo- ple. Summing up the above, we argue that generational diversity can itself present a beneficial collective trait that facilitates an at- mosphere of being humble, careful and openness – thus lowers overconfidence and in turn leverages decision-making effective- ness indirectly. We hypothesize that.

H4: Overconfidence mediates in the relationship between generational diversity and decision-making effectiveness

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e5956

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

In Indonesia, while the economic crisis happened in 1997e98, SMEs survived better than the large enterprises due to the following reasons: first, SMEs were not as dependent on financial and banking sector as large enterprises do, making them more flexible to adapt; second, SMEs generally not much involved in the global market yet; third, not much SMEs replied on export, retaining high demand on their product; finally, family bonds strengthen the capacity for responding to unusual business crisis and events. Based on the abovementioned, purposive sampling technique is applied. The population is management teams of Indonesia family business with Chinese kinship relations. Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma (2005) provoked for the use of non- statistical sampling in family business research, emphasizing that sample should be chosen based on the value for providing rich and special information regarding family businesses.

Participants in this study are family members working in the family business and have a role in decision-making. Effective data contain at least three or more family members in decision teams. Further, we collect data from those decision teams spanning at least two generations. Data from a total of sixty teams were collected. Among the respondents, 71.67% were males and 28.33% were fe- male. The age of respondents ranged from 23 to 73 years old. The education of respondents ranged from High School to Master's degree in a variety of disciplinary areas. The functional division of the decision-making teams ranged from General/Executive man- agement, R&D, Marketing, Human Resources, Production, etc. A proportion of 73.3% of respondents only have work experiences in the current companies.

3.2. Measure

3.2.1. Major variables To determine the generational diversity of the family firm, we

relied on age data gathered from every member of the decision- making teams. Sanz de Acedo Liz�arraga et al. (2007) noted that age represents generational differences well and is among the variables that affect decision making most in family businesses. We follow expert suggestions and the rule of thumbs in practices to categorize the members into young, middle, and elder generations with the defined range of under 30, 31e50, and above 50 years old. We used the calculation formula of Blau (1977) to derive the scores for this kind of diversity. To measure decision effectiveness, we used 7-point Likert scale question items based on the Melbourne Deci- sion Making questionnaire (Mann et al., 1998). For overconfidence, there have mainly been two approaches for measuring higher management personnel overconfidence (Malmendier & Tate, 2005) e one measures overconfidence from assessing the top managers' belief and actions, while the other measures overconfidence from

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation.

Mean S.D. 1

1. Company e e 2. Industry e e 0.13 3. Firm Size Type e e 0.11 4. Capital size 4.75 1.69 0.26*

5. Firm Age 18.13 3.65 -0.06 6. Generational Div. 0.39 0.21 0.12 7. Overconfidence 5.65 0.94 0.14

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

how other people perceive and “portrait” the higher managers. This paper integrates the two approaches (observing and rate on a specific manager's belief and actions), by asking each of the members of the decision teams to rate on the degree of one an- other's overconfidence scores (6 items, 7-point Likert scale, adapted from the Mann et al., 1998 decision efficacy scale) on impressive strategic decisions made since they start to cooperate in collective decisions. Examples of adapted items read like “This person went over-confident in his/her decisions,” “This person maintained too much self-efficacy in the decision s/he made,” and so forth. Scores rated for all the six items from all other members in the same decision team were averaged to make a final score of a specific member's overconfidence score. Then, all members' over- confidence scores were averaged to make a team's overconfidence score.

3.2.2. Control variables We controlled for company difference because there are some

decision teams belong to one identical company group. Industry difference was also controlled. Firm size type was also a control variable by measuring the four size types of family businesses in Indonesia (i.e., micro-, small-, medium-, and large-businesses in terms of the number of active staff). Capital size was measured with the annual capital investment data from open source and company reports. Information of Firm Age was also gained from company reports.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Reliability and validity

The Cronbach's alpha results for decision making effectiveness showed that the reliability is reasonably good (a ¼ 0.81). Cron- bach's alpha also showed good results that there is good reliability of the data measuring overconfidence (a ¼ 0.80).

