Article 1

Too many cooks in the kitchen: innovative capacity, collaborative network orientation, and
performance in small family businesses
Mark Spriggs, Andy Yu, David Deeds and Ritch L. Sorenson
Family Business Review 2012

Article 2
Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of
organizational culture
Francesco Chirico and Mattias Nordqvist
International Small Business Journal 2010 28:487

Note: In order to attain a structured and meticulous comparison of the two articles previously listed, it
will be elaborated following section by section of the articles.

Abstract

Spriggs et al., 2012

The article topic is directly stated, following by the quantitative method chosen for this study.

In which, the form of presenting it should be reviewed due to the fact it can be misleading to

the readers understanding. The method used is a regression analysis of survey data; however,

the authors should had been more specific about the source of the sampling, this survey was

taken from a secondary data. By not being specific about the origin of the analysed data, the

reader can assume that the data analysis is on primary data. Furthermore, when presenting the

findings on the main topic there is a redundancy by stating it one more time, whereas this space

could be used to present further information regarding additional findings of this article. On

the keywords section, the word performance should had been considered as it is one of the key

topics in the article.

Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010

It begins with a brief research context to introduce one of the concepts analysed in this article

with fluency. However, this fluency is lost after presenting the topic of the article. This part is

followed by the creation of a model built on literature and case research, which can be a

contribution, but it should had been complemented with findings on the key articles topic,

which are missing. From this point on, the authors listed information without a clear transition

between one another, losing fluency. Then concepts as organisational culture and family inertia

are brought up as additional findings which emerge in the research process, focusing on family

inertia instead of presenting findings on the main topic of the research. No methodology is

presented in this section. On the keywords section, the word transgenerational should had been

considered as it is one of the key topics in the article.

The abstract should reflect the main story of the article, structured into background, methods,

results and conclusion (Jha, 2014). Between the two articles, the one which follows an

organised structure that allows the reader to follow and engage to the research is the Spriggs et

al., it can be improved by adjusting the observations presented. However, this article presents

the abstract and the story of its study in a more effective way than the article by Chirico and

Nordqvist. The latter does not present a story line of its research, which implies additional

difficulty while reading and understanding. From this point on, both articles follow the IMRAD

system (Khoo, 2006).

Introduction

Spriggs et al., 2012

The introduction covers the previous research status and the theoretical background supporting

the articles objective. However, the reader can only assume the relevance of this topic, as it is

not explicit on the document. The articles objective is stated over four times in this section:

beginning, middle and end. They should had presented it only at the beginning and end, and
avoid redundancy: same mistake presented on the abstract. The authors did a good contrasting

of previous research and results. Nevertheless, there is a brief definition and analysis on the

main topics of the article, with good fluency between each other; presenting authors

objectives, conclusions about this information and the articles contribution. Needed to say,

that on the document is stated the pursue of two objectives, there is a missing one on the

abstract. After this point, the authors state the document structure: theory review and

hypotheses, method, results, discussion, implications, limitations and future research. Despite

the structured guideline, which helps the reader to know what to expect, there are two

unnecessary theoretical sections. In this last section, again the relevance and importance are

implied in the information presented, not explicit. Although the defining and transitioning

between concepts associated to the main topic is outstanding. The structure presented:

definition, theoretical and research support, linking to the next topic and formulation of

hypothesis is noteworthy. Also, the contrasting approaches in relation to the studys topic is

consistent. There is a minor attribution of research relevant to the article without correspondent

referencing.

Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010

The context of the research topic is addressed followed by stating the relevance of the study.

Through this information, they make the introduction of one of the research topics in a subtle

way. The context and the previous research on the field are discussed without a contrasting

perspective though. After this point, a literature is presented and divided by four subsections,

each one of those, link one concept to another which makes a fluent reading. However, these

subsections are lack of contrasting and authors insights. Furthermore, throughout this section

are presented some of the researchs findings. In addition, they omitted some sections of the

document while presenting the structure. At the end, the articles objective is confirmed.
The introduction is the engagement tool for the article, should be crisp; including previous

research, research question and design, not including any result or data (Jha, 2014). In this

light, Spriggs et al. presents a more appealing introduction than Chirico and Nordqvist, it only

has minor form observations and organising. However, presenting findings like in the Chirico

and Nordqvist article, might lead an incomplete reading of the document.

Methodology

Spriggs et al., 2012

This section is divided into three subsections: sample and data sources, measures and analyses.

