Family Dynamics and Entrepreneurship in China

Family dynamics in China are characterized by pronounced temporal variability, encompassing both shifts in external contextual factors and internal family structures. Although the interdependence between family dynamics and broader social transitions is widely recognized, substantial cross-national differences persist, particularly between Chinese and Western family systems (Treas et al., Reference Treas, Scott and Richards2017).

Externally, family dynamics in China are subject to continual changes in policy and institutional frameworks. Historically, China’s stringent ‘one-child policy’ was introduced to curb population growth but has recently been relaxed in response to demographic challenges, especially population aging (ESCAP, 2016). However, the impact of this policy reversal has been tempered by the growing prevalence of dual-income, no-kid (DINK) households, shaped by rising living costs and improved educational and career prospects for women (South China Morning Post, 2023). At the same time, although cultural norms continue to valorize extended family cohabitation (‘three generations under one roof’), economic and institutional pressures have catalyzed a notable shift toward smaller, nuclear family units (Fang, Singh, Kim, Marler, & Chrisman, Reference Fang, Singh, Kim, Marler and Chrisman2022; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Qian and Au2023).

Internally, Chinese family systems exhibit considerable temporal fluidity, reflecting their broad and inclusive definitions of family. In contrast to Western notions of family that tend to emphasize nuclear relationships based on blood or marriage, Chinese families often incorporate extended kinship, clans, and even fictive kinship networks (Holcombe, Reference Holcombe2017; Nelson, Reference Nelson2020). Close social connections, such as friends, neighbors, schoolmates, or colleagues, may be considered part of the family through deeply embedded guanxi relationships grounded in mutual trust and reciprocity (Chen, Chen, & Huang, Reference Chen, Chen and Huang2013; Lu, Huang, Xu, Chung, & He, Reference Lu, Huang, Xu, Chung and He2022; Wu, Xu, Song, & Liu, Reference Wu, Xu, Song and Liu2024). These broad and flexible conceptions of the family contribute to complex, dynamic interactions and frequent reconfigurations of family structures (Bruton & Ahlstrom, Reference Bruton and Ahlstrom2003; Chen, Zhu, & Fang, Reference Chen, Zhu and Fang2021; Liu, Ahlstrom, & Zhang, Reference Liu, Ahlstrom and Zhang2024).

Adding to this complexity is the endogenous and evolving relationship between family dynamics and entrepreneurship in China. Entrepreneurship in China is highly time-variant (Ahlstrom & Wang, Reference Ahlstrom and Wang2021), frequently shaped by rapid and sweeping changes in the external environment – from policy shifts and demographic transitions to technological disruptions and geopolitical tensions (Ahlstrom & Ding, Reference Ahlstrom and Ding2014; Li et al., Reference Li, Liu and Qian2019). These macro-level dynamics often interact with and intensify the effects of evolving family structures, norms, and values, rendering the role of family in Chinese entrepreneurship both more salient and more complex than in the West (Liu & Wang, Reference Liu and Wang2023). In addition, family dynamics and entrepreneurship engage in a mutually transformative relationship: not only do changing family structures and values influence entrepreneurial motivations, strategies, and outcomes but also entrepreneurial activities themselves can reshape family roles, priorities, and intergenerational relationships. As such, capturing entrepreneurship in China requires moving beyond linear causality to a co-evolutionary perspective that recognizes the reciprocal interactions between family and business systems (Ahlstrom & Bruton, Reference Ahlstrom and Bruton2010).

These distinctive temporal dynamics – marked by rapid external environmental changes and fluid internal family evolution – underscore the uniqueness of Chinese family dynamics and their profound implications for entrepreneurial behavior. A more focused examination of these dynamics is essential for advancing our understanding of entrepreneurship among Chinese business families. The dual tuning model introduced in the following section provides a conceptual framework for understanding how family dynamics influence entrepreneurship in the Chinese context.

