The practice-driven evolution of family business education

60 (2007) 1012–1021

The practice-driven evolution of family business education☆

Pramodita Sharma a,⁎, Frank Hoy b,1, Joseph H. Astrachan c,2, Matti Koiranen d

a School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5b Department of Marketing & Management, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968-0545, United States

c Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastian Road, #0408 Kennesaw, GA 30144, United Statesd School of Business & Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Received 1 July 2006; received in revised form 1 November 2006; accepted 1 December 2006

Abstract

Starting from Calder's dissertation in the early fifties, key developments in family business education are presented in a 130-item chronology.The emergence of the field is tracked to the demand from practitioners rather than the pull of scholarly inquiry. Causal evolutionary drivers ofvariation, selective retention, and struggle for survival, provide a framework for understanding the past and current status of the knowledge basefor family business and hinting at future development. The critical role of infrastructure – family business centers and professional associations –is evident in the path dependent evolution and growth of the field. Although the last two decades have witnessed rampant infrastructure growthand variety in offerings, some evidence of selective retention is beginning to surface. In the future, increasing competition and collaboration can beexpected to lead to higher standards of family business education.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Education; Evolutionary theory; Family business

1. Introduction

The American philosopher George Santayana remarks that‘those who cannot remember their past are condemned to repeatit’ (Santayana, 1905). Bluedorn (2002: 262) suggests more

☆ An earlier but substantively different version of this article has beenpublished by Hoy and Sharma (2006) as a chapter in the Family BusinessResearch Handbook edited by Poutziouris, Smyrnios and Klein, Edward ElgarPublishing. The authors are grateful to Craig Aronoff, Kristin Cappuyns, JimChrisman, Jess Chua, Guido Corbetta, Sadie Dalton, John Davis, NancyDrozdow, Gibb W. Dyer Jr., Joyce Fasanella, Pat Frishkoff, Miguel Gallo, KelinGersick, Judy Green, Ramona Heck, Jane Hilburt-Davis, Paul Karofsky, KenKaye, Andrew Keyt, Ann Kinkade, Sabine Klein, Alden Lank, Kristi McMillan,Drew Mendoza, Ken Moores, Panikkos Poutziouris, Kosmas Smyrnios, RitchSorenson, Alex Stewart, Lloyd Steier, Albert Jan Thomassen, Thuy Tran, NancyUpton, Karen Vinton, and John Ward for sharing insights that enabled anexpanded understanding of the evolution of family business studies.⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 884 0710x2532.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Sharma), [email protected] (F. Hoy),

[email protected] (J.H. Astrachan),[email protected] (M. Koiranen).1 Tel.: +1 915 747 7727.2 Tel.: +1 770 423 6045.

0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.010

recently that ‘as time cannot be conserved or cultivated it must beorganized’. Van Fleet and Wren (2005: 53) describe history as away of organizing the time of our disciplines, enabling aframework for the what, who, when, where, and how of ourstudies. Historical reviews enable access to the seminalcontributors of past. By returning to original works and events,the pitfalls of relying on secondary sources through whichconcepts may get lost in translation are avoided (Bedeian, 2004).

Inspired by Katz's (2003) comprehensive chronology ofentrepreneurship education and stimulated by the desire todocument the development of the field, this article attempts totrace roots and benchmarks in family business education. Theexplosive growth of the last decades of the twentieth century hasnot gone unnoticed (Astrachan, 2003; Hoy, 2003). Reviews todate mostly focus on the scholarship in the field (Bird, Welsch,Astrachan and Pistrui, 2002; Chrisman, Chua and Sharma,2005; Dyer and Sanchez, 1998; Handler, 1989; Sharma, 2004;Sharma, Chrisman and Chua, 1996, 1997; Wortman, 1994;Zahra and Sharma, 2004). By contrast, this article documentsthe growth of infrastructure related to family businesseducation. In other words, the focus is on activities and eventsthat have significantly influenced the trajectory of creation and

1013P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

dissemination of knowledge on family firms. The overarchingaim is to ensure that early contributions are not misconstrued,while providing a basis to better appreciate the field's currentand future educational possibilities.

