(posted on behalf of @Francesco Chirico)
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal: Call for Papers for a Special Issue
Resource Orchestration for Competitive Advantage In Family Firms: Leveraging Financial And Non-Financial Resources
Guest Editors
R. Duane Ireland, Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University
Francesco Chirico, Macquarie University and Jönköping University
Melissa E. Graebner, University of Illinois
Luis R. Gómez-Mejía, Arizona State University
Daniel Pittino, Jonkoping University and University of Udine
SEJ Supervising Co-Editor:
David Sirmon, University of Washington
Submission Deadline: September 1, 2026
Background
Grounded in the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), resource orchestration (RO) is a comprehensive process through which a firm structures its resource portfolio by bundling its tangible and intangible resources; a firm takes these actions to build capabilities and then leverage them to create value and a sustainable competitive advantage. The RBV (Penrose, 1959), and by extension the RO framework, suggest that firm performance is attributable primarily to how it handles its heterogeneous resource endowments as well as its managers' acumen when combining resources with capabilities for subsequent leveraging (Adner & Helfat, 2003). Because each firm encounters unique challenges and opportunities, managers must understand how to customize the orchestration of their firm's resource portfolios. RO is linked with value creation in that using resources is as important as possessing or owning them (Penrose, 1959; Sirmon et al., 2007). RO encompasses three processes: structuring, bundling, and leveraging (Sirmon et al., 2007, 2011). Structuring focuses on building and refining a firm's resource portfolio by acquiring, accumulating, or divesting resources. Bundling integrates resources to develop or enhance capabilities through stabilization (incremental improvements), enrichment (expansion of capabilities), or pioneering (innovation of new capabilities). A firm leverages its capabilities to generate customer value, wealth for owners, and a firmspecific competitive advantage (CA) by effective mobilization, coordination, and resource deployments. Coordination is central to RO; and, RO requires a mobilizing vision or clear strategic intent to guide resource allocation and to convert resources into actionable capabilities (Helfat et al., 2007). Deployment refers to how firms engage with markets, ensuring the effective and efficient use of resources (Sirmon et al., 2011). Proper alignment or synchronization of resources mitigates risks and maximizes innovation potential (Carnes et al., 2022; Chirico et al., 2025a; Sirmon et al., 2007). In contrast, ineffective RO processes may contribute to firms failing to reach their desired goals.
Central to this special issue is the perspective that there are important differences between family firms and non-family firms including their resource portfolios (Combs et al., 2011) and their RO processes. Here, we define a family firm as one that is held by a dominant coalition that members of the same family or a small number of families control (Chua et al., 1999). Two social systems-the family and its business firm- 2 form the essence of a family firm's character (Chirico et al., 2011). Moreover, a family firm's ability to create value and ensure its legacy by doing so has a direct link with its RO processes. As Kammerlander et al. (2015: 68) observe: "if not orchestrated adequately, the family firm is likely to end up with a suboptimal resource base." Personal networks and a reliance on familial trust and loyalty influence family firms' RO processes; in contrast, non-family firms use more formal and often detailed processes to orchestrate their resources. There are also differences across family firms, meaning that these firms demonstrate heterogeneity rather than homogeneity in terms of how they orchestrate their resources to achieve valued outcomes (Daspit et al., 2021).
Important to this special issue are research results revealing that family firm members incorporate varying degrees of financial and non-financial utilities into their strategic decision-making processes (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2011; Hoskisson et al., 2017). Focusing on both utilities requires a RO process that differs from one used in non-family firms. We note too that studies suggest that family firms often prioritize non-financial utilities that have a tie to the family's unique non-financial resource stock, known as socioemotional wealth (SEW) (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; 2011; 2025). SEW, which has been a core paradigm in family business research for the past 20 years (Calabro et al., 2025; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2025), encompasses dimensions such as family control and influence, the family's identification with and emotional attachment to the business, social ties within and beyond the firm, and the goal of intergenerational continuity (cf. FIBER; Berrone et al., 2012; Naldi et al., 2024). Together, these dimensions form a pool of assets that families seek to preserve. Firms can also deploy these resources strategically by investing in value-creating opportunities and generating superior CAs (Eddleston et al., 2008; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). For example, family influence, identification, and emotional attachment can foster human capital development, strong social ties can build social capital, and a long-term orientation enables access to survivability and patient capital (Arregle et al., 2007; Chirico et al., 2025b; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2015; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). Combined with financial resources, these nonfinancial resources are unique to family firms, playing a key role in potentially driving positive outcomes and enabling long-term value creation. However, unlike non-family firms, family firms face the critical challenge of orchestrating both socioemotional and financial resources in ways that create value while avoiding path dependency.