Intersectionality, Adaptability, and Evolvability of the Dual Tuning Model

When examining the role of families in the business or entrepreneurial contexts, the family often occupies a central position in business or entrepreneurial contexts (Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, Reference Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone and De Castro2011). Indeed, families continuously interact with other systems, simultaneously influencing and being influenced by them. Here, a ‘system’ is defined as a coherent set of interrelated actors, rules, and routines that collectively produce consistent patterns of behavior and outcomes over time (Feldman & Pentland, Reference Feldman and Pentland2008). Each system – whether a family, industry, or regulatory institution – operates with its own temporal rhythm shaped by internal logic and interactional dynamics (Maharani, Sukoco, Ahlstrom, & Usman, Reference Maharani, Sukoco, Ahlstrom and Usman2024). These interactions are multidimensional rather than linear, a complexity effectively captured by the concept of intersectionality. When family systems engage with external entities, such as industries, regulatory bodies, or communities, numerous intersections arise. Each intersection generates a unique temporal rhythm, reflecting variations in the pace, timing, and dynamics of activities across interacting systems (Klarner & Raisch, Reference Klarner and Raisch2013).

Within these multifaceted interactions, family systems display two primary capacities: adaptability and evolvability. Adaptability is a defining characteristic of family systems, enabling them to adjust to external temporal variations. Compared to institutional or corporate entities, families demonstrate a unique flexibility in adapting their temporal rhythms, which are rooted in the inherently interpersonal nature of familial bonds. These interpersonal relationships tolerate considerable variations in individual behaviors, preferences, and interactions (Gomez-Mejia et al., Reference Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone and De Castro2011). While families accommodate significant external shifts, their internal stability ensures the continuity of the family system as a coherent unit.

Concurrently, family systems also exhibit evolvability – a distinct internal temporal rhythm defined by natural, gradual developmental processes, including generational transitions, aging, marriage, and family expansion (Andersson et al., Reference Andersson, Thomson and Duntava2017; Regnerus & Burdette, Reference Regnerus and Burdette2006). Unlike external temporal rhythms, this internal rhythm unfolds organically within the family structure.

Given the two temporal rhythms mentioned above, family systems operate through a mechanism best described as ‘dual tuning’, involving two interconnected temporal challenges. First, families continuously adjust and synchronize with external temporal rhythms – such as rapid industry developments or slower regulatory changes – arising from interactions with external systems. Tensions surface when external rhythms fundamentally conflict with one another or diverge significantly from the family’s internal pacing. Somewhat analogous to an automobile transmission shifting gears to manage varying speeds, families navigate these diverse external temporal demands (Maharani et al., Reference Maharani, Sukoco, Ahlstrom and Usman2024). Second, the family’s internal rhythm, driven by inherent gradual changes, poses additional challenges when externally imposed demands require responses at differing speeds or urgency levels.

Family-In-Business Context

To further theorize these dual tuning challenges, we propose boundary permeability as a crucial mechanism underpinning the dual tuning model, especially the interactions between family dynamics and entrepreneurship in China. Family-in-business contexts, including family-based entrepreneurship, family businesses, and family-owned business groups, uniquely feature overlapping and intertwined boundaries between family and business systems. This boundary permeability complicates dual tuning significantly, as temporal rhythms related to internal family evolvability and external business adaptability do not merely coexist but actively intersect and mutually influence each other through three mechanisms. First, the business system itself possesses a distinct temporal rhythm characterized by industry dynamics, operational cycles, and regulatory constraints (Blagoev, Hernes, Kunisch, & Schultz, Reference Blagoev, Hernes, Kunisch and Schultz2024) which can diverge significantly from the internal rhythm of the owning family, which naturally unfolds through gradual generational transitions, life-stage events, and interpersonal relationship dynamics.

Second, the family’s controlling position within the business significantly shapes boundary dynamics. Specifically, family authority enables the transfer of familial rhythms – such as decision-making speed, communication styles, and pacing of strategic changes – into the business domain. Families may leverage the business as an adaptive extension of themselves, employing it as a buffer to absorb external shocks or demands, thus maintaining internal familial stability. Families may also selectively separate business rhythms from internal family pacing, intentionally establishing clearer boundaries to minimize negative spillovers, clarify roles, and enable targeted adaptations. Such selective boundary management enhances the overall dual tuning capability.