Results from Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test for decision making effectiveness, it showed that the number of measure of sampling adequacy is 0.67 (greater than 0.5). Also from KMO and Bartlett's Test for overconfidence, the number is 0.69. Both the results mean that the data can be used to extract. Principal component analysis also requires that the probability associated with Bartlett's test of Sphericity be less than the level of signifi- cance. Both results showed that the Significance is less than 0.001, which fulfilled the validity criteria.

4.2. Regression

Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and correlation co- efficients among major variables. To further examine the hypoth- eses proposed, Baron and Kenny (1986)'s four-step approach to test mediation was conducted step by step. First, we show that the causal variable is correlated with the outcome. Use “decision-

2 3 4 5 6

0.74**

0.04 0.13 0.62** 0.68** 0.08 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01 -0.25 0.59** 0.57** 0.25 0.71** -0.29*

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e59 57

making effectiveness” as the criterion variable in a regression equation and “Generational diversity” as a predictor. The regression coefficient b ¼ 5.86, P < 0.1. Hence, hypotheses 1 were supported. Second, this step establishes that there is an effect that may be mediated. We show that the causal variable is correlated with the mediator. Use “decision-making effectiveness” as the criterion variable in the regression equation and “Overconfidence “as a predictor. The regression coefficient b ¼ �1.24, P < 0.01. Hence, hypotheses 2 were supported. Third, we show that the mediator affects the outcome variable. Use overconfidence as the criterion variable in a regression equation and generational diversity as predictors. The regression coefficient b ¼ �4.49, P < 0.1. Hence, hypotheses 3 were supported. We find there were significant re- lationships from H1through H3, so that we proceeded to step 4. In the Step 4 model, we find general diversity is no longer significant when “Overconfidence” is controlled, the finding supports full mediation. Hence, hypotheses 4 were supported (see Table 2).

The hypothesis 1 states that generational diversity is positively associated with collective decision-making effectiveness, which was empirically supported by pur analysis. Existing studies tend to perceive the potential challenges generational diversity may bring to important operation of family business, including decision making (e.g., Davis & Harveston, 1998, 1999). However, our results showed that generational diversity may influence decision making positively, which in turn raise a more challenging question for the inconclusive impacts of generational diversity in family business context. Such accumulated result in literature reminds us to think of the impact of generational diversity from a contingency perspective. Thus, to resolve the question and offer explanation, we proceed to investigate the relationship between diversity and de- cision, by incorporating group overconfidence as an important intervening variable, as discussed below.

The statement of hypothesis 2 was empirically supported, indicating that overconfidence is negatively associated with col- lective decision making effectiveness in family business. This result allowed us to confirm in the context of family business the general expectation on the relationship between hubris and decision at strategic level (e.g., Hiller & Hambrick, 2005), despite the special case of the positive influence of overconfidence in investment area (Gervais et al., 2002). Furthermore, there have been significant

Table 2 General linear model (GLM) results.

H1 H2 H3 H4

Intercept 5.19*** 9.31*** 3.25** 9.03*** Company �3.97*** -0.29 2.91*** -0.53 Industry 0.55 -0.12 -0.52 -0.07 Firm Size Type �1.59* -0.93** 0.52 -0.97** Capital size 0.11 0.04 -0.05 0.05 Firm Age -0.16* 0.02 0.14* 0.01 Generational Diversity 5.86** �4.49** 0.54 Overconfidence �1.24*** �1.19*** R2 adjusted 0.75 0.94 0.77 0.94 Type III Sum of Squares 82.24** 85.99*** 49.82** 86.01***

Note: dependent variable of model 1, 2, and 4 is decision-making effectiveness, while that for the model 3 is overconfidence. N ¼ 60. Note: for the control variable of team size, we reasonably represent its influences with the existing firm size variable. Often, the decision team size is a reasonable project of the whole firm size. In fact, our data revealed that 4 out of the teams in our sample have the size of 4 (persons), 1 team with 7 persons, while all others are composed of 3 persons. Statistically, such distribution of data points is not so meaningful to justify its incorporation in the model. Similarly, our data revealed that all our decision-making teams are composed of family members. In the data collection process, we did so to purposefully highlight the context of family member composing decision making teams. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

studies of overconfidence in the broader Entrepreneurship field, and the present study confirmed the existence of the important influences of overconfidence in family businesses.