The next section, explains themethodology used to compile thelist of events that have been influential in bringing family businesseducation to its current state. Using the evolutionary perspective asa means for interpreting events in the development of the field,patterns that emerge in retrospect are discussed next. Speculationson what the future might hold are presented in the concludingsection.

2. The family business education chronology

To track the evolution of family business studies and developa comprehensive list of key events shaping family businesseducation (Table 1), the collective experiences of authors overrecent decades are used as a starting point. To overcomedependence on selective memories, perceptions and biases,multiple additional sources of information are also consulted.Following the strategy adopted by Katz (2003) to compile thechronology of entrepreneurship education in North America,the following sources are used:

• Reviews of primary and secondary historical documentsincluding early dissertations, books, monographs, andreview articles;

• Reviews of websites including major professional associa-tions focusing on family business studies;

• Reviews of websites of some of the oldest and most wellestablished university-based family business programs; and

• Discussions with faculty and practitioners who have directlyinfluenced the development of the field.

Many judgment calls are made to compile a list of events thatencompass a field. Recognizing that family business studiesdraw from numerous scholarly fields including anthropology,family therapy, organizational science, sociology, psychologyand many others, the list errs towards broad coverage. Despitediligence in verifying items listed in the chronology, someerrors and omissions may exist, for which the authors takeresponsibility. As the intent is to continue documentingadvancements in evolution of family business education,corrections and additions are welcome.

3. A framework for retrospection

Patterns emerge when viewed retrospectively. The evolution-ary principles of variation, selective retention, and struggle forsurvival are helpful in understanding the path dependent historicalmeanderings of family business education (cf. Aldrich, 1979). Abrief explanation of these evolutionary principles follows:

Variations refer to any departures from the norm (Aldrich,1979). Unmet needs of one or more stakeholder groups byprevailing norms provide an environment conducive for vari-ations to emerge (cf., Freeman, 1984). Consciously planned ornot, variations generate alternatives to meet stakeholder's needs

(Aldrich, 1999; Mintzberg, 1978). Regardless of the source ofvariations, the higher their frequency and diversity, the greaterare the opportunities for changes in the status quo (cf., Kuhn,1962). Niche Width theory suggests that in coarse-grainedenvironments where environmental diversity is characterized bytemporal or spatial clustering, generalist organizations willoutperform specialists (Freeman and Hannan, 1983).

Selective retention refers to the selection, preservation,strengthening, and replication of some variants, while othersare differentially eliminated after varying degrees of struggle(cf. Aldrich, 1979). The evolutionary approach distinguishesaction from its efficacy. That is, while some conditions provideopportunities for variations to occur, selective retention is aconsequence of effective management of internal and externalenvironmental forces (Langton, 1979). These forces includeefficacy in meeting stakeholder's needs, competitive pressures,external validation, fit with internal structuring logic, andinstitutional mission (cf. Steier and Ward, 2006). Further, thetenacity and persistence of visionary doers who champion avariation provide additional elements needed for survival andsuccess (Collins and Porras, 1997). Resource dependencetheory suggests that variations effective in acquiring resources,enabling legitimacy and/or reducing uncertainty while meetingcrucial stakeholder's needs, have a higher likelihood of beingfavorably selected (cf. Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Ascompetition to better serve stakeholder's needs increases, amove from generalist towards specialist niche strategies beginsto emerge.

Struggle is the contest for survival as social entities in anenvironment begin to proliferate (Aldrich, 1979). New orga-nizations, that have not developed a secure space or appropriate fitwithin their environments, are likely to perish through dissolutionor absorption (Freeman, Carroll and Hannan, 1983). As theenvironment changes and competition increases organizations arerequired to make adjustments to ensure survival. Over time, thefittest organizations will prevail as the current paradigm isdislodged (cf. Kuhn, 1962). As the new paradigm begins todominate and becomes the norm, variations start to emerge andthe next evolutionary cycle commences. Drawing upon ideasfrom the evolutionary perspective, the patterns detected over fivedecades of family business education are discussed next.