It remains unclear if this dual focus on socioemotional and financial resources can equip family firms with a distinct capability for RO. Existing research in this space often rests on a theoretical foundation that is both contested (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2014; Schulze & Kellermanns, 2015) and only partially substantiated through empirical work (Chirico et al., 2025a; Hoskisson et al., 2017). While the literature acknowledges the duality of financial and socioemotional goals, it has yet to articulate how this duality affects RO and value creation in family firms. Importantly, simply applying existing RO concepts or neighbouring perspectives (such as the dynamic capabilities perspective) to the family firm context risks underestimating the distinctive ways in which RO operates in family firms to produce a sustainable CA. Accordingly, this proposal calls for scholarship that moves beyond transposing established resource categories onto a different empirical setting; specifically, this proposal seeks work that interrogates how core assumptions of the RO framework-such as efficiency, alignment, and capability development-may require reconceptualization when non-economic utilities are not peripheral but central to firm behavior. Emphasizing the linkages and challenges for family firms and their RO processes is essential to questioning, refining, and advancing our theoretical understanding. Such work holds the potential to deepen our theoretical understanding of RO and to do so in ways that speak not only to family business scholars but to broader conversations in strategic entrepreneurship and strategic management (Ireland et al., 2003).
Next, we highlight several research questions that when examined quantitively, qualitatively, or conceptually can advance our understanding of how financial and non-financial resources function in tandem to influence and support family firms' efforts to orchestrate their resources to create value and sustainable CAs:
Structuring Resources: How do family firms accumulate, acquire, and divest socioemotional resources to align with financial objectives within and across generations (Chirico et al., 2020; 2025b)? How do financial resources facilitate or constrain the structuring of a family firm's non-financial resources? What are the mechanisms through which family firms balance SEW with financial growth imperatives in their resource structuring processes (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2018, 2025)? Does resource structuring differ (and how) between family-based start-ups and established family firms?
Bundling Resources: How do family firms combine financial and non-financial resources to create unique capabilities, such as innovation and resilience? What are the differences in bundling processes – stabilization, enrichment, pioneering – for capability development in family firms (Carnes & Ireland, 2013)? How do family firms' emotional attachment and identity shape their ability to adapt or change capabilities in dynamic markets? How can a family-based start-up's founders and founding team members gain the skills required to bundle resources effectively?
Leveraging Resources: How do family firms deploy nonfinancial resources to create value? How does SEW influence family firms' interactions with non-family stakeholders such as employees, investors, and regulators? What role does SEW play in navigating periods of financial crisis or external shocks? How do family firms use a long-term orientation to manage the risks associated with disruptive innovation (Chirico et al., 2025a)? What roles do entrepreneurial passion and legacy preservation play in family firms' leveraging choices (Drnovsek et al., 2016)? Are the founders and founding team members who are operating a nascent family firm (dis)advantaged with respect to the leveraging process? If so, what actions should they take to mitigate their disadvantage or maximize their advantage?
