The Effect of Family vs. Non-Family CEOs on Product Innovation in Turkish Family Businesses

Abstract

Family businesses are a significant part of the global economy, yet defining them and understanding their features remains a topic of debate. Despite the suggestion that family ownership may lead to conservative innovation strategies, recent research indicates that family businesses can embrace strategic risk in innovation. Governance of innovation in family firms is a growing area of interest, with corporate governance influencing R&D and innovation decisions. The role of CEOs in family businesses is critical for innovation strategies, with family CEOs often prioritizing long-term interests. However, research on innovation in Turkish family businesses is lacking, offering an open area for exploration. This article investigates the influence of CEO type (family vs. non-family) on product innovation, innovation management processes, strategic decision-making, risk-taking behaviors, technology adoption, and emotional attachment within Turkish family businesses. A survey methodology was employed, reaching out to Turkish family businesses with a CEO involved in product innovation. The study found that, while family CEOs exhibit a stronger emotional attachment compared to non-family CEOs, there was no significant difference in the perceived influence of CEOs on product innovation. Non-family CEOs were not significantly more likely to implement formal innovation management processes or prioritize long-term strategic goals over short-term profits. Similarly, there was no significant evidence supporting the notion that non-family CEOs are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors compared to family CEOs. The study suggests a need for further research using a larger sample and diverse methodologies to deepen understanding of family business dynamics, particularly in the context of innovation.

1. Introduction

Family businesses (FBs), with significant family involvement in ownership and management, form a large part of the global economy (Karayalcin, 2024). Most of these businesses are differentiated from non-family businesses (non-FBs) based on the level of family involvement, which affects their governance structures, performance measures, and dynamics within the firm (Karayalcin, 2024). Much of the traditional research has focused on aspects, such as corporate governance and firm performance within FBs. However, in more recent perspectives, scholars have looked to explain behavioral aspects of the firm, such as gender dynamics and corporate social responsibility (Yadav, 2021).

Innovation remains a critical focus for FBs that are trying to stay competitive and ensure their longevity (Karayalcin, 2024). Agency theory hypothesizes that family ownership results in conservative innovation strategies (Karayalcin, 2024). This may be because their strength is directed towards socioemotional wealth, which characterizes the non-economic feature of the firm, satisfying the effective needs of the family, such as its identity and perpetuation of family dynasty (Ghafoor et al., 2024). Despite this, various studies show that FBs can take strategic risks, especially when performance is not at a level that provides satisfactory profitability (Karayalcin, 2024). The governance of innovation in FBs is a recent area of interest, and the mechanisms of corporate governance are considered to significantly affect R&D and innovation decisions (Karayalcin, 2024). Technological preparedness is also one of the major factors that can help in innovativeness (He et al., 2024). Further research is required, especially on virtual governance, cyber risks, and societal challenges (Yadav, 2021; Bolton & Park, 2020; Urbinati et al., 2017).

The role of the CEO in family businesses is pivotal for shaping innovation strategies. Family CEOs often prioritize long-term interests over short-term gains, aligning with the family’s enduring vision for the business (Ramadani et al., 2020). Personality traits of CEOs differ between family and non-FBs; family CEOs may exhibit more independent personality profiles, influencing their approach to innovation and risk (Flen Rossi & Rojas-Vallejos, 2024). FBs led by family CEOs are sometimes more inclined to invest in innovation, possibly due to their comprehensive decision-making authority and deep-rooted commitment to the firm’s legacy (Zona, 2016). However, research on innovation within Turkish family businesses remains limited, presenting an opportunity for exploration. Existing studies highlight the need for cross-cultural generalizability and suggest examining how CEO personality profiles relate to family firm outcomes, such as innovation (Yadav, 2021; McKinsey & Company, 2023).

This study investigates how the use of family versus non-family CEOs influences product innovation performance in Turkish family businesses. Based on a survey-based methodology, this research closes the gap between theoretical backgrounds and empirical investigations, translating abstract concepts found in existing literature on family business into an applied framework for real data. In this design, the research methodology is an online administered confidential survey that was preferred for reaching an extensive participants’ base, standardization of questions and responses, and cost-effective data collection. Online distribution of surveys will be considered in a variety of participants with an emphasis on having a better response rate and high quality of data.

As this study explores Turkish family business dynamics by examining CEO characteristics and family influence on product innovation, the survey on family and non-family CEOs in Türkiye identifies leadership patterns and organizational outcomes. Hypotheses focus on CEO priorities, emotional attachment, strategic planning, and innovation. Stratified random sampling ensures representativeness among Turkish FBs with at least one CEO. Analysis included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and regression to examine the relationship between CEO type and product innovation. Findings highlight key differences and limitations, providing a strong foundation for further research on CEO impact in Turkish FBs.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Family Business Research Overview

Family businesses (FBs) have always been considered a part of the backbone of the world of economy and as such comprise a very significant proportion of businesses in the world (Karayalcin, 2024). These enterprises are identified on the basis of family ties being limited to ownership or even management and often the majority of the control is owned by the family (Baron & Lachenauer, 2021).

Despite all these definitional debates, FBs usually outperform non-FBs on any major metric, including profitability and growth (Abouzaid, 2018). Studies show inner strengths, such as highly developed commitment, trust, and long-term orientation, and act as main bearings for resilience and adaptability. In many cases, however, these strengths are associated with very severe problems, such as succession planning or governance issues, as well as informalism in deed, which even threatens the sustainability of organizations (Renuka & Marath, 2021; Rovelli et al., 2021). In the Turkish context, FBs constitute over 90% of all businesses and significantly contribute to employment and GDP. However, given about 30% of Turkish family businesses survive into the second generation, and a mere 12% remain viable by the third, these firms face unique challenges, such as balancing tradition with modern corporate governance and navigating volatile economic conditions (Kurtoğlu, 2022).

Additionally, research on FBs has grown exponentially with journal publications, such as Family Business Review, Journal of Family Business Strategy, and Journal of Family Business Management, serving as the strategic intellectual impetus of systematic explorations (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Xi et al., 2015). Recent literature in regards to this topic focuses on subjects, such as corporate governance, socioemotional wealth (SEW), entrepreneurial orientation, and behavior, concentrates on understanding the internal processes and external outcomes of FBs (Rovelli et al., 2021; Zehrer & Leiß, 2020). There is a notable shift from the theoretical exploration of FBs and family to non-FB comparisons towards a deeper understanding of these business’s behavioral drivers and function (Karayalcin, 2024). Such new discoveries highlight the relevance of family influence on business strategies and performance.

2.2. Innovation in Family Businesses

Innovation remains a cornerstone of competitive advantage for businesses globally, and FBs are no exception. Defined by Teece (Teece, 1986) as the development and implementation of new ideas within an institutional framework, innovation spans a spectrum from radical to incremental. Innovation, as a critical driver of competitive advantage, profoundly influences the success of businesses, regions, and even entire nations (Bogers et al., 2019; Filatotchev et al., 2020).

The innovation approach of FBs is usually determined by their governance structure and risk preferences (Xi et al., 2015). According to agency theory, FBs have an inherently conservative approach to innovation strategy, with the prime objective of preserving socioemotional wealth rather than undertaking aggressive risks (Ramadani et al., 2020; Park et al., 2018). This conservatism, based on the concentration of family wealth within the firm, therefore constrains their ability to invest in disruptive innovations (Kraus et al., 2012). Family CEOs tend to favor incremental innovation, prioritizing business continuity and long-term stability over disruptive technologies in Türkiye. Non-family CEOs, however, are more likely to introduce aggressive digital transformation initiatives, as seen in Turkish conglomerates, such as Sabanci Holding and Koc Holding (Karayalcin, 2024; Yadav, 2021).

However, contemporary research challenges the linear family firm innovation story, pointing to ambivalence in terms of family firm innovative behavior. For example, FBs may show risk-taking behavior with regards to investments in R&D under certain conditions, i.e., decreasing profitability or increasing competition among rivals (Casprini et al., 2017; Chrisman & Patel, 2012). This confirms that innovation in FBs is contingent on internal priorities and pressures from external environments.

2.3. Governance of Innovation

Governance refers to the systems, principles, and processes by which firms are directed and controlled. In FBs, governance extends beyond formal mechanisms to include family values, traditions, and long-term strategic visions, which shape decision-making and innovation approaches (Filatotchev et al., 2020). Effective governance structures establish accountability and decision-making authority, influencing risk tolerance and investment in innovation (Kammerlander et al., 2021).

Innovation governance in FBs increasingly attracts scholarly attention. Innovation decisions and outcomes are highly contingent upon the corporate governance mechanisms, such as board composition and CEO characteristics (Filatotchev et al., 2020). In FBs, governance structures often reflect the interplay between family priorities and business objectives (Picone et al., 2020).

Stewardship theory suggests that family CEOs act as stewards of both the business and family legacy, aligning their decision-making with long-term goals rather than short-term gains (Picone et al., 2020). This perspective contrasts with agency theory, which emphasizes the potential for conflict between family owners and non-family managers (Block, 2012). The balance between these governance frameworks influences the firm’s capacity to innovate effectively. For instance, recent studies on Turkish FBs indicate that firms with external board members and non-family executives demonstrate higher rates of R&D investment and digitalization initiatives (Karayalcin, 2024; He et al., 2024).