The method is correctly stated and explained in the first subsection, the assurance of a

representative sampling and the geographic scope. However, there is no further explanation on

the reasons why they chose to use secondary data obtained from a survey between 1997 and

2000. The questions made on that survey were relevant to this research, after twelve years of

individualistic-sociological changes and organisational evolution. Over a decade of difference

implies several factors which impact on responses: technology, usage of social media for

business, among others which affects the organisational performance in a certain extent

whether a family or a non-family business. Also, for around half of the total sample of this

article the nonresponse bias was declared to be mitigated; however, it does not specify the same

insurance for the other half. The authors presented a precedent on combination of samples, but

not on the described matter. Regarding the survey, there is no information about if it was

anonymous, and according to the document 71% respondents identified themselves as

owners/CEO. This matter should be address as future research, the authority-power-ownership

figure will influence on the answers in the survey, the status issue emerges, and it will continue

in the next subsection. In the measures subsection, the different variables are declared and how

they were measured through different scales on the survey. Yet the bias response is not

clarified, according to the questions in the appendix section, the information solicited to the
owners is very specific for such small business (10 employees companies as stated in the

article). Data on market share, competitive advantage, industry growth, company profit, etc,

owners will tend to protect and project certain information; this data should had been acquire

through external sources to minimize the bias. The analyses subsection is well structured,

presenting the correct data treatment before entering a regression model and the sequence

followed in this process.

Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010

This section is divided into three subsections. The first one is the empirical setting, where is

stated the qualitative method, and the reasons for selecting it; as well as the population studied,

the nature of it. It presents theoretical context and information about the relevance of this study,

both should had been in the previous section. Non-critical table shown, most of the information

was in the text. The second one is data collection, including a pre-screening of the interviewees

and the system applied to all the subjects. The third one is data analysis, which followed an

independent system to not get any cross-influence between the cases. However, they made an

affirmation about the quality of the study conducted, without defining the quality concept or

explaining how to corroborate it.

Needed to say that neither of them presented sample size calculation, which is a key part of the

methodology (Khoo, 2006). However, the Spriggs et al. article followed a more scientific and

systematic methodology.

Results

Spriggs et al., 2012

This section is concise and objective using tables and figures provided by the author. However,

the first table presented on the document is in excess, it was not used in the whole document

or referenced. Findings on the five proposed hypotheses are presented; although they could had

expanded this section and give more insights about the results, this is the core of the research.
By concretizing the theoretical part, the authors could had had more space for expanding this

section.

Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010

This section follows the theoretical structure presented in the introduction, which facilitates the

reading and concept association with results. This section presents a good structure and

detailing each case. However, the authors should had had incorporated more figures for each

case, to have a more solid background. In addition, some of the findings were interpretative

presented, which represents a pre-conception for the reader and weakens the impact of

conclusion.

Objectivity in the results section is fundamental (Jha, 2014). For this matter, the Spriggs et al.

meets this criterion, and the use of tables and charts which make a visual impact for the reader.

Nevertheless, Chirico and Nordqvist qualitative method presented illustrative quotes which has

the same outcome.

Discussion

Spriggs et al., 2012

This section involves a discussion on the results presented and two final subsections:

managerial implications; and limitations and future research. There is a contrasting and

comparison between previous researches and the articles findings; and the presentation of

additional findings which were contrasted as well with previous research results. The

contribution to the approach selected and presented in the introduction were confirmed, along

with several other contributions. In the managerial implication subsection, there is a well-

formed structure: confirmation of the articles objective application for it, suggestion on how

to apply it, previous research support, and a series of recommendation to implement it.

Regarding the last subsections, limitations and restrictions are clear; however, the fact that this
study only considered data from US companies should be presented as well. Future research

topics are addressed to complement the article.

Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010

States the contribution to the current research situation and confirming the articles objective,

which is accurately represented by the model built. Findings are listed and in detail, but they

are not being contrasted or discussed, against previous researches. There are three last

subsections: the first and second are implications for theory and practice, respectively, which

detail different contributions and recommendations for both fields with the correspondent

research support. Finally, in the limitations and future research subsection, the authors are

aware of the articles weaknesses and stated them; also, the formulation in developing a

simulation system out from the model built is an interesting research proposal.

In the discussion section, comparison with the existing literature is fundamental (Khoo, 2006).

Here results are interpreted, on this matter the Spriggs et al. article did the job, with minor

deficiencies. In addition, Chirico and Nordqvist, have strong findings and implications which

are only missing a correspondent comparison to strengthen the whole study.

References

Jha, K. (2014) How to write articles that get published. Journal of clinical and diagnostic

research, Vol. 8(9), pp. XG01-XG03

Khoo, EM. (2006) How to write a journal article? Malaysian Family Physician, Vol. 1(2&3),

pp. 86-87