Family Firms and Strategic Entrepreneurship (SE): SE, which was introduced initially as a theoretical construct to enhance our understanding of the drivers of firm behavior (Ireland et al., 2022), plays an important role in multi-generational family firms' efforts to remain competitively viable across time (Lumpkin et al., 2011). To date though, the literature is reasonably silent with respect to assessing how family firms should engage in simultaneous opportunity- and advantage-seeking behaviors while seeking competitive success (Ireland et al., 2003). Some (e.g., Hoskisson et al., 2017) argue that there are differences between how non-family firms and family firms engage with the strategic management process. Given this, what governance structure should family firms adopt to support their use of SE? How do family firms discover the most effective balance between their opportunity- and advantage-seeking behaviors? Is the nonfinancial logic, or SEW itself, a strategic resource for family firms seeking to engage in SE (Chirico et al., 2025a)? Given its traditional importance for family firms (Ireland et al., 2025), what role does legacy play in their efforts to use SE? What role does stakeholder enrollment (Barclay et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2021) play in family firms' efforts to obtain needed resources for SE? What are the implications of succession and ownership transfers (Wennberg et al., 2011) on family firms' use of SE? What structure would support a founder's or a founding team's decision to use SE to launch a family-based start-up? Webb et al. (2010) argue that identity, justice, and nepotism are the sources of differences in how SE is used in family firms compared to non-family firms. What is the optimal combination of these four dimensions for maximizing RO processes and SE's value in family firms?
Family Firms' Heterogeneity and Financial-Nonfinancial Resource Implications: Evidence highlights significant variations in how family firms manage resources, pursue goals, engage with change, and create value (Arregle et al., 2007; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). These differences stem largely from family firms' unique governance structures that arise from the specific roles that family members play in owning, managing, and controlling the firm: a) the proportion of shares held by the family; b) the percentage of family members in top management positions; c) the number of unrelated owning families in the business; d) the presence of a nonfamily CEO; and e) the generations involved in the business. How do different governance structures shape the decisions family firms make regarding how to structure, bundle, and leverage their financial and non-financial resources to achieve a sustainable CA? Under what internal and external conditions does the dual focus on financial and non-financial objectives result in path dependency versus sustainable innovation? How does SEW help build legitimacy in heterogeneous family firms?
Digitalization and artificial intelligence (AI) in the Orchestration of Financial and non-Financial Resources: Digitalization and AI (Townsend et al., 2023, 2024) are reshaping the strategic landscape for family firms, presenting both opportunities and challenges. These technologies may facilitate efforts to develop CAs; simultaneously though, AI requires family firms to navigate complex trade-offs between tradition and innovation as well as financial returns and socioemotional goals. What are the implications of digitalization and AI for the orchestration of family firms' financial and non-financial resources? Can founders rely on AI as a path to launching a family-based start-up? What are the challenges family firms face in integrating AI-driven efficiency with nonfinancial-driven RO? What role does AI play in fostering or disrupting intergenerational continuity? How do family firms balance the objectivity of AI with the subjectivity inherent in SEW-based decision-making? How can family firms leverage digitalization and AI to preserve and enhance SEW resources and family firms' authenticity? What risks does digitalization pose to SEW?
By addressing these and related questions, this special issue aims to deepen our theoretical and empirical understanding of the role that financial and non-financial resources play in family firms' RO processes that can potentially create sustainable CA. Fostering scholarly engagement with the proposal's themes has the potential to enrich the discourse, inform practice, and inspire future inquiry in entrepreneurship, strategy, family business, and SE research.
Deadlines, Submission and Review Process
The deadline for submission is September 1, 2026. Contributors should follow the directions contained in the SEJ manuscript submission guidelines and submit their manuscript using the journal portal. When submitting a manuscript online, please indicate that the manuscript is for consideration in this special issue.
All papers will be reviewed according to the standard SEJ policies. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published in Spring 2028. In order to adhere to the publication schedule of the special issue, no extensions to the initial submission deadline are possible, and authors are expected to work within accelerated deadlines for revisions.
Further Information: For questions regarding this special issue, please contact the corresponding guest editor: R. Duane Ireland (direland@mays.tamu.edu).
References
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 1011-1025.
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): 73-95.
Barclay, L., Burns, L., Barney, J. B., Angus, R. W., & Herrick, H. N. (2016). Enrolling stakeholders under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1): 97-106.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-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.
Calabro, A., Torchia, M., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Pongelli, C., & Lohe, F. W. (2025). What are family firms all about? Advancing family business research through socioemotional wealth theory. Journal of Management Studies, in press.
Carnes, C. M., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Familiness and innovation: Resource bundling as the missing link. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6): 1399-1419.
Carnes, C. M., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., Chirico, F., & Huh, D. W. (2022). Leveraging resources for innovation: The role of synchronization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(2): 160- 176.