Third, the effectiveness of dual tuning relies heavily on strategic boundary management by the owning family. Families that proactively manage boundary permeability – facilitating beneficial interactions at appropriate speeds and minimizing problematic spillovers – can successfully synchronize external adaptability with internal evolvability. Conversely, families lacking strategic boundary-management practices risk operational dysfunction or strategic paralysis due to conflicting temporal demands. Thus, our dual tuning model complements previous studies examining the relationship between the pace of organizational decisions and firm performance (e.g., Klarner & Raisch, Reference Klarner and Raisch2013), by tracing the origins and mechanisms underlying these dynamics, rather than treating temporal rhythms as externally given (Blagoev et al., Reference Blagoev, Hernes, Kunisch and Schultz2024). This proposed model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The graphical illustration of the dual tuning model of family dynamics

Incompatibility of Rhythms among External Systems

The dual tuning model first helps clarify challenges that Chinese family businesses may encounter and their responses when interacting simultaneously with multiple external systems characterized by conflicting rhythms. Several papers accepted in the special issue address this topic. For instance, Gong, Odom, and Kim’s (Reference Gong, Odom and Kim2025) study entitled ‘Institutional origin and Chinese family firms’ dot tax haven internationalization’, explores how the institutional origins of FFs affect their Dot Tax Haven, which are small island economies such as the Cayman Islands with favorable tax systems and financial confidentiality. By integrating institutional theory with the perspective of socioemotional wealth, Gong et al. (Reference Gong, Odom and Kim2025) look at whether restructured FFs formed by the privatization of former state-owned enterprises differ from entrepreneurial FFs established directly by family founders in their inclinations to invest in Dot Tax Haven. They find that economic ties to financial institutions weaken the tendency of restructured FFs to conduct more Dot Tax Haven internationalization, compared to entrepreneurial FFs. Intriguingly, they find that the managerial involvement of the second generation does not reduce such divergence.

Gong et al. (Reference Gong, Odom and Kim2025) can be explained through the dual tuning model. Their paper illustrates how Chinese FFs simultaneously face external systems with incompatible temporal expectations – rapidly evolving international market opportunities, such as investments in tax havens, versus slower-paced and rigid domestic institutional legacies stemming from former state ownership. This intersection creates tensions that force FFs to strategically prioritize either rapid global expansion or slower, more stable socioemotional considerations. In this regard, this paper sheds light on the influence of distinct family histories on entrepreneurial behavior in China, demonstrating how institutional legacies like state ownership shape the choice between financial opportunities and socioemotional wealth priorities in global strategies. This study also enriches the literature on FF heterogeneity by revealing that restructured FFs display unique risk tolerances and motivations influenced by their heritage as state-owned enterprises (Liu, Qian, Lu & Shu, Reference Liu, Qian, Lu and Shu2024), thus indicating that entrepreneurial activity in these firms is shaped not only by family dynamics but also by institutional legacies.

The proposed dual tuning model can also help explain Lee, Lin and Shih’s study (Reference Lee, Lin and Shih2025) entitled ‘When do family firms plant different new trees? The role of family firms and CSR committees in green innovation’. The authors investigated the interplay between FFs and green innovation, particularly focusing on the influence of socioemotional wealth and the structural dynamics of ownership within these firms. Drawing on a dataset of 5,071 observations from listed firms in Taiwan over eight years, the study finds that FFs are more inclined to pursue green innovation compared to non-FFs. However, it also shows that FFs that possess control rights that diverge from their cash flow rights exhibit distinct behaviors regarding innovation strategies in comparison to FFs whose control rights and cash flow rights do not diverge.

The dual tuning model helps explain how FFs navigate external systems with divergent rhythms – rapid technological innovation versus the slower, methodical pace imposed by regulatory and societal expectations about environmental sustainability. This incompatibility is amplified in firms exhibiting deviations between their control and cash flow rights. This deviation appears to intensify the difficulty in reconciling these divergent external demands. Consequently, firms may resort to superficial compliance (greenwashing), reflecting challenges in managing the complexity of external temporal conflicts.

As another example, Hu, Wang, and Covin’s (Reference Hu, Wang and Covin2025) study, ‘Intergenerational capital endowments and external funding in new ventures: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis’ investigates how the intergenerational capital endowments of entrepreneurial families impact the level of external funding that can be secured for their new ventures. Drawing on signaling theory and using a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, the authors identify four family prototypes – grassroots families, economic upstart families, upward mobility families, and post-political families – that are associated with difficulties in obtaining external funding in new ventures in China.