4. Emerging patterns in family business education

The business education norms in the post-World War II erafavored a focus on large corporations with a separation ofownership and management (Bossard and Dewhurst, 1931).Although some attention was given to human relations inbusiness schools, scholarly attention on the family firm wasvirtually non-existent. Business schools were in their childhood(just some 60 or so years after Wharton, the first collegiateschool of business, was founded) and much variance wasapparently being explained without adding the complexity ofthe family variable to theory development and research onbusiness entities (cf. Dyer, 2003).

Amidst the din of this dominant paradigm of businesseducation, a large number of family firms quietly prevailed

1014 P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

around the world (Colli, 2003). Family members played criticalroles in the venture creation process, providing entrepreneursaccess to human, financial, social, and emotional capital thatwas crucial for the survival of such ventures (Aldrich and Cliff,2003; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). Many business owners looked tofamily members as successors to maintain, grow, or renew theircompanies. Ownership and governance issues arose throughoutthe life of an enterprise, as spillover from family and emotionallife into the business created unique challenges and opportu-nities (Ward, 1986).

In such environments, the demand in the business communityfor education, training and development focused on issuespeculiar to organizations characterized by family ownership andcontrol laid dormant. The educational needs of family businessstakeholders were left unaddressed by the prevailing norms ofbusiness education, leading to the development of variations inthe form of family business centers. A reflection on the evolutionof the field reveals the critical role of two infrastructuralelements: centers and professional associations. These structuresenabled growth of family business research and education. Eachof these infrastructures is elaborated upon in the next section.

4.1. Critical role of infrastructure

As apparent in Table 1, the earliest contributions towardsfamily business scholarship came from prestigious businessschools such as Indiana and Harvard Universities. In retrospect,these initiatives had limited effects on energizing family businesseducation. More critical appears to have been the influence ofpractitioners — family business owners and consultants, who,through the development of infrastructures such as familybusiness centers and professional associations, provided homesfor communities focused on serving the educational needs offamily business stakeholders. In other words, infrastructuredevelopment efforts built the clock of family business education,enabling researchers, educators, consultants, and family businessmanagers to tell the time (cf. Collins and Porras, 1997).

4.2. Family business centers

The launch of the Center for Family Business in 1962 byLéon and Katie Danco appears to have been a significantstimulant for the field, providing the initial infrastructure forfamily business education aimed to serve the needs of familybusiness owners and their families in America . The Centerprovided a home for educators and practitioners interested inserving family businesses to exchange ideas as a communitybegan to emerge. Of significance to this review, the Center andthe sales of the books published by the Dancos demonstratedwidespread practitioner interest in family business issues. TheCenter was started with no competition and no constraints frominstitutions of higher learning, enabling its growth in aseemingly limitless market that had not yet coalesced. In suchan environment, any organizational form or strategy that couldconnect to the market of family business owners' would,according to evolutionary theory, have a good chance of success(cf. Aldrich, 1979).

The seeds for university infrastructures and outreachprograms were sown during the late seventies through theestablishment of endowed professorships and chairs at Loyolaand Baylor Universities, focusing more and more on familybusiness education. The market for academic thought was lessopen to business-owner services, as the routes to academicsuccess generally rely on following conservative strategies andadvancing the dominant paradigm rather than espousing notionswhich suggest that prevailing educational norms overlook theneeds of critical stakeholders (cf. Kuhn, 1962). Universitycenters were generally set up to provide outreach services andacted as boundary spanners focusing on executive educationand development. This positioning of Centers on the outsideedge of business schools enabled universities to satisfy thedemands and needs of family business stakeholders, whileleaving mainstream business education unperturbed.

Family business centers proliferated in the last two decadesof the twentieth century. Evidence of growth was documented ina 1988 issue of Nation's Business magazine, which identifiedtwenty family business programs in the United States. Today,the Family Firm Institute's list of ‘Centers and Related Orga-nizations’ extends to over 110, and the International Associationfor the Advancement of Colleges and Schools of Business(AACSB) reports over 50 accredited schools with familybusiness programs. Although many models of university-basedfamily business centers and programs exist (Kaplan, George,Rimler, 2000), an investigation of 128 family business centersacross the globe revealed two dominant models: the Kennesawmodel and the Holistic model (Birdthistle and Fleming, 2003).