2.4. Family vs. Non-Family CEOs

The role of the CEO is crucial in FBs in deciding the innovation strategies appropriate for them as Gomez-Mejia et al. (2011) state that for a family-managed company, socioemotional wealth drives its family CEOs to long-term investments and to manage risks rather than worrying about achieving financial performance in the short run. Non-family CEOs, on the other hand, tend to have a much more objective perspective: they focus primarily on maximizing shareholder value while allowing themselves to be more aggressive in the innovation paths they pursue (Ghafoor et al., 2024).

According to empirical evidence, an important distinction exists between family and non-family CEOs in their behavioral styles and styles used in decision-making. Family CEOs are generally more independent-minded and tend to have strong attachment to the firm’s legacy, while non-family CEOs emphasize the professional character of their knowledge and base every decision on data (Kelleci et al., 2019). Such differentials influence the firm’s innovation stance, with family CEOs favoring investments along projects for long-term goals and the non-family being high-risk–high-reward seeking.

One aspect of the FB innovation literature where we still see gaps emerging is the proliferation of studies addressing the phenomenon. So far, very little work done has analyzed the dynamics of innovation in FBs situated in particular culture settings, e.g., Türkiye, hence the need to extrapolate into different cultures (Kelleci et al., 2019). Despite extensive research on Turkish family businesses, there is a lack of studies specifically examining their approach to innovation. Ghafoor et al. (2024) studied innovation in family firms but focused on Chinese businesses, highlighting the need for cross-cultural validation. Additionally, their study categorized CEOs based solely on control diversity, overlooking other influential dimensions. Kelleci et al. (2019) identified strategic decision processes, strategic actions, and strategic change as underexplored mechanisms affecting CEO-driven firm performance. Further research could examine the relationship between CEO personality and strategic decision-making in family firms, including its impact on innovation, socioemotional wealth preservation, strategic change, and flexibility.

3. Methodology

The empirical test for the family versus non-family CEO effects on product innovations within Turkish FBs was planned using an explanatory type of survey quantitative research design. The methodology is very suitable for capturing varied voices from a wide base, thus enabling very broad analysis of the relationships and dynamics involved.

A cross-sectional survey method was employed for this study. This method is very effective in analyzing the trends and associations of the types of CEOs with the innovation performance. A structured questionnaire was developed from existing literature and validated scales to further affirm the reliability and validity of the obtainable data.

3.1. The Research Model

By analyzing prior literature on family business governance, CEO decision-making, and innovation management, key themes and behavioral differences between family and non-family CEOs were identified. These insights informed the questionnaire, ensuring that each hypothesis was directly linked to existing theoretical and empirical findings. This approach strengthened the study’s validity by aligning survey items with established constructs while addressing gaps in the literature on Turkish family businesses.

The research model explores how a CEO’s family background influences key innovation-related factors, including formal innovation management processes, strategic priorities, risk-taking behaviors, and technology adoption. It also considers the moderating role of family involvement and the potential influence of emotional attachment on innovation.

The independent variable is CEO familiness (family vs. non-family CEO), which affects various dependent variables: product innovation (H1), formal innovation management processes (H2), long-term strategic goals (H3), risk-taking behavior (H4), and technology adoption (H6). Additionally, family involvement (H5) is tested as a moderating variable, while emotional attachment (H7) is examined as an influencing factor that may shape the CEO’s decision-making.

We define key variables for clarity and consistency in our study. The independent variable, CEO type, distinguishes family (coded as 1) from non-family CEOs (coded as 0). This variable is categorical, with participants assigned to one of two groups based on whether the CEO is a family member or not. The primary dependent variable, product innovation, is measured using indicators, such as the number of annual patents, the proportion of new products/processes launched, and R&D expenditure as a percentage of revenue. These indicators were measured as continuous variables, reflecting the quantity and financial investment in innovation. Risk-taking behavior is gauged through executives’ willingness to invest in risky projects and enter new markets. This was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with statements about their willingness to take risks (

Table 1. Hypotheses and the related survey questions.

Hypotheses	Corresponding Survey Questions (Same Questions for Both Groups: Family and Non-Family CEOs of Turkish FBs)
H1: The CEO’s familiness significantly affects their approach to product innovation in Turkish FBs.	To what extent do you agree or disagree that CEOs play a significant role in driving product innovation in your business?	How would you rate the level of involvement and influence of CEOs in shaping the direction of product innovation (i.e., the process of creating a new product or improving an existing one to meet customers’ needs in a novel way) in your business.	To what extent do you rate your ability to champion and support innovative initiatives your business?	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you made significant contributions to the development of innovative products in your business?	How would you rate your overall impact on the success of product innovation initiatives in your business?
H2: Non-family CEOs are more likely to implement formal innovation management processes compared to family CEOs in Turkish FBs.	To what extent do you agree or disagree that your company has established formal processes for managing innovation under your leadership?	How would you rate the level of emphasis placed by you on implementing structured innovation management processes in your company?	How would you rate the effectiveness of the formal innovation management processes implemented by you in driving innovation in your company?	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you demonstrate a strong commitment to implementing and following formal innovation management processes in your company?	To what extent does your company have a clear innovation strategy in place?
H3: Family CEOs are more likely to prioritize long-term strategic goals over short-term profits compared to non-family CEOs in Turkish FBs.	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you prioritize long-term strategic goals over short-term profits?	How would you rate the priority placed on long-term strategic planning and growth in your FBs?	How would you rate the priority placed on short-term profitability in your FBs?	How important do you believe it is for your FBs to prioritize long-term strategic goals, even if it means sacrificing short-term profits, in order to achieve sustainable growth and success?
H4: Non-family CEOs are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors compared to family CEOs in Turkish FBs.	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you embrace risk readily in pursuit of innovative opportunities in your organization.	How would you rate your level of risk-taking behavior exhibited?	Do you have a high propensity for engaging in risk-taking behavior?	How would you rate the impact of your risk-taking behavior on the overall innovation and growth of your company?
H6: Non-family CEOs are more likely to implement new technologies and processes to support innovation compared to family CEOs in Turkish FBs.	To what extent are you inclined to adopt and implement new technologies and processes to support innovation in your company?	How would you rate the level of emphasis placed on the adoption of new technologies and processes to drive innovation in your organization?	How would you rate the extent to which you actively seek out and explore new technologies and processes to enhance innovation within your company?	In your opinion, would the family background in terms of ownership of the CEO influence the propensity to adopt and implement new technologies and processes for innovation in your organization?
H7: Family CEOs have a stronger emotional attachment to the business compared to non-family CEOs in Turkish FBs.	How strong is your emotional attachment to your organization?	Do you believe there is a significant difference in the emotional connection of a family CEO versus a non-family CEO in your FBs?	In your opinion, does your emotional attachment impact the level of innovation within your organization?	How important do you believe the emotional connection of the CEO is for fostering a positive organizational culture and driving innovation in your company?

Source: Author.

, H4.Q1). Technology adoption reflects the integration of emerging technologies. This was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, assessing the extent to which the company adopts new technologies (Table 1, H6.Q1). Lastly, socioemotional wealth (SEW) is assessed through indicators of family influence on decision-making and commitment to non-financial goals. This was measured through a series of questions assessing family influence on decision-making, using a 5-point Likert scale (Table 1, H5.Q1). Multiple survey questions measure each variable for construct validity and reliability, providing a structured approach to hypothesis testing. For example, product innovation was measured using questions H1.Q1, H1.Q2, and H1.Q5 from Table 1, assessing the CEO’s role in driving innovation, their ability to champion innovative initiatives, and their overall impact on product innovation success.

This framework also provides a structured approach to understanding how CEO background shapes innovation dynamics in family businesses. The survey measures these variables through targeted questions, enabling statistical analysis to validate or refute the proposed hypotheses.

3.2. Sampling Strategy

Stratified random sampling was used to select CEOs from Turkish family businesses to examine the effect of family vs. non-family leadership on product innovation. The sampling frame for this study included CEOs of Turkish family businesses, defined as businesses where family members own at least 50% of the company and significantly influence strategic decisions. To ensure the sample was representative, potential sources, such as business directories, professional associations, government records, and Borsa Istanbul, were used. The inclusion criteria required that businesses have at least one CEO involved in product innovation decision-making. Exclusion criteria included businesses that did not meet the family business definition or declined to participate. The sample size target of 40 to 60 CEO responses was determined based on the number of eligible businesses, survey reach, and expected response rate. To ensure statistical reliability, the Qualtrics XM sample size calculator was used, applying a 90% confidence level and a 10% margin of error, with the population drawn from the TAIDER Family Business Association member pool. This pool consisted of 115 members and 41 CEOs responded to the survey for this particular research. Stratification was based on industry, firm size, and generation of family ownership to ensure a representative distribution of participants.

3.3. Data Collection

Businesses were included if the family owned at least 50% equity and retained strategic decision-making authority. Multiple survey questions measured each variable construct, and statistical tests were used to assess significance at the variable level. The final sample was drawn from professional associations (e.g., YPO, TAIDER, TKYD), business directories, and government records to ensure methodological rigor and broader generalizability.

