• What are the norms and rules of transferring ownership of businesses?
• How do the norms and rules that make up intra-family succession change over time?
• How did this change evolve in Germany?
• What are alternative norms and rules of ownership transfer that are emerging?

Implications for Practice

• This study finds that for the case of Germany, the expectations of how the ownership of businesses should be coordinated is no longer tied to the family, but has been opened up to match-making beyond the family.
• In this emerging transfer regime, the sale of businesses becomes more important and business advisors turn into indispensable match-makers.
• This implies, for one, that the new transfer regime may substantially reshape the population of business owners in Germany. It implies, for another, that intermediaries turn into powerful change agents.

• Do non-family managers help family firms become more innovative?
• Do they contribute more to innovation inputs (e.g., R&D investment) or to outputs (e.g., new products or patents)?
• How do generational stage and leadership structure influence the innovation effects of non-family managers in family firms?
• Are there differences in innovation impact between appointing a non-family CEO and building a diverse top management team (TMT) with non-family members?

Implications for Practice

• Non-family managers can boost innovation in family firms, particularly by strengthening the firm’s ability and willingness to invest in R&D. Their professional expertise, experience, and networks help overcome family-specific constraints like risk aversion and limited access to resources.
• While non-family managers improve innovation inputs, firms must watch for bureaucratic inefficiencies. Encouraging collaborative cultures and streamlining decision-making processes can help convert input gains into actual innovation outcomes.
• First-generation family firms may underutilize non-family talent, as founders tend to retain control and limit managerial discretion. Allowing non-family managers more autonomy can help unlock their potential for driving innovation.
• Innovation gains are stronger when non-family involvement spans the top team, not just the CEO role. Family firms may consider distributing decision-making power across a diverse TMT to unlock greater innovation synergies.

• When do family firms engage in philanthropy?
• What is the role of founder identity for philanthropy?
• How does philanthropy change over time?
• How do family-centered non-financial goals affect philanthropy?

Implications for Practice

• Family firm leaders should actively reflect on and communicate the founder’s values, as a clear awareness of the founder’s “Missionary” identity can strengthen commitment to meaningful, sustained philanthropic engagement.
• When philanthropy is primarily instrumental, it can more easily be undermined by competing family priorities (e.g., maintaining control). Building a stronger, value-based commitment to philanthropy—as inspired by Missionary identities—can help create longer-term and more impactful engagement.
• Philanthropy rooted in a Darwinian founder identity often serves business or reputational goals, whereas philanthropy emerging from a Missionary founder identity tends to be driven by moral and transformational aims. Managers should clarify which motives dominate in their organization to ensure consistency and authenticity in their philanthropic strategy.