This essay offers a counterpoint to Le Breton–Miller and Miller's argument that
family firms are the ideal organizational form for arts–based businesses and
creative work. While the notion of the isolated, individual genius artist has
certain romantic appeal, we offer evidence that demonstrates that considerable
artistic creativity occurs within the context of a large diversified
corporation, at the level of the industry and at the level of the cultural
field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH.S. (1974).
Art as collective action. American
Sociological Review, 39(6),
767–776.
2.
BourdieuP. (1991). The love
of art: European art museums and their public. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University
Press.
3.
BourdieuP. (1996). The rules
of art. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
4.
CatmullE. (2008). How
Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard
Business Review, 86(9),
64–72.
5.
CattaniG. & FerrianiS. (2008). A
core–periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social
networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film
industry. Organization Science,
19(6),
824–844.
6.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., PearsonA.W., &
BarnettT. (2009). Family
involvement, family influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small
firms. Center of Family Enterprise Research Working Paper Series 09.04.
Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
7.
ChuaJ.H.ChrismanJ.J., &
SharmaP. (1999).
Defining the family business by behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
23(4),
19–39.
8.
CoserL.A. (1978).
The production of culture.
Sociological Research, 48,
2.
9.
FombrunC.J. &
ShanleyM. (1990).
What's in a name? Reputation–building and corporate
strategy. Academy of Management Journal,
33, 233–258.
10.
LampelJ., LantT., & ShamsieJ. (2000).
Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in the
cultural industries. Organization Science,
11(3),
263–269.
11.
LampelJ. & ShamsieJ. (2003).
Capabilities in motion: New organizational firms and the
reshaping of the Hollywood film industry. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(8),
2189–2210.
12.
Le Breton–MillerI. & MillerD. (2015). The
arts and family business: Linking family business resources and performance
to industry characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 39,
1349–1370.
13.
LeeS.S. (2004).
Predicting cultural output diversity in the radio industry,
1989–2002. Poetics, 32,
325–342.
14.
MeyerA.D., TsuiA.S., &
HiningsC.R. (1993).
Configurational approaches to organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Journal,
36(6),
1175–1195.
15.
MillsC.W. (1955).
The cultural apparatus. In
HorowitzI.L. (Ed.), Power, politics and
people (pp. 196–228).
New York: Oxford University
Press.
16.
MintzbergH. (1979). The
structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliff,
NJ: Prentice
Hall.
PetersonR.A. (1976).
The production of culture: A prolegomenon. In
PetersonR.A. (Ed.), The production of
culture (pp. 7–22).
Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
19.
PetersonR.A. (1990).
Why 1955? Explaining the advent of rock
music. Popular Music,
9(1),
97–116.
20.
PetersonR.A. & BergerD.G. (1975).
Cycles in symbolic production: The case of popular
music. American Sociological Review,
40, 158–173.
21.
PowellW.W., KoputK.W., &
Smith–DoerrL. (1996).
Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of
innovation. Networks of learning in biotechnology.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
116–145.
22.
ScottA.J. (1999).
The US recorded music industry: On the relations between
organization, location, and creativity in the cultural
economy. Environment and Planning,
31(11),
1965–1984.
23.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership
in administration. New York:
Harper and Row.
24.
WhiteH. & WhiteC. (1965). Canvasses
and careers: Institutional change in the French painting world.
New York:
Wiley.
25.
ZellwegerT.M., EddlestonK.A., &
KellermansF.W. (2010).
Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm
identity. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 1(1),
54–63.