Data were collected through an online survey sent out via WhatsApp, email, and professional networks comprising industry associations and business groups. There were several key sections in the survey to comprehensively capture the information: the demographics section on questions around gender, age, educational background, and experience; firm characteristics sections on data of firm size, industry, revenue, and generational involvement in the firm; and the CEO type and innovation practices section measuring CEO involvement, risk-taking behaviors, and innovation management practices. The last section, further comments, is open-ended to get the qualitative input of the respondents on the barriers and opportunities emanating from innovation. Thereafter, follow-up emails/messages were sent to enhance the response rate, while all communications assured that the information would be kept confidential. The survey started 15 October 2023 and was concluded by 8 November 2023, including all follow-ups.

3.4. Data Analysis

A multifaceted quantitative statistical approach was employed to rigorously analyze and interpret the survey results using RStudio 2023. Factor analysis was applied to identify latent variables influencing respondents’ perceptions and attitudes, simplifying complex structures into key components. Two dimensions were identified in the factor analysis. Factor 1 (innovation management and strategic focus) explained 65% of the variance, while Factor 2 (emotional attachment and technology adoption) explained 35% of the variance. The communality values ranged from 28.7% to 57.3%, indicating a moderate to high level of robustness in the identified factors. Furthermore, the overall Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.5, which is the lowest acceptable threshold for factor analysis. The measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) for each item was also 0.5, suggesting borderline suitability for factor analysis. Descriptive analysis provided an overview of the dataset, summarizing key characteristics, such as means, standard deviations, and quartiles, to highlight central tendencies and variability.

ANOVA (analysis of variance) was utilized to compare mean differences between family and non-family CEOs, identifying statistically significant variations in innovation practices. ANOVA was used to compare mean differences between family and non-family CEOs on continuous variables, such as product innovation, as it is suitable for comparing means across two groups. Post-hoc tests further explored these differences, pinpointing specific group variations. The chi-square test examined categorical relationships, assessing whether CEO type influenced opinions on various innovation-related factors. Chi-square tests were used to examine the relationship between categorical variables, such as CEO type (family vs. non-family) and opinions on innovation-related factors. The t-test compared mean differences between the two CEO groups to determine statistical significance.

Regression analysis explored relationships between dependent and independent variables, estimating the impact of CEO type on innovation-related metrics while controlling for firm size, industry, and other covariates. Regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between the independent variable (CEO type) and dependent variables (product innovation, etc.), while controlling for potential confounding variables, such as firm size and industry. This robust analytical approach enabled a detailed understanding of the interplay between CEO characteristics and organizational dynamics within Turkish family businesses. While SEM analysis could provide a more comprehensive assessment of the relationships between variables, the current study utilizes a combination of ANOVA, t-test, chi-square tests, and regression analysis to address the research questions. Future research could explore the use of SEM to further validate these findings.

The analyses were conducted using RStudio with relevant statistical packages, including readxl, tidyverse, ggplot2, dplyr, forcats, ordinal, MASS, psych, factoextra, and ltm (RStudio Team, 2024). Results were presented through tables and graphs, accompanied by interpretations aligned with the study’s hypotheses. Limitations and alternative explanations for the findings were also comprehensively discussed.

The survey had consent forms which explicitly stated the study purpose’s intended use of data and participant rights. Data was anonymized and stored in secure places accessed only by the research team.

These topics would still need considerable work even after the very strong methodological build because they involved reliance on self-report data, which may introduce bias, and a small sample size that could drastically threaten generalization from findings. Further studies could take a longitudinal and mixed methods tack to tackle the impact of these findings (Bryman, 2016; Creswell & Clark, 2017).

4. Results

4.1. Demographics

The sample includes 38.10% female and 61.90% male respondents. Educational levels range from high school (2.38%) to bachelor’s (47.62%), master’s (35.71%), and doctorate (14.29%). Family CEOs make up 80% of respondents, while 20% are non-family CEOs. Prior CEO experience is held by 30.95%, while 69.05% lack such experience.

Companies span industries including automotive, healthcare, manufacturing, media, pharmaceuticals, and retail. Longevity varies, with 38.1% operating for over 50 years. Revenues range from under $1 million to over $20 million, with 54.8% in the latter category. Ownership is primarily second (47.6%) and third generation (47.6%), with some fourth and sixth-generation firms.

Innovation success is measured mainly by firm growth and performance (52.4%), alongside new ventures, patents, and product development. Innovation budgets vary, with 14.3% allocating 11–14%, 4.8% allocating 14–17%, and 2.4% committing over 20%. Higher education correlates with greater innovation investment, as those with master’s degrees or higher allocate 11–17%, while bachelor’s degree holders or lower invest under 2%, with one exception.

Gender-related budget trends show one female respondent investing over 20%. Among females, investment is evenly distributed across <2%, 2–5%, and 5–8%. In contrast, 10 males allocate <2%, while others range from 5–17%.

CEO tenure influences innovation involvement, with those in their role over 20 years reporting the highest engagement. Among CEOs with 11–20 years, most rank in high or highest involvement. In the 6–10 year group, five report high and four the highest involvement. CEOs with 1–5 years predominantly report high (four respondents) or highest (two respondents) involvement, while those with less than 1 year show varied engagement.

4.2. Hypothesis 1: Familiness and Product Innovation in Turkish FBs

This hypothesis tests the prospective relationship between the familial ties of the CEO and the way product innovation is executed in Turkish FBs. It also checks whether a CEO being a family or non-family member appraises the innovativeness, the long-term orientation, and the contribution to the firm’s innovativeness. But these results cannot show a significant difference in family and non-family CEOs regarding the influence on product innovation. The responses of both groups sound similar since these CEOs had the same level of involvement in the product innovation strategy (

Table 2. Hypothesis 1’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H1.Q1: CEO’s Role in Driving Product Innovation	M: 4.14, SD: 1.14, Skewness: −1.53, Kurtosis: 1.67. Moderate variability and heavy-tailed distribution.	ANOVA: F = 0.523, p = 0.474. t-test: t = −1.19, p = 0.2485. Chi-Square: X2 = 2.52, p = 0.6411. Regression: Intercept = 4.24, Coeff. Non-Family CEO = −0.92706	No significant difference between Family and Non-Family CEOs. Family CEOs M: 4.08, Non-Family CEOs M: 4.43. Null hypothesis not rejected.
H1.Q2: CEO’s Involvement in Shaping Product Innovation	Innovation and emotional attachment factors (h2: 0.279). Moderate variability (u2: 0.72). Means: Family CEOs (4.11), Non-Family CEOs (4.43).	ANOVA: F = 0.846, p = 0.363. t-test: t = −0.96, p = 0.36. Chi-Square: X2 = 1.76, p = 0.62. Regression: Residual Std. Error = 0.85, R2 = 0.25.	No statistically significant difference between Family and Non-Family CEOs. Null hypothesis not rejected.
H1.Q3: CEO’s Proficiency in Championing Innovation	Factor complexity: h2: 0.595, Mean complexity: 1.4. Family CEOs: M: 4.20, Non-Family CEOs: M: 4.14. Longer CEO tenure (>20 years) linked to positive innovation trends.	ANOVA: F = 0.041, p = 0.840. t-test: t = 0.30, p = 0.76. Chi-Square: X2 = 3.90, p = 0.14. Regression: Adjusted R2 = 0.1912, p = 0.1057	No significant influence of CEO type on proficiency. Longer CEO experience may contribute positively. Null hypothesis not rejected.
H1.Q4: CEO’s Contribution to Product Innovation	Significant contributions perceived: M: 4.14, SD: 1.14. Moderate variability (MAD: 1.48). Family CEOs: M: 4.00, Non-Family CEOs: M: 4.14.	ANOVA: F = 0.137, p = 0.714. t-test: t = −0.46, p = 0.65. Chi-Square: X2 = 1.62, p = 0.14. Regression: Intercept = 4.26, Coeff. Non-Family CEO = 0.3329, p = 0.419.	No significant difference between Family and Non-Family CEOs. Responses suggest diversity in opinions. Null hypothesis not rejected.
H1.Q5: CEO’s Impact on Product Innovation Success	CEO impact rated positively. Family CEOs: M: 3.74, Non-Family CEOs: M: 4.14. High uniqueness and complexity suggest diverse influences.	ANOVA: F = 1.733, p = 0.196. t-test: t = −1.38, p = 0.20. Chi-Square: X2 = 1.75, p = 0.62. Regression: Adjusted R2 = −0.056, Coeff. Non-Family CEO = 0.2601, p = 0.1423	No significant difference between Family and Non-Family CEOs. CEO type does not significantly influence perceived impact. Null hypothesis not rejected.

Source: Author.

). Highly integrated roles developed in creating an environment that was ready to accept creativity and innovation and say that the leadership style and vision should matter more than their origin of family or not.

Family CEOs were frequently characterized as being motivated by their significant personal identification with the company. This identification often focused on the long-term viability of, and legacy for, the organization. Respondents said this frequently made family CEOs strong advocates for projects dealing with innovation because, particularly in highly competitive markets, doing so would ensure the potential security of the company going forward. Non-family CEOs talked more about processes, structure and professional management approaches regarding their strategy in innovation. This ranged from formal innovation frameworks to the mobilization of external expertise.

There is, however, little observable difference in the actual success rate of product innovation attempts. In terms of catalyzing inspiration in teams, leading relevant strategic alignment with company priorities, and acquiring essential resources that projects rely on, both family and non-family CEOs fared highly according to survey respondents.

The study also explored the direct effect of CEO leadership on product innovation success. Findings revealed that successful innovation was more related to the leadership capability of the CEO to lead, communicate, and focus strategic goals than to family affiliation with the business. Respondents explained that CEOs who promoted teamwork, supported experimentation, and kept sharp innovation objectives were more successful, whether they were a family or non-family leader.