The supported hypothesis 3 states that generational diversity is negatively associated with overconfidence in decision making. Such result reasonably confirmed our argument that generational diversity may bring good influence on overconfidence. With such result we confirmed and extended the findings of the positive side of having diversity, especially generational diversity, into the family business context.

The hypothesis 4 states that overconfidence mediates in the relationship between generational diversity and decision-making effectiveness, which was also supported. If the young generation (e.g., the successors) is ready for taking responsibility, they are more capable for contribute seriously in important collective pro- cesses implemented with the elder generation (e.g., the decision making here), based on some interpersonal factors that may affect the collective action (e.g., balance of control between generations, De Pontet, Wrosch, & Gagne, 2007). Such result has provided an evidence of a potential mechanism through which diversity can leave positive impact on family business decision making.

5. Conclusion

The present study investigated on the effect of generational diversity in decision making of family business. The results showed that generational diversity is positively associated with decision making, and one explanatory mediator (i.e., overconfidence) hel- ped explain the reason why such positive effect may exist. Three implications are offered here. First, generational diversity can be beneficial, while many existing studies perceive it as harmful. Such inconsistency between the results of ours and other studies may implicate that generational diversity is a double-edged sword for collective decision making in family business. Related to such issue, the second implication shows that the influences of generational diversity may be contingent, subject to the existence of other mediating mechanism, such as the overconfidence examined in the present study. Finally, future studies may search for cultural specific factors that might intervene in the relationship between diversity and decision making. The overconfidence functions significantly in the present study, partially because of the nature of Chinese management. In a cultural setting emphasizing harmony among co-workers, diversity may restrain overconfidence because most of the co-workers (or the members in the same decision making team) tend not to break the harmony climate with their autono- mous actions upon their unique educations or experiences, which is easily represented by generational diversity. However, such re- striction may not be so obvious when in other cultural contexts emphasizing self-achievement and autonomy.

5.1. Limitation

This research has some limitations that worth further research works. Due the difficulty of data collection in decision maker teams in family business that fall in our strict definition, the sample size was inevitably small. Additionally, this research only studied Small- Medium enterprises segment of family businesses in Indonesia. The future studies may examine the other types and sizes of family business in Indonesia. Future studies may also examine different kind of diversity which relate to decision effectiveness such as gender, race, tenure, etc., jointly with the exploration for related mediating mechanisms. We have not explicitly study the role of culture in our proposed model (we only use the definition and selection on a specific kinship relation to set the research context and assist hypothesis development). Future studies are encouraged

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e5958

to incorporate cultural factors (e.g., comparison, cultural roots) in to the study of interweaving relationships among diversity, decision making and mediating mechanisms in family business. Moreover, for our core research questions and proposed hypotheses, rating for the variables from the same rater (i.e., same source bias) seemed to be a necessary evil, given the nature of the collective psychological effects of team dynamics. We encourage future studies to propose methodological solution for such kind of research models for which major variables deals with intra-personal or intra-team perceptions.

Funding

We thank J.H. Astrachan, Michael Carney, Allison Pearson, T.M. Pieper, and Pramodita Sharma for their insightful suggestions. The funding support from the Ministry of Science and Technology (formerly the National Science Council) (MOST-101-2410-H-230 -023 -MY3) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 263e285.

Aronoff, C. E., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). How to make better decisions. Nations Business, 84(1), 39.

Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73e95.

Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses' contribution to the U.S. economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211e219.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107e124 (Special Issue: Strategic Leaders and Leadership).

Baron, R. A. (2000). Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of thinking about “what might have been”. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1e2), 79e91.

Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328e340.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consider- ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182.

Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level Innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49e60.

Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision- making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9e30.

Cardon, M. S. (2008). Is passion contagious? The transference of entrepreneurial passion to employees. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2), 77e86.

Cardon, M. S., Foo, M.-D., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the Heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 1e10.

Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and expe- rience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511e532.

Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saporito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. (2005). A tale of passion: New insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 23e45.

Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm perfor- mance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3), 339e365.

Chagnon, J., & McKelvie, S. J. (1992). Age differences in performance at concentra- tion: A pilot study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74(2), 412e414.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555e576.

Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chan, K. C., & Liano, K. (2010). Intellectual foundations of current research in family business: An identification and review of 25 influential articles. Family Business Review, 23(1), 9e26.

Chua, J., Chrisman, J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 23(4), 19e37.

Davis, P., & Harveston, P. D. (1998). The influence of family on the family business succession process: A multi-generational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practices, 22(3), 31e54.

Davis, P., & Harveston, P. D. (1999). In the founder's shadow: Conflict in the family firm. Family Business Review, 12(4), 311e323.

De Pontet, S., Wrosch, C., & Gagne, M. (2007). An exploration of the generational differences in levels of control held among family businesses approaching succession. Family Business Review, 20(4), 337e354.

Dror, I. E., Katona, M., & Mungur, K. (1998). Age differences in decision Making: To take a risk or Not? Gerontology, 44(2), 67e71.

Dyer, W. G. J., & S�anchez, M. (1998). Current state of family business theory and practice as reflected in family business review 1988d1997. Family Business Review, 11(4), 287e295.

Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and over- confident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 117(2), 249e260.

Gedajlovic, E., Lubatkin, M. H., & Schulze, W. S. (2004). Crossing the threshold from founder management to professional management: A governance perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 899e912.

Gervais, S., Heaton, J. B., & Odean, T. (2002). The positive role of overconfidence and optimism in investment policy. Rodney L White Center For Financial Research Working Papers, 2002/9/4.

Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 411e435.

Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., & Polefka, J. (1970). Person perception. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hiller, N., & Hambrick, D. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-)core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 26(4), 297e319.

Hoffman, J., Hoelscher, M., & Sorenson, R. (2006). Achieving sustained competitive advantage: A family capital theory. Family Business Review, 24(2), 137e146.

Johnson, M. (1990). Age differences in decision making: A process methodology for examining strategic information processing. Journal of Gerontology, 45(2), 75e78.

Joshi, A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Managing workforce diversity to enhance cooperation in organizations (pp. 277e296). International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working.

Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209e228.

Ling, Y., & Kellermanns, F. (2010). The Effects of family firm specific sources of TMT diversity: The moderating role of information exchange frequency. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 322e344.

Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661e2700.

Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., …Yang, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported decision-making style and confi- dence. International Journal of Psychology, 33(5), 325e335.

March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404e1418.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mueller, J. H., Kausler, D. H., Faherty, A., & Oliveri, M. (1980). Reaction time as a function of age anxiety and typicality. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 16(6), 473e476.

Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Relational and contractual gover- nance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3), 205e222.

Rae, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework for technology based enterprise. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 39e56.

Redding, G. (1980). Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes: An exploratory view of the chinese case. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 127e148.

Sanz de Acedo Liz�arraga, M. L., Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T., & Cardelle- Elawar, M. (2007). Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age differ- ences. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(2), 381e391.

Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and Realities: Family businesses' contribution to the US economyea framework for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review, 9(2), 107e123.

Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business Studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1e36.

Sirmon, D. G., Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., & Webb, J. W. (2008). The role of family influence in firms' strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 979e998.

Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(4), 339e358.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103“2” issue(2), 193e210.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When workefamily benefits are not enough: The influence of workefamily culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and workefamily conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392e415.

Tsai, F. S., Baugh, G. S., Fang, S.-C., & Lin, J. J. (2014). Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revis- ited. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 149e169.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of

F.-S. Tsai et al. / Asia Pacific Management Review 23 (2018) 53e59 59

Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806e820. Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.),

Organizational behaviour: A Southeast Asian perspective (pp. 123e139). Hong Kong: Longman Group.

Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1998). Demography and diversity in organiza- tions: A review of 40 years of research. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77e140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups the impact of members' task-relevant status. Small Group Research, 29(1), 57e84.

Zacharakis, A. L., & Shepherd, D. A. (2001). The nature of information and over- confidence on venture capitalists' decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 311e332.

Zahra, S. A. (2005). Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review, 18(1), 23e40.