Hu et al.’s (Reference Hu, Wang and Covin2025) study reflects the difficulties family entrepreneurs face when reconciling external systems operating at conflicting speeds – rapid financial market dynamics requiring immediate decision-making and risk assessment versus slower-paced external evaluations based on longer-term historical family status and reputational legitimacy. Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Wang and Covin2025) directly demonstrate the presence and salience of rhythm incompatibility across different dimensions of capital acquisition and accumulation, as well as between generations within families, including both entrepreneurs and their parents. These rhythmic incompatibilities create significant barriers for family ventures seeking external funding, especially when signals across generations appear inconsistent or unclear to external stakeholders. Finally, while prior literature frequently assumes that the political background of a parent or a family – reflected by prior membership in the cadre group or positions within the political system – offers advantages to entrepreneurs, the authors’ findings reveal that a parent’s political background may impose limitations as well as benefits. Thus, Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Wang and Covin2025) also contribute to a better understanding of changing attitudes in terms of public opinions regarding the importance and usefulness of political legacy in the business world.

Incompatibility between External Systems and the Family’s Internal Rhythm

The dual tuning model illuminates challenges arising from tensions between the gradual evolvability inherent in internal family dynamics and external systems that demand quicker responses. For instance, Li, Ge, and Dou’s (Reference Li, Ge and Dou2025) study, entitled ‘Like father like son: How perceived parental mentoring strategies shape successors’ entrepreneurial identity in Chinese family businesses’, explores how parental mentoring shapes the development of entrepreneurial identities of FF successors. Notably, it demonstrates that parental mentoring can guide successors in transitioning from an ambiguous to a clearly defined entrepreneurial identity. The authors also identify four mentoring strategies: laying foundations, painting bright futures, sharing experiences, and leading by example.

Using the dual tuning model as an interpretive framework, Li et al.’s (Reference Li, Ge and Dou2025) study can be understood as highlighting tensions successors experience between slow-paced internal family mentoring processes focused on identity building and role development and faster external entrepreneurial expectations. Families that strategically manage these tensions through effective mentoring strategies facilitate smoother generational transitions, aligning the internal rhythm of identity development with external entrepreneurial demands. This study also contributes to the theme of the special issue by offering an alternative perspective to prior theorizing about the changing family system in China. Specifically, earlier literature often portrays the Chinese family system as authoritarian, characterizing the parent–child relationship as paternalistic, with parents issuing directives to which children are expected to comply. In contrast, this study suggests that through the design and implementation of specific mentoring strategies, Chinese parents may reduce their authoritarian approach and better support successors’ development of entrepreneurial identities.

Song, Su, Ding, Wu, and Fan’s study (Reference Song, Su, Ding, Wu and Fan2025), ‘Family diversity and hybrid entrepreneurship: A family embeddedness perspective’, relates family diversity to an individual’s choice between hybrid entrepreneurship along with paid employment and full-time entrepreneurship. In particular, the authors examine how both surface-level (i.e., age and gender) and deep-level (i.e., work experience and education) diversity within families shape entrepreneurial entry decisions within different income classes. Utilizing data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey, the research reveals that deep-level diversity of family households has a greater impact on hybrid entrepreneurship than surface-level diversity. Moreover, belonging to a high-strata family enhances the influence of surface-level diversity on the decision to pursue hybrid entry, while diminishing the impact of deep-level diversity.

Through the lens of the dual tuning model, Song et al. (Reference Song, Su, Ding, Wu and Fan2025) illustrate how internal deep-level family diversity naturally unfolds at a slow, generational pace, which is often misaligned with external industry rhythms demanding swift entrepreneurial decisions. Families characterized by substantial internal diversity face greater difficulty achieving synchronization between their slower internal rhythms and faster external market opportunities, influencing the form and timing of entrepreneurial entry (full-time vs. hybrid entrepreneurship).