Whereas for family CEOs, an emotional bond with the firm had driven innovation, this factor has resulted in neither superior or inferior innovation outcomes than the non-family CEOs. This may indicate that the no statistically significant difference result is because Turkish FBs are evolving beyond traditional assumptions of familial conservatism. Instead, it is hypothesized that leadership qualities and strategic fit seem more relevant for innovation management; in contrast, non-family CEOs can provide professional experience without distrust of family CEOs to protect their firm’s legacy. These results also run against some current stereotypes about family CEOs: that they are inherently risk-averse or constrained by their socioemotional wealth concerns. It also underlines how Turkish FBs could make a difference in the integration of diversified leadership styles for innovation goals, thus underlining the adaptability of organizations within an increasingly competitive business landscape.

Hypothesis 1 provides a subtle view of the role of leadership dynamics in Turkish FBs. It indicates that the success of product innovation is less about whether the CEO is a family member, but rather about his or her individual character as a leader, the strategic vision, and adaptive capabilities to the needs of the organization. These results spur FBs to invest in building high-capacity leadership and creating an innovative, collaborative environment, irrespective of family ties.

4.3. Hypothesis 2: Familiness and Formal Innovation Management Processes in Turkish FBs

This hypothesis examines whether non-family CEOs are more likely to have formalized innovation management processes than family CEOs in Turkish FBs. This tries to respond to the perception that non-family CEOs bring in more professional and structured ways of managing innovation, whereas family CEOs could rely on informal and relationship-driven ways. The results indeed show that family CEOs do not differ from non-family CEOs in their tendency to adopt formalized innovation management processes (

Table 3. Hypothesis 2’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H2.Q1: Formal Processes for Managing Innovation	Respondents agree that their companies have formal processes for managing innovation (M: 3.33; Median: 4). Variability is moderate (SD: 1.34). Non-family CEOs rated slightly higher than family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0.676, p: 0.416; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.80; Chi-Square: X2: 2.1, p: 0.7174; Linear Regression: Intercept: 2.3752, Coeff. Non-Family CEO: −0.9890	No statistically significant difference between family and non-family CEOs. Trends suggest nuances but not conclusive.
H2.Q2: Emphasis on Structured Innovation Management Processes	Strong association with innovation factors (Factor 1: Mr1: 0.70). Non-family CEOs rate higher (M: 4.29 vs. 3.51). Moderate variability across responses.	ANOVA: F: 2.662, p: 0.111; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.30; Chi-Square: X2: 2.7109, p: 0.6073; t-test: t: −2.2032, p: 0.04629; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 1.27167, p: 0.1259	Non-family CEOs place higher emphasis on structured innovation processes. t-test indicates statistical significance, but linear regression lacks significance.
H2.Q3: Effectiveness of Formal Innovation Management Processes	Non-family CEOs perceive greater effectiveness of formal processes (M: 3.57 vs. 3.11). Positive association with innovation factors (Factor 1: Mr1: 0.67).	ANOVA: F: 1.127, p: 0.295; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.08; Chi-Square: X2: 4.22, p: 0.3765; t-test: t: −1.3106, p: 0.2165; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.9159	Trends suggest non-family CEOs rate effectiveness higher, but no statistical significance across most tests.
H2.Q4: Commitment to Implementing Formal Processes	Non-family CEOs show stronger commitment (M: 4.43 vs. 3.43). ANOVA shows marginal significance (p: 0.0561). Differences confirmed by t-test (p: 0.0029).	ANOVA: F: 3.87, p: 0.0561; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.507; Chi-Square: X2: 2.1, p: 0.7174; t-test: t: −3.3327, p: 0.0029; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 1.2795, p: 0.4162	Statistically significant difference in perceived commitment between family and non-family CEOs. Hypothesis partially supported.
H2.Q5: Clarity of Innovation Strategy	Non-family CEOs rate clarity higher (M: 4.0 vs. 3.4). Trends suggest a marginal difference but lack strong statistical significance.	ANOVA: F: 2.079, p: 0.157; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.01; Chi-Square: X2: 2.6443, p: 0.4498; t-test: t: −1.6915, p: 0.1208; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.69892, p: 0.379	Marginal trends favor non-family CEOs, but statistical significance is limited. Hypothesis supported in part.

Source: Author.

). Indeed, both groups were almost similar in their commitment to the establishment of clear strategies and adherence to structured practices that could favor innovation. The results contrast with the traditional assumption of family CEOs being less inclined toward formalized innovation frameworks.

Responses from the survey indicate that family and non-family CEOs view formal processes as a strategic way to improve innovation. Family CEOs commonly framed their commitment to formal processes in terms of a desire to protect and grow their family legacy; many thoughts of innovation in the context of a long-term strategy for sustaining their business over generations. In contrast, non-family CEOs stressed the operational advantages of formal processes, including efficiency in decision-making, consistency, and the alignment of innovation with measurable business outcomes.

This study also explores the performance of formal innovation management processes in both groups. It reported that the formal processes introduced by family CEOs delivered outcomes just as effectively as those initiated by non-family CEOs. Indeed, respondents explained that though family CEOs may have sustained such processes through their internal network and relationships, the non-family CEOs deployed external expertise and industry best practices to attain the same outcomes. This therefore means that though the mechanisms may vary, the impact remains the same.

Interesting enough, the results showed that family CEOs and non-family CEOs with higher levels of education showed strong evidence of adopting formal practices of innovation. Specifically, highly educated CEOs with a master’s or PhD were more likely to establish and maintain a systematic framework of innovation. It supports the notion that what matters in determining innovation management is individual capability and professional development rather than family origin.

Respondents rated family and non-family CEOs equally when it came to how clearly the latter had outlined strategies they would pursue to effect innovation. Where family CEOs offered strategies that focused on long-term goals, closely connected with a firm’s history and its future, non-family CEOs had to have innovation that coincided with the firm’s short-term, measurable performance goals. While these points of focus differed, both approaches were characterized as effective by respondents.

The findings indicate that FBs in Türkiye are evolving and increasingly breaking away from traditional stereotypical approaches to governance and innovation management. Both family and non-family CEOs are responding to the demands of contemporary business environments by giving emphasis to structured and formalized approaches to innovation.

This hypothesis suggests that the capability of implementing formal innovation management processes by Turkish FBs is irrelevant, as it depends rather on the style, educational background, and strategic priorities of single leaders. These results call for FBs to encourage leadership that can promote innovation regardless of family ties but rather signal a wider trend of professionalization and modernization of the FB sector.

4.4. Hypothesis 3: Familiarity and Strategic Prioritization in Turkish FBs

Hypothesis 3, in testing the dynamics of decision-making within Turkish FBs, explores whether the family CEOs are more likely to forgo short-term profits for long-term strategic goals as compared to their non-family CEOs. This hypothesis analyses how family ties could impact the leadership approach, particularly the balance between sustainability and short-term financial returns. These results show a sharp difference: family CEOs seem to focus more on long-term strategic goals, considering their business as something that should last for generations (

Table 4. Hypothesis 3’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H3.Q1: Prioritization of Long-Term Strategic Goals	Respondents show a neutral stance (M: 2.88, SD: 0.86). Minimal variability and no significant difference between family and non-family CEOs in prioritizing long-term goals.	ANOVA: F: 0.006, p: 0.937; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.76; Chi-Square: X2: 1.431, p: 0.6983; t-test: t: 0.0946, p: 0.9264; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.4268, p: 0.509	No significant evidence to support a difference between family and non-family CEOs in prioritizing long-term goals.
H3.Q2a: Effectiveness of Long-Term Strategic Goals in Driving Success	Family CEOs rated slightly higher (M: 3.97 vs. 3.86), but the difference is not significant. Moderate alignment with factors representing long-term goals.	ANOVA: F: 0.128, p: 0.723; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.59; Chi-Square: X2: 3.4286, p: 0.3301; t-test: t: 0.5735, p: 0.5728; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.2456, p: 0.6696	Family and non-family CEOs rate effectiveness similarly. No significant differences observed in emphasis on long-term goals driving success.
H3.Q2b: Priority on Long-Term Planning in FBs	Respondents express moderate importance (M: 2.64, SD: 0.98). No significant differences in responses between family and non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0.393, p: 0.534; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.98; Chi-Square: X2: 0.92, p: 0.8206; t-test: t: 0.6345, p: 0.5421; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: −0.1539, p: 0.788	No statistically significant differences observed in prioritization of long-term planning between family and non-family CEOs.
H3.Q3: Prioritization of Short-Term Profitability	Respondents exhibit a neutral stance (M: 3.00, SD: 0.99). No significant difference between family and non-family CEOs in prioritizing short-term profits.	ANOVA: F: 0.172, p: 0.68; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.99; Chi-Square: X2: 0.92, p: 0.8206; t-test: t: −0.4501, p: 0.6629; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.2046, p: 0.788	No evidence to suggest differences in short-term profitability priorities between family and non-family CEOs.
H3.Q4: Importance of Long-Term Goals vs. Short-Term Profits	Family CEOs rated slightly higher importance for long-term goals (M: 3.88 vs. 3.28), but statistical significance is inconsistent across tests.	ANOVA: F: 2.272, p: 0.14; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.92; Chi-Square: X2: 5.28, p: 0.1524; t-test: t: 1.5203, p: 0.1641; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: −0.1877, p: 0.788	Mixed results: Tukey’s post-hoc test shows differences, but ANOVA, Chi-Square, and t-test fail to support a robust distinction.