Founded in 1986 at Kennesaw State University, this modelfocuses on executive programs for its family business memberswho pay a yearly membership fee for programs and services.The initial success of this center lay in its ability to generateresources for the university and business school throughsponsorships, provide a home base for scholars, and educationalopportunities for family business owners, which met the needsof external and internal stakeholders (Astrachan, 1990).

While the Kennesaw model proliferated rapidly, StetsonUniversity's Holistic model, established in 2000, uses a slightlydifferent approach. The core focus of this program is on activitiesgeared tomeet the needs of students in degree programs (McCannandDeMoss, 2000). Although outreach and research activities areintegral to this model, family business students are at its core.Elements of both of these programs are found in family businesscenters around the world as leaders of such programs attempt toalign their activities with the opportunities in their environmentsand the structuring logic of their institutions.

An example of tight alignment with a hosting institutionidentified by the authors is the University of Alberta's School ofBusiness. Family business champions within this institutionrecognized that they existed within a research-intensive fullservice university and that success ultimately depended on theirability to support their University's broader goals in research,teaching, and service. Their two centers are designed to workclosely and share an Academic Director. While the Center forEntrepreneurship and Family Enterprise (CEFE) focuses largelyon teaching and research, the Alberta Business Family Institute

Table 1Chronology of family business education studies and events

1953 Grant H. Calder completes the first doctoral dissertation on family business studies in North America entitled: Some management problems of the small familycontrolled manufacturing business, School of Business, Indiana University.

Roland Christensen's book: Management succession in small and growing enterprises published, Harvard University.1954 Cases in the Management of Small, Family-Controlled Manufacturing Businesses published at the Indiana University. (First family business-specific case book)1958 English's book: Financial problems of the family company published, Sweet & Maxwell, London.1961 Trow's article: Executive Succession in Small Companies, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, 6.

Cambien's book: Family Problems in the Business. Published by the Council of Dutch Employers Association (First Family Business book in Dutch).Calder's article: The peculiar problems of family businesses, published in Business Horizons, 4(3).

1962 Léon and Katy Danco co-found ‘The Center for Family Business’ in Cleveland, Ohio. America's oldest national organization for business owners and their families.1963 A. Kenneth Rice publishes, The Enterprise and its Environment, Tavistock Publications, London.1964 Robert Donnelley's article entitled: The family business, published in Harvard Business Review, 42(3).1965 David Ewing's article entitled: Is Nepotism So Bad, published in Harvard Business Review, 43(1).1967 Eric Miller and A. Kenneth Rice publish Systems of Organization, Tavistock Publications, London.1968 Churchman publishes The systems approach, Dell Publishers, NY.

Alfred Lief's Family Business: A century in the life and times of Strawbridge & Clothier published by McGraw-Hill Book Company.Léon Danco holds first interdisciplinary seminar on family business.

1969 Robert Cambreleng's article entitled: The case of the nettlesome nepot, Harvard Business Review, 48(2).R. Joseph Monsen's article entitled: Ownership and Management: The Effect of Separation on Performance, Business Horizons 12(4).

1971 Harry Levinson's article entitled: Conflicts that plague family business published in Harvard Business Review, 49(2).1972 Ianni & Ianni's book entitled: A family business published by Russell Sage Foundation, New York.1974 Harry Levinson's article entitled: Don't choose your own successor published in Harvard Business Review, 52(6).1975 Léon Danco's Beyond survival: a business owner's guide for success published by Reston Publishing.

Bernard Barry's article entitled: The development of organisation structure in the family firm, Journal of General Management, 3(1).Simon A. Hershon completes his dissertation entitled: The problem of management succession in family businesses, Harvard University.First dedicated family business consulting firm established: Bernhoeft Consultoria in Brazil (Founder: Renato Bernhoeft).Ralph Marotta Chair of Private Enterprise established at Loyola University.While the original purpose was to promote free enterprise education, an interest in

family business emerged in 1978.1976 Barnes and Hershon's article entitled: Transferring power in the family business published in Harvard Business Review, 53(4).