As another example, the study by Wu, Wang, Chu, and Chen’s (Reference Wu, Wang, Chu and Chen2025) study, ‘Innovation in family firms: An intergenerational tale of symbol and substance’, emphasizes the innovation strategies of family firms by highlighting family dynamics and inter-firm heterogeneities. Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Wang, Chu and Chen2025) argue that FFs engaged in the succession process may be exposed to inconsistent socioemotional viewpoints, leading to varying attitudes among family and nonfamily stakeholders. As an adaptive response, family owners may choose to selectively focus on certain aspects of strategic decisions while neglecting or downplaying others. From this angle, Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Wang, Chu and Chen2025) clearly demonstrate that FFs undergoing intergenerational transitions grapple with inherent temporal conflicts, i.e., slower-paced internal evolvability tied to emotional attachment and family legacy versus external adaptability pressures demanding quick and highly visible innovation disclosures. Such temporal misalignment results in ‘innovation decoupling’, wherein symbolic innovation disclosure becomes a strategic means to superficially satisfy external demands without substantive internal innovation. Utilizing the Latent Dirichlet allocation model, authors provide evidence that FFs that have undergone intergenerational succession exhibit a greater tendency to conduct innovation decoupling.

Finally, in their paper, ‘How does family culture generate competitive advantage for family firms? A case study from the affordance perspective’, Xi, Cai, Wu, and Cheng (Reference Xi, Cai, Wu and Cheng2025) conducted a longitudinal case study of Baiyun, a Chinese FF with a heritage spanning over a century and an entrepreneurial journey of 56 years, to explore the dynamic nature of family culture. A three-stage process model is developed to illustrate the dynamic interaction among FFs, family culture, and competitive advantage. In the first stage, the natural affordances of family culture (i.e., what the family culture offers) emerge from the instinctive interactions among family members and result in a temporary competitive advantage for the firm. Then, in the second stage, as the FF seeks expansion, it finds that natural affordances become hindrances to the absorption of external resources. Through transcendent sensemaking strategies, including external perspective introduction, culture conceptualization, and pan-familialization, the FF transforms the natural affordances of family culture into designed affordances. In the third stage, the firm applies embedding and symbolic sense-giving strategies to foster identification among stakeholders.

Xi et al. (Reference Xi, Cai, Wu and Cheng2025) exemplify how the dual tuning model explains how the gradual internal evolvability of family culture can offer certain competitive advantages. Over time, this slow-paced internal cultural rhythm becomes increasingly misaligned with external systems demanding rapid resource absorption and immediate adaptation to competitive pressures. To resolve these rhythmic incompatibilities, FFs deliberately employ sense-making and sense-giving strategies, recalibrating internal cultural dynamics to better match fast-paced competitive demands.

East and West

In his commentary, ‘Paradox of family firms: Comment on Fang, Singh, Kim, Marler and Chrisman (Reference Fang, Singh, Kim, Marler and Chrisman2022)’, Skorodziyevskiy (Reference Skorodziyevskiy2025) addresses the apparent paradox identified by Fang et al. (Reference Fang, Singh, Kim, Marler and Chrisman2022): the behavioral consistency between Asian (particularly Chinese) and Western FFs, despite stark differences in cultural values and institutional infrastructures. Drawing on the framework used by Skorodziyevskiy, Sherlock, Su, Chrisman, and Dibrell (Reference Skorodziyevskiy, Sherlock, Su, Chrisman and Dibrell2024), he attributes this convergence to firm-level variation in size and the strength of institutional environments. According to his argument, these structural factors – rather than cultural or geographic origins – play a dominant role in shaping FF behavior. In weaker institutional environments, such as those often found in parts of Asia, FFs develop alternative configurations of governance, strategy, and resource allocation that enable them to perform in ways that mirror their Western counterparts operating in stronger institutional contexts.

While this explanation emphasizes structural contingency, we offer an alternative interpretation through the lens of the dual tuning model based on the temporal dynamics of family systems. From a dual tuning perspective, the convergence observed across East and West is not solely due to firm size or institutional variation, but rather to FFs’ active synchronization of internal and external temporal rhythms. In this view, East Asian FFs are not merely adapting to weak institutions structurally – they are continuously tuning their internal evolvability (e.g., succession, identity, and family cohesion) in response to the external adaptability demands posed by institutional uncertainty and regulatory volatility. Likewise, Western FFs may face less volatile external environments but must still manage internal generational transitions and evolving family roles, requiring their own version of dual tuning.