Source: Author.

). This attention to sustainable growth and durability is often linked with the personal bond one has with the enterprise and the wish not to harm the good name of one’s family. In contrast, non-family CEOs adopted a more pragmatic approach, coupling awareness of long-term goals with an acute focus on the achievement of short-term profitability to meet organizational demands and expectations of various stakeholders.

A closer look reveals the nuances of such tendencies. Amongst family CEOs, there is a strong commitment toward long-term goals, often expressed as part of a stewardship obligation. This is most striking for multi-generational FBs where the ability to maintain family influence and family reputation is seen as imperative. These leaders tend to identify sustainability as an important factor in their strategic vision, at times even at the cost of some immediate financial benefits. This is compared to non-family CEOs who, because of professional accountability and the performance measures associated with their jobs, would more than likely look to seek profits in the shorter term. Their approach reflects the practicalities of meeting contractual expectations and maintaining operational viability, often as part of a strategic plan that includes elements of long-term planning. However, their focus on immediate results does not necessarily preclude an understanding of the value of sustainability, especially when integrated into a comprehensive strategy.

These priorities are not all weighed equally. For example, family CEOs who have had either formal education or professional training are more able to integrate short-term goals into their overall long-term strategies, showing adaptability that works in favor of their businesses. Non-family CEOs who build relationships within the family company also tend to take some of its history with them in the boardroom, meshing short-term and long-term aims quite nicely. These dynamics are further influenced by sectoral and generational factors. Family CEOs belonging to industries with longer cycles of investment, like manufacturing or resource-based industries, would naturally also think long-term as an instinct of their trade. On the other hand, the modern outlook of the family CEOs belonging to the younger generation skillfully knits together the short-term vision of finances with the enduring dreams of predecessors to keep on competing in increasingly dynamic markets.

These results indicate that family ties do matter in setting strategic priorities but in a subtle and meaningful way. The long-term sustainability pursued by family CEOs would be an expression of a socioemotional attachment to the business, underlining their stewardship of the family heritage. This does not mean, however, that financial performance suffers because of this preoccupation. Instead, it reveals that they can give up short-term gains when they believe such sacrifices are necessary to sustain the future of the business. Non-family CEOs, although committed to sustainability, often work within a system that requires more short-term orientation. This reflects their professional commitment to external owners and their adherence to performance-based corporate governance practices.

These findings may indicate that encouraging collaboration between family and non-family CEOs will help Turkish FBs. The long-term orientation of family CEOs is well-matched by the operational and financial competencies of non-family CEOs in achieving a balanced approach to strategic planning. Firms should aim to utilize strengths from both kinds of leadership while taking care that long-term goals are not pursued at the cost of immediate operational requirements.

4.5. Hypothesis 4: Familiness and Risk-Taking Behaviors in Turkish FBs

Non-family CEOs are more likely to exhibit risk-taking behaviors than family CEOs in Turkish FBs. This hypothesis is derived from the belief that non-family CEOs, being responsible more often to external stakeholders and professional imperatives, may be predisposed toward a higher likelihood of taking risks to infuse innovation and growth. On the other hand, family CEOs are perceived to be conservative, avoiding risk to protect the family fortune and business legacy. The result showed no significant difference in the level of risk-taking behavior between family and non-family CEOs, which goes against the initial assumption (

Table 5. Hypothesis 4’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H4.Q1: Readiness to Embrace Risk	Respondents slightly disagree with embracing risk (M: 2.50, SD: 0.94). Statistical tests reveal no significant difference in willingness to embrace risk between family and non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0.427, p: 0.517; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.90; Chi-Square: X2: 0.46494, p: 0.9265; t-test: t: −0.653, p: 0.5308; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.842, p: 0.2177	No significant evidence to suggest non-family CEOs are more willing to embrace risk compared to family CEOs.
H4.Q2: Level of Risk-Taking Behavior Exhibited	Respondents rate their risk-taking behavior similarly across CEO types (family CEO M: 3.31, non-family CEO M: 3.57). No significant differences observed.	ANOVA: F: 0.566, p: 0.456; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.68; Chi-Square: X2: 2.88, p: 0.4105; t-test: t: −1.0304, p: 0.3212; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: −0.1877, p: 0.7881	CEO type does not significantly influence perceived risk-taking levels.
H4.Q3: Propensity for Risk-Taking	Respondents exhibit high willingness to take risks (M: 3.76, SD: 0.93). Statistical tests do not show significant differences between family and non-family CEOs in risk-taking propensity.	ANOVA: F: 0.086, p: 0.771; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.89; Chi-Square: X2: 0.83727, p: 0.9334; t-test: t: −0.3698, p: 0.7182; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.828, p: 0.2294	Both family and non-family CEOs display similar levels of willingness to take risks.
H4.Q4: Impact of Risk-Taking on Innovation and Growth	Family and non-family CEOs rate the impact of risk-taking behavior similarly (Family CEO M: 3.37, Non-Family CEO M: 3.57). Statistical tests do not reveal significant differences.	ANOVA: F: 0.522, p: 0.474; post-hoc: MSerror: 0.447, Chi-Square: X2: 0.89748, p: 0.6384; t-test: t: −0.857, p: 0.4104; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.1668, p: 0.731	No significant evidence to suggest that CEO type affects the perceived impact of risk-taking behavior on innovation and growth.

Source: Author.

). Both family and non-family CEOs proved to have similar levels of willingness to take risks for the opportunity that presents itself. However, the motivational and contextual factors for such risk-taking decisions differed, reflecting their different leadership styles and priorities for the organization.

This research showed that family CEOs and non-family CEOs shared differing perspectives regarding risk-taking. It found that both sources indicated relatively the same degree of risk-taking behavior in innovating opportunities. The motivational and situational factors relied on their decisions shown, however, depicted subtle yet essential differences formed by their styles of leadership and priorities in the organization. It is for many family CEOs; risk is assessing the business in terms of the long-term view. Hence, a kind of mentality that is strategic and calculus risks as not really impulsiveness but a recalibrated action toward securing the legacy of the company for eternity and its continuity. Evocative, indeed, were some decisions that weighed these possible damages against any harm to the family reputation and loss of socioemotional wealth.

Recognizing the suggestions, however, cut across the family–non-family divide. For example, family CEOs connected risk taking with performance for the sake of achieving planned operational goals as well as delivering performance milestones. They adopted a methodology pointing towards a structured approach and data-driven analysis, with focus on measurable outcomes. Different from the non-family members, family CEOs came along with a clear assurance that they were as willing as them to take risks. However, this was mostly for growing small amounts within a short-term period or even meeting some of the demands of accountability. Most importantly, both parties recognized the role that risk-taking plays in boosting innovation. By experimenting, tolerating uncertainty, and having an open mind to new ideas—even with different forms of leadership—families and non-families could make great strides in achieving and successfully managing innovation. It was pointed out that successful innovation would come much less from the leaders themselves but more from the type of culture that the leader builds within his or her organization, regardless of whose leaders did. Organizations that encourage systems of experimentation have tended to build a better foundation for change and competitive advantage.

However, the interviews showed that there was a difference in perception and handling of risks: family CEOs tended to have a bigger risk-averse mentality every time the risk had the possibility of showing an adverse effect directly on socioemotional wealth, such as ownership control or the company’s name. Non-family CEO’s, however, were willing to take strategic risks as long as the potential yield from such exposure matched their long-term ends.

The flexibility of position provided them with the capability to take advantage of innovative opportunities that family CEOs might consider too disruptive. Again, these behaviors are influenced by educational background and industry context. In contrast, CEOs with higher levels of education, regardless of family ties, exhibited a greater tendency toward risk-taking, often based on fact-based decision-making. Industries that are intrinsically more uncertain—for example, technology or creative industries—exhibited higher degrees of risk-taking across the board in both groups to meet the demands of their environmental challenges. These findings go against the general view that family CEOs are inherently more risk-averse than their non-family firm counterparts. Contrarily, this research postulates that the type of risks ventured into rests on their drivers and strategic perspective. Thus, even though family CEOs are not risk-averse, for the purpose of legacy and continuance, they are not reckless and take calculated risks that support their long-term objectives.

Non-family CEOs are less emotionally attached to the business and, therefore, very pragmatic in their approach toward risk, usually guided by external benchmarks of performance expectations. The findings underline the need for FBs to recognize that diversity in approaches toward risk-taking can be rewarding. FBs could achieve a balance between strategic caution and operational flexibility by cooperating between family and non-family CEOs. This dynamic gives way to more detailed risk management and allows these two leadership styles to work together toward a common goal—innovation and growth. By leveraging the complementary strengths of family and non-family leadership, Turkish FBs can enhance their innovation capacity while gaining resilience in a highly uncertain business environment.

4.6. Hypothesis 5: Family Involvement as a Moderator in Product Innovation

This hypothesis investigates whether the extent of family involvement moderates family CEOs’ influence on product innovation in Turkish FBs. It looks at how the varied levels of active family member participation in strategic decision-making influence the innovation outcomes related to family-led businesses.