Chirico, F., Ireland, R. D., Pittino, D., & Sanchez-Famoso, V. (2025a). Resource orchestration, socioemotional wealth, and radical innovation in family firms: Do multifamily ownership and generational involvement matter? Research Policy, 54(1): 105106.
Chirico, F., Hoskisson, R., Pathak, S., & Baù, M. (2025b). Calm in the storm: Job security and postmerger performance in family versus non-family firms. Academy of Management Journal, in press.
Chirico, F., Gómez-Mejia, L. R., Hellerstedt, K., Withers, M., & Nordqvist, M. (2020). To merge, sell, or liquidate? Socioemotional wealth, family control, and the choice of business towards exit. Journal of Management, 46(8): 1342-1379.
Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4): 307-326. Chua, J.
H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4): 19-39.
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, Jr., D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2011). The role of resource flexibility in leveraging strategic resources. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5): 1098-1125.
Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Ashton, T., & Evangelopoulos, N. (2021). Family firm heterogeneity: A definition, common themes, scholarly progress, and directions forward. Family Business Review, 34(3): 296-322.
Drnovsek, M., Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2016). Direct and indirect effects of passion on growing technological ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 19(2): 194-213.
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource configuration in family firms: Linking resources, strategic planning, and technological opportunities to performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 26-50.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Chirico, F., Withers, M., Martin, G., & Wiseman, R. M. (2025). Are family owners willing to risk "Rocking the Boat"? A blended socioemotional wealth-implicit theory framework. Journal of Management, 01492063241311865.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 653-707.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & 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.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Patel, P. C., & Zellweger, T. M. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44(4): 1369- 1397.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Blackwell.
Hoskisson, R. E., Chirico, F., Zyung, J., & Gambeta, E. (2017). Managerial risk taking: A multitheoretical review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(1): 137-169.
Ireland, R. D., Chirico, F., Akhtar, N., Rondi, E., & Ijaz, R. (2025). The show must go on: Preserving the legacy business through exit in family business portfolio firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, in press.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6); 963-989.
Ireland, R. D., Withers, M. W., Harrison, J. S., Boss, D. S., & Scoresby, R. (2022). Strategic entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(2): 495-523.
Kammerlander, N., Sieger, P., Voordeckers, W., & Zellweger, T. (2015). Value creation in family firms: A model of fit. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2): 63-72. Lumpkin, G. T., Steier, L., & Wright, M. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship in family business. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4): 285-306.
Miller, D. & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2014). Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4): 713-720.
Mitchell, J. R., Israelsen, T. L., Mitchell, R. K., & Lim, D. S. K. (2021). Stakeholder identification as entrepreneurial action: The social process of stakeholder enrollment in new venture emergence. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(6): 106146.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Chirico, F., Gómez-Mejia, L., Ashforth, B. E., Swartz, R., & Melin, L. (2024). From "FIBER" to "FIRE": Construct validation and refinement of the socioemotional wealth scale in family firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1-36: https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2024.2328294.
Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley.
Sanchez-Famoso, V., Akhter, N., Iturralde, T., Chirico, F., & Maseda, A. (2015). Is non-family social capital also (or especially) important for family firm performance? Human Relations, 68(11): 1713- 1743.
Schulze, W. S., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Reifying socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3): 447-459.
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4): 339-358.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 273-292.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5): 1390- 1412.
Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., Rady, J., Manocha, P., & Jin, J. H. (2023). Are the futures computable? Knightian uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0237.
Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. R. A., Rady, J., Manocha, P., & Jin, J. H. (2024). Do Androids dream of entrepreneurial possibilities? A reply to Ramoglou et al.'s "Artificial intelligence forces us to rethink Knightian uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2024.0299.
Webb, J. W., Ketchen, Jr., D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Strategic entrepreneurship within familycontrolled firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1 (2): 67-77.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., Hellerstedt, K., & Nordqvist, M. (2011). Implications of intra-family and external ownership transfer of family firms: Short-term and long-term performance differences. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4): 352-372.
------------------------------
Josh Wei-Jun Hsueh
Associate Professor
Jönköping University
Jonkoping
------------------------------