This interpretive shift highlights an important difference. That is, while Skorodziyevskiy (Reference Skorodziyevskiy2025) frames cross-regional consistency as a function of institutional substitution and firm-level variance, the dual tuning model emphasizes ongoing temporal alignment work performed by FFs across contexts. Convergence, in this view, is an outcome of dynamic, rhythmic synchronization, not simply structural similarity. This distinction opens further theoretical space to investigate how different FFs – regardless of context – strategically manage the tension between internal family rhythms and external institutional demands over time.

Temporal Shifts in Family Structure

While the above contributions deepen our understanding, several research directions remain underexplored. For example, research is needed to explore how fundamental shifts in family structure and dynamics influence family entrepreneurship (Aldrich & Cliff, Reference Aldrich and Cliff2003). Existing literature has rarely examined how events such as the addition or loss of family members affect the entrepreneurial decisions and behaviors of FFs. While transgenerational succession is a commonly studied theme, limited attention has been paid to how the birth or adoption of a child might alter a FF’s internal rhythm by reshaping its entrepreneurial goals and intentions. Similarly, little is known about how marriage or divorce may modify a FF’s entrepreneurial orientation – critical moments that reflect shifts in internal evolvability. Beyond changes in family membership and interpersonal relationships, relocations of the family or individual family members can also disrupt and recalibrate internal rhythms, potentially influencing the family’s entrepreneurial propensity. A deeper exploration of these micro-dynamics can significantly enhance our understanding of internal evolvability using the dual tuning model.

Temporal Entanglement Between Family and Entrepreneurship

From the perspective of the dual tuning model, the relationship between family dynamics and entrepreneurship is endogenous and temporally interwoven. Changes within family systems not only shape entrepreneurial activity, but entrepreneurial developments can, in turn, alter the internal rhythm and structure of the family. This reciprocal influence underscores the need for research that explores how entrepreneurial actions recalibrate the internal evolvability of family systems.

For instance, when a new venture is launched by only a subset of family members, it may introduce asymmetries in roles, resources, and recognition, disrupting previously synchronized internal rhythms. Similarly, the relatedness and resource endowments of new ventures vis-à-vis existing businesses can lead to shifts in family cohesion, identity, and governance logic. If the new venture outperforms the existing business, or conversely, becomes a financial or emotional drain, it may trigger adjustments in decision-making authority, succession plans, or even core family values. In such cases, entrepreneurship becomes not only an output of family dynamics but also a temporal force that reshapes the internal trajectory of the family system, requiring continuous retuning to maintain a balance between internal evolution and external entrepreneurial demands.

Social Change as an External Rhythm

We also encourage further research into how family dynamics interact with broader social changes, underscoring the two-way influences and mutual adaptations between internal family rhythms and external societal rhythms. While some studies in this special issue explore internal aspects such as within-family diversity and its impact on entrepreneurial entry decisions (Song et al., Reference Song, Su, Ding, Wu and Fan2025), we still lack sufficient research investigating how external societal-level shifts affect the internal evolvability of family systems. For instance, external shifts like the relaxation of China’s one-child policy, declining family sizes, aging populations, and other major demographic transitions represent powerful external rhythms that likely influence entrepreneurial activities and internal family dynamics. Future studies could address these questions by delving deeper into longitudinal datasets (e.g., Chinese General Social Survey, China Health and Nutrition Survey, Chinese Family Panel Survey) or employing advanced methods such as difference-in-differences analyses to quantify and interpret these temporal interactions from a macro-level perspective (Maharani et al., Reference Maharani, Sukoco, Ahlstrom and Usman2024; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liu, Delios and Qian2023).

Additionally, the dual tuning model emphasizes the endogenous relationship between family systems and external institutions. For example, Carney, Gedajlovic, and Strike (Reference Carney, Gedajlovic and Strike2014) illustrate how inheritance laws – external institutional rhythms – uniquely influence the perceptions and strategies of FFs. Conversely, entrepreneurial activities originating from family dynamics may also alter societal norms and institutional arrangements (Ahlstrom & Bruton, Reference Ahlstrom and Bruton2010; Dieleman & Sachs, Reference Dieleman and Sachs2008). This reverse temporal influence, however, remains relatively understudied due to data limitations. Further exploration into these mutual adaptations between family-level entrepreneurship and macro-level institutional changes promises significant theoretical and practical insights into the rhythmic synchronization processes at the core of the dual tuning model.