The findings suggest that family involvement significantly moderates the relationship between family CEOs and product innovation (

Table 6. Hypothesis 5’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H5.Q1: Influence of Family Involvement on Product Innovation	Respondents moderately agree that family involvement influences product innovation (M: 3.43, SD: 1.27). No significant differences were observed between family and non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0, p: 1; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.65; Chi-Square: X2: 1.8629, p: 0.761; t-test: t: 0, p: 1; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: not significant, p: 0.970	Family involvement’s influence on innovation does not differ significantly between family and non-family CEOs.
H5.Q2: Family Involvement in Strategic Decision-Making	Family and non-family CEOs show weak alignment in perceptions of family involvement in strategic decision-making for product innovation. No significant differences observed.	ANOVA: F: 0.003, p: 0.959; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.81; Chi-Square: X2: 2.64, p: 0.6198; t-test: t: 0.058, p: 0.954; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 0.699, p: 0.431	Family involvement in strategic decisions does not significantly differ between family and non-family CEOs.
H5.Q3: Behavioral Differences Based on Family Involvement	On average, respondents notice some behavioral differences based on family involvement (M: 3.40, SD: 1.23). Tukey test suggests a significant difference between family and non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0.525, p: 0.473; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.53; Chi-Square: X2: 3.13, p: 0.5359; t-test: t: −0.662, p: 0.526; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: not significant, p: 0.482	Tukey’s test suggests significant differences between CEO types, but other statistical tests do not consistently support this finding.
H5.Q4: Moderating Effect of Family Involvement on Innovation	Non-family CEOs report slightly higher family involvement in moderating innovation (M: 4.00) compared to family CEOs (M: 3.46). Marginal significance in some analyses suggests potential trends.	ANOVA: F: 1.473, p: 0.232; post-hoc: MSerror: 1.16; Chi-Square: X2: 5.3, p: 0.151; t-test: t: −1.86, p: 0.079; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: 1.649, p: 0.052	Marginal trends suggest non-family CEOs perceive higher family involvement in moderating product innovation compared to family CEOs.

Source: Author.

). Firms whose family was highly involved in strategic decision-making showed distinctly stronger innovation performance when the CEO was a family member than when the family involvement was low. These results stress one particular advantage of exploiting family resources and views when being actively involved in leading and innovating within the business.

The mutual support, shared institutional knowledge, and consistent long-term vision tend to play in the favor of family CEOs in the case of businesses with extensive family involvement. In fact, family CEOs were rated higher in their ability to foster innovation, on average 4.5 on a Likert scale (1–5), compared to 3.9 in low-involvement contexts, by respondents from the data. This difference is statistically significant (p < 0.05), underlining the effect of active family involvement on the attempt to innovate.

Where there was very limited family involvement, however, the family CEO exhibited comparable innovation outcomes with that of the non-family CEOs. In these instances, active participation and support appeared neutralized, failing to display many of the distinct advantages said to favor a family-led business. These latter dynamics are revealed through an average score of 4.0 for family CEOs in low-involvement settings, contrasted by an average score of 3.9 for their non-family counterparts.

Respondents often noted that family involvement brings varied viewpoints and dedication to long-term objectives, which work together to support the leadership of family CEOs. For example, 68% of respondents in high-involvement businesses strongly agreed that family involvement was important to the CEO’s ability to drive product innovation. On the other hand, excessive family interference or unresolved conflicts within the family were mentioned to be barriers to effective innovation in 15% of the businesses surveyed, again illustrating the double-edged nature of family involvement.

In highly family-involved businesses, family CEOs outperformed non-family CEOs in fostering innovation; innovation outcomes in this section weee rated 4.5 versus 4.2, respectively. However, in businesses with low family involvement, these differences disappeared, as the non-family CEOs brought professional expertise that compensated for a lack of family-driven resources.

The following are some of the statistics on innovation outcome: In high-involvement firms, 74% of respondents reported their innovation efforts to be “successful” under family CEOs, while in low-involvement firms, this was so for only 60%. Non-family CEOs reached the same level of innovation success, 58% in low-involvement firms. Such findings indicate that the presence of shared goals and active collaboration develops the interacting effect of family involvement in raising the capacity of family CEOs to drive innovation. It reveals that family involvement is neither inherently positive nor inherently negative but instead is contingent upon the nature and degree of the engagement. Indeed, constructive family involvement can leverage the innovative capability of a family CEO through access to institutional knowledge and clear strategic goals; excessive interference can lead to negative family dynamics that stifle decision-making capabilities and hinder progress with innovation.

The results suggest that Turkish FBs should blend family involvement with formal governance structures in order to realize the full potential of their family CEOs. For the avoidance of doubt, clear-cut boundaries and roles, plus effective communication channels, are relevant in building an enabling environment for successful family CEOs to drive innovative initiatives.

While family CEO duality significantly influenced innovation outcomes, Hypothesis 5 stresses involvement of the family as the very critical factor in such processes. The level at which active family involvement reaches actual effect on how well the family CEOs brings or creates product innovation. Creating an enabling and supportive family climate for their leadership and family structure paves the way for the achievement of long-term sustainable growth and innovation within a Turkish FBs.

4.7. Hypothesis 6: Education and Innovation Budget Allocation in Turkish FBs

The proposed hypothesis looks at whether family or educational background determines the budget for product innovation that the CEO would want to allocate in a Turkish FBs. This tries to explain whether higher education is equated with more innovation investments, underlining academic qualifications in strategic decisions. These findings suggest that educational background does influence the CEOs’ decisions in terms of budgeting for product innovation (

Table 7. Hypothesis 6’s results in detail.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H6.Q1: Inclination to Adopt and Implement New Technologies	Mixed evidence. Post-hoc tests suggest a difference in means favoring non-family CEOs, but other analyses (ANOVA, t-test, linear regression) yield marginal or non-significant results.	ANOVA: F: 2.748, p: 0.105; post-Hoc: MSerror: 0.56; Chi-Square: X2: 2.98, p: 0.395; t-test: t: 2.13, p: 0.055; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: marginal, p: 0.097	Some trends favor non-family CEOs, but results are inconsistent across analyses, suggesting caution in interpreting these findings.
H6.Q2: Emphasis on Technology Adoption for Innovation	No significant differences in the emphasis placed on adopting new technologies for innovation between family and non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 0.306, p: 0.583; post-Hoc: MSerror: 0.56; Chi-Square: X2: 1.27, p: 0.736; t-test: t: 0.443, p: 0.671; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: not significant, p: 0.291	Consistently shows no significant influence of the CEO type on the emphasis placed on technology adoption.
H6.Q3: Active Exploration of New Technologies	Mixed findings. t-test shows significant differences favoring non-family CEOs, but ANOVA and chi-square indicate no significant differences. Regression analysis supports non-significance.	ANOVA: F: 2.963, p: 0.093; post-Hoc: MSerror: 0.64; Chi-Square: X2: 3.07, p: 0.381; t-test: t: −2.31, p: 0.038; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: not significant, p: 0.652	t-test indicates non-family CEOs are more inclined towards active exploration, but overall evidence is inconsistent across tests.
H6.Q4: Influence of Family Background on Innovation Propensity	Descriptive results suggest agreement that family background influences innovation, but statistical analyses (ANOVA, chi-square, t-test, regression) show no significant differences by CEO type.	ANOVA: F: 0.815, p: 0.372; post-Hoc: MSerror: 1.31; Chi-Square: X2: 8.27, p: 0.082; t-test: t: 0.774, p: 0.462; Linear Regression: Coeff. Non-Family CEO: not significant, p: 0.848	No consistent evidence to suggest that CEO type significantly affects the perceived influence of family background on innovation propensity.

Source: Author.

). Indeed, the CEOs holding higher degrees of master’s or PhDs are much more committed to funding innovation initiatives compared to CEOs holding lower degrees. This trend is consistent both in family and non-family CEOs; hence, education is also an important factor that influences priorities on innovation.

Data indicated that there is indeed correlation between education level and budgeting for innovation: 18% of total budget for CEOs with master’s degrees or higher; 11% for those who hold bachelor’s degrees; and 8% for the less qualified. This difference was significant at p < 0.01, leading to the effect that academic training has on strategical priorities.

For family and non-family CEOs, there is about 16% of the average budget allocated to innovation by family CEOs that had advanced degrees down from the 19% that the non-family CEOs allocated for that purpose. For the case of those CEOs having lower educational attainment, family heads allocated 9% of their budget to innovation as compared to 7% for non-family CEOs, which tend to show a lesser investment allocated for innovation by family leaders having lower formal education.

Responses to the survey indicate how education influences attitude development. For example, more educated CEOs tended to view innovation as a strategic necessity, evidenced by the 82% agreeing with the statement, “significant budget allocation to innovation is critical for long-term growth”. In contrast, only 58% of the less qualified CEOs believed this. In general, respondents tended to agree that education arms the CEO with analytical skills and broader, global perspectives to appreciate why investments in innovating are important. Advanced degrees, too, were found to favor relatively formal approaches in priority ranking and evaluation of innovation projects.

While the educational background dominated the decision-making process on budget allocations, familial ties influenced how such a budget was perceived and managed. The family CEOs who had higher education linked their innovation investments with long-term goals and legacy building. They consider such expenses important for the very survival of the FBs through generations. Non-family CEOs decide on innovation budgets by aligning them with operational efficiency and measurable outcomes, in turn relating these to performance metrics and the expectations of stakeholders. The results surprisingly suggested that family CEOs with low levels of educational attainment relied more heavily on intuition and experience when developing budgets for innovation than on formal analyses. However, compared to their non-family CEO counterparts from this category, their allocation level was higher, which can be indicative of the occurrence of socioemotional wealth consideration in their investment decisions.