Dailey, Thomas, and DeMong's article entitled: Uncertainty and the family corporation, Journal of General Management 4(2).1977 Dailey, Thomas, and DeMong's article entitled: The family owned business: Capital funding, American Journal of Small Business 2(2).1978 Streich Chair in Family Business established at Baylor University.

Becker & Tillman's book entitled: The family owned business published by the Commerce Clearing House, Chicago.Longnecker & Schoen's article entitled: Management succession in the family business published in Journal of Small Business Management, 16(3).

1979 Armangue Joaquin de Arquer publishes the first family business text book in Spanish: La empresa familiar. Edciones Universidad de Navarra, Spain.1980 Yoram Ben-Porath's article entitled: The F-Connection: Families, Friends and Firms and the Organization of Exchange published in Population Development

Review, 6(1).Miriam Tashakori publishes Management Succession: From the Owner-Founder to the Professional President, Praeger Press, New York.

1981 Chair of Private Enterprise established at Kennesaw State College (now University).Elaine Kepner presents a workshop on Family dynamics and family owned organizations at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland conference.Nobel Laureate Gary Becker publishes his economic look at the family, A Treatise on the Family. Harvard University Press.

1982 Wharton Family Business Program launched at the Wharton Applied Research Center.M. Craig Brown's article entitled: Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(1).Pat Alcorn publishes Success and Survival in the Family-Owned Business, McGraw-Hill, New York.John A. Davis completes his dissertation entitled: The influence of life stage on father–son work relationship in family companies. Harvard University. First

presentation of the three-circle model on pages 14–15.Leslie Hannah compiles proceedings of the Eleventh International Economic History Congress entitled: From Family Firm to Professional Management,

Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. (several articles focus on patterns in the role of family capitalism across various nations).1983 Organizational Dynamics publishes a special issue on family business studies (Co-Editors: Richard Beckhard and Warner Burke).

Barbara S. Hollander completes her dissertation entitled: Family-Owned Business as a System: A Case Study of Family, Task, and Marketplace. Unpublisheddocument, University of Pittsburgh.

Karen L. Vinton completes her dissertation entitled: The Small, Family-Owned Business: A Unique Organizational Culture.Unpublished document, University of Utah.Bechtle completes Die Sicherung der Fuhrungsnachfolge in der Familienunternehmung (How to secure leadership succession in the family firm), University of

St. Gallen, Switzerland. First FB study in German.Canadian Association of Family Enterprise founded in Canada (a not-for-profit association of family business owners, 15 founding directors).

1984 W. Gibb Dyer Jr. completes his dissertation entitled: Cultural evolution in organizations: The case of a family owned firm, Sloan School of Management,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Yale establishes program for the Study of Family Firms.First MBA elective course entitled: Management of the Family Business offered at the University of Southern California.Akio Okochi and Shigeaki Yasuoka edit proceedings of the Tenth International Fuji Conference entitled: Family business in era of industrial growth, University

of Tokyo Press.1985 The College of Business, Oregon State University starts the second university-based Family Business Program in the US.

Rosenblatt & deMik publish The family in business, Jossey Bass Publishers.First Family Business Research Conference, University of Southern California (Chair: John Davis; 30 attendees; At the end of the conference, Barbara

Hollander Chairs the FFI Organizational meeting).Robert Pollack's article entitled: A transaction cost approach to families and households published in the Journal of Economic Literature, volume 33.

(continued on next page)

1015P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

1986 Founding of the Family Firm Institute Inc. (FFI) (Founding President - Barbara Hollander).W. Gibb Dyer Jr.'s book: Cultural change in family firms published as part of the Jossey-Bass series on Management of Family Owned Businesses (Consulting

Editors: Richard Beckhard, Peter Davis, Barbara Hollander).Kennesaw State College (now University) establishes the Family Business Center.AndrewErrington edits,The FarmAs a Family Business: An Annotated Bibliography.AgriculturalManpower Society, University of Reading FarmManagementUnit.