Technology and Rhythmic Realignment

The dual tuning model highlights the need to explore new forms of intersections, particularly concerning how technological advancements influence both the internal evolvability and external adaptability of entrepreneurial and FFs in China. As digital technologies reshape the external business environment – accelerating market rhythms, intensifying competitive pressures, and introducing new forms of connectivity – FFs must continually recalibrate their internal temporal rhythms to maintain strategic alignment. Preliminary evidence suggests that internet-based technologies may influence internal family evolvability, leading FFs to adopt more open-minded governance structures and decreasing traditional concerns about maintaining tight family control (Liu & Wang, Reference Liu and Wang2023).

Moreover, technological shifts may introduce new external pressures, such as widening income inequalities and uneven regional development (Fan, Reference Fan2024), prompting FFs to adapt differentially based on their geographic location. Consequently, comparative studies examining urban versus rural FFs could reveal distinct approaches to dual tuning, capturing how internal family dynamics such as succession planning and management practices vary in response to external technological and socioeconomic disparities. Future research might also investigate how cultural factors mediate this dual tuning process, shaping governance structures and strategic choices within FFs across diverse regional and institutional contexts, thus enriching our understanding of how internal familial rhythms interact dynamically with external technological transformations.

Methodological and Epistemological Expansions

The dual tuning model underscores the importance of adopting more diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches to better capture the temporal influence of family dynamics on entrepreneurial activity. Although advances in quantitative historical economics – such as the use of granular archival data – have enhanced our capacity to predict long-term economic outcomes (e.g., Barone & Mocetti, Reference Barone and Mocetti2021), research on family business and entrepreneurship remains largely grounded in traditional management paradigms. To advance a more nuanced understanding of the complex temporal interplay between internal evolvability (i.e., family-level changes and transitions) and external adaptability (i.e., industry dynamics, institutional changes, and shocks), it is imperative to incorporate interdisciplinary frameworks and methods. For instance, replicating prior studies across different institutional and temporal contexts (e.g., Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liu, Delios and Qian2023) can shed light on how FFs recalibrate their internal rhythms in response to external temporal demands related to internationalization (Arregle, Duran, Hitt, & Van Essen, Reference Arregle, Duran, Hitt and Van Essen2017; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Qian, Lu and Shu2024) or participation in diverse industry sectors (Guan, Ahlstrom, & Liu, Reference Guan, Ahlstrom and Liu2024; King & Peng, Reference King and Peng2013). Moreover, the rise of new FF forms and the occurrence of major external shocks – such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical disruptions, or China’s Belt and Road Initiative – highlight the growing need to expand the epistemological foundations of this research domain. Integrating insights from history, sociology, and anthropology perspectives can generate a richer, context-sensitive understanding of how FFs dynamically tune internal and external rhythms over time (Calabrò, Chrisman, & Kano, Reference Calabrò, Chrisman and Kano2022; Ciravegna, Ahlstrom, Michailova, Oh, & Gaur, Reference Ciravegna, Ahlstrom, Michailova, Oh and Gaur2023; Liu & Wang, Reference Liu and Wang2022). Such methodological pluralism offers promising avenues for capturing the adaptive strategies of family enterprises and increasingly complex and evolving environments.

From Static Snapshots to Dynamic Sequences

From the perspective of the dual tuning model, existing research on family dynamics within the entrepreneurship literature predominantly adopts a static perspective, thereby insufficiently capturing how internal evolvability within the family or family business system dynamically influences external adaptability – manifested as changes in firm behavior and performance. For instance, while prior research has distinguished between founder-led and successor-led FFs, it often overlooks the temporal processes by which firms transition internally from one generation to another, and how these internal transitions subsequently recalibrate firm strategies and outcomes. Thus, understanding is limited regarding how and why strategic behavior and performance evolve over time during generational shifts (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhu and Fang2021; King & Peng, Reference King and Peng2013). A dual tuning approach, emphasizing longitudinal analyses, can more clearly illuminate how firms synchronize internal generational transitions with external strategic demands, providing richer insights than comparing static snapshots at isolated stages of FF evolution (cf., Chrisman, Madison, & Kim, Reference Chrisman, Madison and Kim2021).