The concept of socioemotional wealth (SEW) has become a dominant perspective in family business studies. In this article, we review the SEW literature, the explanatory power of SEW in family firm behavior, and the heterogeneity of family firms. Although we find that SEW distinguishes the behavior of family firms from that of nonfamily firms, the concept has been used and operationalized differently across studies. The few studies that measure SEW directly do not find clear and consistent explanatory power of the construct. Moreover, not many studies are conducted in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, and China, raising the question as to whether the concept applies equally across institutional and cultural contexts. This article takes a pragmatic perspective on SEW by discussing and distinguishing between key dimensions of social wealth and emotional wealth, which we believe can enhance understanding of the behavior and heterogeneity of family businesses. Based on our deconstruction of the SEW concept, we propose various directions of future research.

Drawing from conceptualizations of organizational learning and institutional complexity, we advance the understanding of how the coexistence of multiple institutional logics in a community influences firms’ learning. Viewing communities where firms and local governments coexist as clusters, our analysis of 354 firms in 39 township clusters in China shows that government logic negatively moderates the positive effect of community logic on organizational learning; however, social connections between the community and local governments mitigate this negative effect. Modeling the relationship between the two logics in this manner extends prior conceptualizations of interfirm learning as a process of isomorphic diffusion of social norms and advances understanding of the role of institutions in organizational learning. This study also offers new insights for theoretical conversations on the compatibility and incompatibility of multiple institutional logics by demonstrating when logic multiplicity leads to conflicts and when it maintains harmony.

Guanxi is one of the most popular topics in Chinese and Western scholarship concerning social ties in China. However, several problems in research on guanxi persist, and multiple debates are still ongoing without much consensus in sight. This study has two goals. First, we offer a systematic review of the current literature on guanxi, especially by differentiating guan dyads from xi networks. This reconceptualization of guanxi enables us to clarify the concept of guanxi by differentiating its two dimensions. Second, based on this literature review, we propose a redirection of future research on guanxi such that guan dyads and xi networks are not examined in isolation; rather, their holistic and dynamic interaction is the most fruitful avenue for future research, especially the four mechanisms of their interaction. The proposed reconceptualization and redirection are our two contributions to the literature.

It is unusual for any speech to maintain strong influence over the general strategies of an organization and the behavior of its employees over time. ‘Haier Is a Sea’, presented by Zhang Ruimin, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Haier, more than twenty years ago, is an exception. This commentary identifies the core features of sea as a metaphor, explores the philosophical roots of this metaphor, and discusses the implications.

Two articles published in MOR recently have been about Chinese innovation (i.e., Augier, Guo, & Rowen, 2016; Luo & Child, 2015). The first paper argues that Chinese innovations are different from Western innovations because they have greater emphasis on imitating existing technologies. It raises a question about ‘how China's history, culture, institutions, and organizations aid or hinder innovation’. However, the second paper argues that enterprises in emerging economies in general, and Chinese enterprises in particular, benefit from a unique compositional capability (composition-based view [CBV]) with a focus on the competitive advantages gained from innovations created by combining existing resources in novel ways. These two papers seem to engage in a debate over whether and how Chinese firms are capable of innovation.