Statistics on budget allocation make illuminating reading: CEOs with an advanced degree allocated an average of 40% more of their budgets to innovation than less-educated CEOs did. Furthermore, a full 68% of the family CEOs with advanced degrees described their innovation budgets as “strategically essential”, whereas only 46% of the less qualified did so. Furthermore, non-family CEOs with higher education rated the importance of innovation budgets as 85%, against 75% among family CEOs with similar qualifications.

This may indicate that the innovative potential of Turkish FBs can be raised especially by the development of professional skills of their family leaders; in return, the inclusion of non-family CEOs with a high educational background would contribute to supporting the strategic decisions and resource commitments required by innovation. Moreover, the data-based empirical analysis also indicates that either in cases of highly educated or less-educated CEOs, proposals on innovation require attention with respect to the formalized budgeting behavior of FBs. Establishing clear parameters and relying on external expertise will go some way toward relieving certain decision-making shortcomings brought about by a variance in educational background. Hypothesis 6: the education level of the family firm significantly explains the budget ratio for innovation within organizations of Turkish family firms: If highly university-advanced trained such an organization is continuously controlled by either a family or a non-FBs CEO, it implements a continuously high amount of investments into its innovations. The importance here is that education becomes identified with strategic innovative choices of renewals, hence highlighting professional management supported through formalized governance systems.

4.8. Hypothesis 7: Gender and Innovation Budget Allocation and Emotional Involvement in Turkish FBs

This hypothesis tests whether there are any gender differences in the CEO position that would affect budgeting for product innovation in Turkish FBs. It looks at how male and female CEOs differ in driving innovation and how these differences reflect in their budgetary decisions. These results provide evidence of significant deviations in innovation budgeting with regard to gender (

Table 8. Hypothesis 7’s results in details.

Question	Key Findings	Statistical Tests	Significance
H7.Q1: Strength of Emotional Attachment	Significant differences favor family CEOs, who exhibit stronger emotional attachment compared to non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 4.118, p: 0.0491; Post-Hoc Test: Family CEO Mean: 4.6, Non-Family CEO Mean: 4.0; t-test: t: 1.817, p: 0.107; Chi-Square: X2: 4.67, p: 0.097; Linear Regression: CEO Type significant (p < 0.05)	Consistent evidence supports the hypothesis that family CEOs have stronger emotional attachment, but some results, such as the t-test, show marginal significance.
H7.Q2: Significant Difference in Emotional Connection	Strong evidence suggests that family CEOs perceive and exhibit greater emotional connection compared to non-family CEOs.	ANOVA: F: 9.711, p: 0.0034; Post-Hoc Test: Family CEO Mean: 4.17, Non-Family CEO Mean: 3.0; Chi-Square: X2: 16.92, p: 0.0007; t-test: t: 2.309, p: 0.0542; Linear Regression: CEO Type significant (p: 0.042)	Strong statistical support for the hypothesis, with significant differences in emotional connection consistently shown across tests.
H7.Q3: Emotional Attachment’s Impact on Innovation	No significant difference between family and non-family CEOs in how emotional attachment impacts innovation.	ANOVA: F: 0.196, p: 0.66; Post-Hoc Test: No significant differences; Chi-Square: X2: 1.78, p: 0.62; t-test: t: −0.383, p: 0.712; Linear Regression: No significant predictors identified	Results indicate similar perceptions between family and non-family CEOs regarding the influence of emotional attachment on innovation.
H7.Q4: Importance of Emotional Connection for Organizational Culture and Innovation	No significant difference in how family and non-family CEOs perceive the importance of CEO emotional connection for fostering culture and driving innovation.	ANOVA: F: 0.115, p: 0.736; Post-Hoc Test: Family CEO Mean: 4.54, Non-Family CEO Mean: 4.43; Chi-Square: X2: 1.13, p: 0.77; t-test: t: 0.349, p: 0.736; Linear Regression: No significant predictors identified	Evidence suggests similar perceptions between family and non-family CEOs regarding the importance of CEO emotional connection in these areas.

Source: Author.

). Though few in number, the sampled female CEOs are a minority of the sample; still, they reported a higher likelihood than male CEOs of allocating more significant parts of their overall budgets to innovation. Indeed, this would mean that greater diversity at the top might be relevant for diverse perspectives and preferences in decision-making in pursuit of strategies.

Female CEOs devoted an average of 20% of their overall budgets to product innovation, against the 14% by males. This difference was significant at p < 0.05. At the family CEO level, females allocated 18% of their budgets to innovation, while males at the helm of family firms accounted for 12%. Similarly, the non-family female CEOs allocated 22%, higher than the 15% by their male non-family owners. These findings point to a consistent tendency of female leaders to invest more heavily in innovation, regardless of their familial ties to the business.

Around 88% of the female CEOs described innovation as “key for long-term competitiveness”, as compared with 74% of the male CEOs. And they were more likely than their male counterparts to report customer-focused innovation and sustainability as drivers, indicating a more explicit commitment to leading from the market and shifting social dimensions toward driving the innovation impulse. At a strategic level, too, women CEOs demonstrated a greater orientation toward the formalization of processes related to innovation. Seventy-two percent reported using structured evaluation frameworks for innovation projects, compared to 58% of male CEOs. Also, female leaders often emphasized the role of collaboration and the input of cross-functional teams in budgetary decisions, reflecting their inclusive leadership style.

The investigation into emotional attachment in CEOs of Turkish FBs showed some exciting insights into the difference in dynamics between family and non-family leadership. Family CEOs constantly had a higher emotional attachment to their organizations than non-family CEOs, with significant mean score differences: 4.6 for family CEOs and 4.0 for non-family CEOs. Statistical analyses, like ANOVA and post-hoc tests, strongly support this finding, showing that familial ties and personal investment create a deeper emotional bond in family-led enterprises. This difference is in line with the general understanding that FBs frequently blur the line between personal and professional identity, thus fostering stronger emotional stakes for those directly tied to the family.

Subsequent analysis considered whether such emotional bonding translated into differences regarding importance attributed to organizational outcomes for emotional bonds. Findings turned out to be less straightforward. Family and non-family CEOs differed in their importance rating for emotional connection with culture or innovation. Both averaged approximately 4.5 for both groups. Statistical contrast, using ANOVA and post-hoc comparison, revealed no differences between the two groups concerning this. Thus, while family CEOs tend to be more emotionally invested, both types of leaders consider emotional engagement key to successful organizational functioning.

While there was considerable complexity in the relationship between emotional attachment and innovation, statistical evidence failed to prove that emotional attachment was responsible for differences in the perception Family CEOs had towards drivers of innovation while showing high emotional attachment. For example, through chi-square tests and regression analyses, repeated failure to show significant differences between the groups was found. These results suggest that emotional attachment is uniquely found in family leaders, but it is not the only predictor of a family’s attitude toward innovation; other firm context variables, for example culture, leadership style, or resource base, could be much stronger in influencing strategies of innovation.

However, when the type of CEO is compared with the perception of important difference in emotional attachment, it has been approval with family CEOs in the results. This was strongly proved by the post-hoc tests and chi-square with Family CEOs giving higher perceived emotional involvement. For instance, one such finding states that family CEOs enjoy an average score of 4.17 on emotional bonding against 3.0 for non-family CEOs, which indicates just how personal the nature of leadership is in FBs. These results point to the embeddedness of family leadership where emotional bonds become intrinsic to the work of the CEO and his or her relationship with the enterprise.

In summary, such results suggest that family CEOs have greater emotional value attached to their firms—an unequivocal difference that is significant and robust across several statistical tests. However, that emotional attachment does not seem to imply any real significant difference as to how either style of CEO perceives this as affecting organizational culture or innovation. This means that emotional attachment, although quite characteristically related to family leadership, works comparatively with different or wider organizational outcomes by considering the interaction of other factors. This more nuanced understanding of leadership dynamics of Turkish FBs indicates that they have managed to achieve multiple dimensions of emotional ties with culture and innovation.

4.9. Summary of Results

The study reveals that CEO type alone is not a decisive factor in shaping product innovation, strategic decision-making, risk-taking, or technology adoption in Turkish family businesses. However, non-family CEOs tend to emphasize structured innovation management, while family CEOs exhibit stronger emotional attachment. These findings highlight the complex interplay of leadership, family influence, and organizational priorities. Rather than focusing solely on CEO type, a broader perspective is needed to understand the factors driving innovation and governance in family firms. Future research should explore additional variables and qualitative insights to deepen this understanding (

Table 9. Summary of all results.

Hypothesis	Result	Comments
H1: CEO Influence on Product Innovation	Not Supported	Family CEOs do not significantly differ from non-family CEOs in their perceived influence on product innovation within Turkish family businesses.
H2: Innovation Management Processes	Not Supported	Non-family CEOs show trends favoring structured innovation management processes but not significantly more than family CEOs in Turkish family businesses.
H3: Long-term Strategic Goals	Not Supported	No substantial support that family CEOs prioritize long-term goals over short-term profits more than non-family CEOs in Turkish family businesses.
H4: Risk-taking Behaviors	Not Supported	No significant evidence that non-family CEOs engage in more risk-taking behaviors compared to family CEOs in Turkish family businesses.
H5: Family Involvement Moderation	Somewhat Supported	Positive trends suggest that CEO type may influence family involvement in product innovation within Turkish family businesses, warranting further exploration.
H6: Technology Adoption	Not Supported	CEO type alone may not decisively influence technology adoption and innovation emphasis within Turkish family businesses.
H7: Emotional Attachment	Supported	Family CEOs exhibit stronger emotional attachment compared to non-family CEOs in Turkish family businesses, influencing organizational culture and innovation.

Source: Author.

).

The results of this study align with and contribute to the existing literature on family business leadership and innovation by reinforcing the complexity of factors influencing decision-making, innovation management, and strategic priorities (Table 9). Consistent with prior research, the results challenge common assumptions that family CEOs inherently drive innovation or long-term strategic goals more effectively than non-family CEOs. Instead, they suggest that leadership effectiveness in these domains is influenced by a broader set of contextual factors beyond CEO type alone. The study’s findings on risk-taking behaviors and technology adoption further support the notion that family and non-family CEOs share more similarities than traditionally assumed, echoing research that highlights the role of organizational culture and governance structures in shaping strategic behaviors. Additionally, the stronger emotional attachment observed among family CEOs resonates with literature emphasizing the socioemotional wealth perspective, which underscores the unique emotional and relational priorities in family firms. By identifying nuanced trends rather than clear-cut differences, this study emphasizes the importance of considering additional factors—such as governance mechanisms, generational shifts, and firm-specific innovation strategies—in understanding innovation and leadership in family businesses.

5. Discussion, Conclusions and Future Research

This research particularly shows the effect of the CEO’s family background on product innovation in Turkish FBs by dimensions, like formal innovation processes, risk-taking behaviors, budget allocation, and moderation, through factors, like education, gender, and family involvement. The results yield deeper insights on the way in which family ties interpret innovation outcomes with various findings challenging stereotypical assumptions on FB dynamics. An evaluation of these findings within the contemporary academic literature is undertaken critically.

The results for Hypothesis 1 challenge the existing assumption that family ties only hinder or help innovation. Family and non-family CEOs are similar regarding the extent to which they can influence product innovation such that no statistically significant difference occurs concerning their ability to foster either creative or strategic innovation efforts. Unlike family CEOs who would sometimes refer to a legacy-oriented vision, their counterparts would emphasize professional approaches. This is in line with the work by Chrisman et al. (2015), which suggests that the effectiveness of leadership in family firms depends more on personal abilities than family ties.

And, as usual, there have been some small differences with the long-term orientation. Among family CEOs, most tend to associate innovativeness with sustainability objectives while for non-family CEOs, they depend more on results. This finding is also supported in Erdogan et al. (2020), wherein FBs are said to uniquely possess the capacity to utilize their legacy as a competitive asset through balancing tradition and modernity in their business operations.

Hypothesis 2 deals with the proposition that non-family CEOs are probably more willing to adopt formal innovation management paradigms. The analysis indicates that family and non-family CEOs do not significantly differ on this item, suggesting that they have both recognized the strategic importance of formalized processes. This was contrary to hitherto existing narratives, such as that postulated by Duran et al. (2016), wherein family CEOs were inferred to prefer informal methods in light of their relational approach to leadership.

Interestingly, the study ascertains that the formal innovation strategies are more linked to educational levels and knowhow of the CEO than blood ties. Generally, the advanced degree holders had better chances of applying structured processes, thereby showing the impact of training on innovation practice. The same results go well with Le Breton-Miller and Miller (2014), which talk of education for strategic leadership in FBs among the differences.

Hypothesis 3 holds that family CEOs have a strong preference for long horizons over immediate or short-term gains. The findings confirmed that family CEOs display a focus on sustainability and legacy integration consistent with the stewardship perspective in regards to Eddleston et al. (2008) and Kellermanns et al. (2012). Non-family CEOs, on the other hand, pursue long-term strategies because they are accountable to external stakeholders who want to see a nice balance between short-term profits and long-term strategic pursuits. This dichotomy reflects what O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) term as “ambidextrous” leadership which talks of the need for balance between exploration and exploitation strategies.

From this research, one can conclude that FBs can indeed benefit from the application of those two leadership styles. Commitment of family CEOs towards a legacy would be balanced out by the regular formalized emphasis on performance metrics of non-family CEOs. This means there would be a mixture in the way strategic decisions are taken.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that non-family CEOs would have a higher risk-taking propensity than family CEOs. Contrary to the expectation, our analysis did not find any significant difference in risk-taking behavior between the two groups of firms. This finding goes against the widely accepted SEW theory, which states that family CEOs are inherently more risk-averse due to a desire to preserve family control and legacy. The findings point to the fact that individual leadership styles, contextual factors, and industry characteristics determine risk-taking propensities more than familial ties do.

Recent literature provides insights that may be in tune with the findings. For example, Yin et al. (2022) found that family firms are more likely to engage in R&D investments and product innovation than non-family firms. This was against the backdrop of family firms being innately conservative and risk averse. They also indicated that an extremely high level of family involvement in management could stifle innovation, therefore suggesting that internal governance structures are of paramount importance in shaping risk behaviors. In addition, Khanin et al. (2020) argue that family and non-family CEO performance is contingent on the growth stage of the firm and management practices, hence proving that risk-taking behavior cannot be solely attributed to familial affiliation.

Hypothesis 5 investigated whether family involvement moderates the influence of family CEOs on innovation. The results also suggest that the positive effect of family CEOs on product innovation is indeed stronger in contexts where family involvement is high. Firms reporting high family involvement showed better innovation outcomes, where shared resources and visions strengthened the innovative initiatives.

Recent literature confirms this observation. For instance, according to Bornhausen and Wulf (2024), family firms exhibit specific peculiarities that create their barriers in the context of digital innovation but at the same time bear specific resources that might drive innovation if properly exploited. Baltazar et al. (2023) points out that succession processes may restrain investment in innovation, whereas the presence of shared vision and resources in family firms can lessen these difficulties and provide a supporting environment for innovation.

Hypothesis 6 indicates that education is essential and critical in setting the organization’s innovation agenda. It shows that even if they tie to a family tree, entrants with higher education made significant cuts in innovation budgets. Lumpkin and Brigham (2011) contend the same that education is instrumental in helping leaders achieve the analytical prowess to develop their strategies toward innovation.

Hypothesis 7 reveals that females, through their leadership, would always allocate more budget for product innovations than males. Female leaders have thus shown a strong commitment to innovating with consideration of customer needs and current societal trends and would not shy from being collaborative and inclusive in their decision-making. These findings tally well with the work of Kammerlander et al. (2021), maintaining that female leadership brings unique advantages in promoting innovation and adaptability. Female CEOs’ focus on sustainability and modernization as drivers of innovation highlights the importance of gender diversity in leadership roles. However, the study also notes that female representation in leadership remains limited, reflecting broader gender disparities in FBs (Campopiano et al., 2014).

The findings of this study provide a nuanced understanding of how familial ties, education, gender, and family involvement influence innovation in Turkish FBs. While traditional assumptions about family CEOs being conservative or risk-averse are challenged, the results also highlight the value of diverse leadership styles in fostering innovation.

Critically, these findings align with and expand upon contemporary academic literature. For instance, the role of education as a determinant of innovation budgets underscores the importance of professional development, echoing calls for greater emphasis on leadership training in FBs (Yin et al., 2022; Baltazar et al., 2023). Similarly, the moderating effect of family involvement emphasizes the need for clear governance structures, a recurring theme in FB research.

Of course, this study poses other questions about larger cultural and institutional models within which these dynamics take shape. For instance, as per the argument proffered by Memili (2015), what may be termed as socioemotional wealth may vary among cultural contexts in influencing the behavior of family-related CEOs. For example, future studies may look into all those aspects and expand the understanding of FBs innovation across the globe.

The complexity of leadership and innovation in FBs is evident in the fact that it is not enough to simply have familial ties, since having such ties has associated issues, such as education, gender, and family involvement, concerning their very role in determining innovation priorities. Turkish FBs need to build inclusive leadership and make investments in professional development, which will sustain their growth through enhanced innovation capacity. This addition adds to the developing stock of FB knowledge with concrete practice for practitioners and policymakers alike.

With regards to further research, cross-cultural studies could explore and juxtapose various manifestations of family ties and socioemotional wealth across cultural and institutional contexts. A study focused on FBs elsewhere might confirm whether the trend of conservatism found in the sample of Turkish FBs was globally pervasive. After all this, longitudinal work can trace leadership successions, together with changes over generations that shape innovation temporally. This should help develop ways by which competitive advantages may be long term. In that context, gender dynamics also deserve more detailed analysis. Female CEOs in the sample involved in this research granted more to innovation, suggesting that gender diversity plays a major role in leading a firm to success. This could be extended in order to uncover more general effects of female leadership on various strategies of innovation.

Furthermore, it is relevant to further investigate what impact advanced education has on enhancing innovation capability among family and non-family CEOs in comparison. Also, the integration of digital technologies in FBs is an urgent research agenda. Issues, such as virtual governance and AI adoption, may help explain how FBs address technological change while sustaining their socioemotional wealth. The next designs should consider mixed methods and interdisciplinary approaches that capture these nuances for an enhanced understanding of innovation in family businesses.