1987 First Family Business Chair established in Europe at IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.John Ward's book: Keeping the family business healthy published as part of the Jossey-Bass series on Management of Family Owned Businesses (Consulting

Editors: Richard Beckhard, Peter Davis, Barbara Hollander).Institute for Family Enterprise established at Baylor University.First family business study group launched in Europe by Executive-in-Residence Frank Tilley, IMI, Geneva, Switzerland.

1988 Family Business Review launched (Editor: Ivan Lansberg). A Jossey-Bass publication.First FFI research conference hosted by Boston University School of Management, (Chair: Marion McCollom Hampton; 40 attendees).Carl R. Zwerner endowed professorship in Family Business established at Georgia State University in US.First international education seminar launched at IMI, Geneva (now IMD) entitled: Leading the Family Business (Founders: Alden Lank & Frank Tilley;

Faculty: John Davis, Ivan Lansberg, & John Ward).Gerald Stempler completes his dissertation entitled: A Study of Succession in Family Owned Businesses. Unpublished disstertation, George Washington

University, Washington, D.C.James Richard Legler completes his dissertation entitled: An Integrated Systems Framework for Analyzing Family Business Planning. Unpublished

dissertation, Oregon State University.1989 The outstanding outsider and the fumbling family, by Thomas A. Teal and Geraldine E. Willigan. First family business case published inHarvard Business Review.

FFI established the Best Doctoral Dissertation Award (First award recipient: Colette Dumas) and the Best Unpublished Research Paper Award (First awardrecipient: Stewart Malone).

WendyHandler completes her dissertation entitled:Managing the family firm succession process: The next generation familymember's experience.BostonUniversity.Premier issue of Family Business Magazine. Published by Family Business Publishing Company, Philadelphia. Chairman: Milton L. Rock.

1990 Founding of the Family Business Network (FBN). First FBN World Conference held in Switzerland chaired by FBNs founding President: Albert JanThomassen; 50 attendees. FBNs founding director: Alden G. Lank.

First FB for credit Master's course offered in Europe at the School of Management and Organization, Groningen University, Netherlands.Leading the Family Business Executive program launched at the Universidad Adolfo Ibanez in Santiago, Chile (Founded by Jon Martinez; 60 participants,

Offered twice a year).Loyola Family Business Center established.

1991 John L. Ward's book: Creating effective boards for private enterprises: Meeting the challenges of continuity and competition published by Jossey-Bass Publishers.Montreal Insitute for Family Enterprise which later evolved into the Business Families Foundation (BFF) established (Nan-b and Phillipe de Gaspe Beaubien).

1992 First FFI Educators Conference hosted by Northeastern University Center for Family Business, Boston.IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland establishes family business chair.Journal of Family and Economic Issues publishes two special issues entitled: At-home income generation (Editors: Mary Winter; Ramona K.Z.Heck).

1993 First Mass Mutual Annual Gallup survey of family businesses, the first large sample study of FBs in the United States (Chair: Craig Aronoff).FBNorganizes its first research conference at theAnnualWorldConference, hosted byBocconiUniversity, Italy (Co-Chairs:GuidoCorbetta andDanielaMontemerlo).Business History publishes a special issue on Family Capitalism (Co-Editors: Geoffrey Jones and Mary B. Rose).

1994 Family Business Division established at the USASBE.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice publishes a special issue on family business studies (Co-Editors: Gibb W. Dyer Jr., and Wendy Handler).FFIs Case Series Project launched (Editor — Jane Hilburt-Davis).FAMLYBIZ listserv established by Scott Kunkel, University of San Diego.International Family Business Program Association (IFBPA) founded. Annual conferences held from 1994–1998.Australian Center for Family Business, Bond University commences operations. First FB Center in Australia.Max Wortman publishes first major review article of family business studies in Family Business Review.First dedicated magazine for family businesses in Europe: Familiebedrijf. Published in Netherlands.Ibrahim and Ellis publish Family Business Management: Concepts and Practice, Kendall/Hunt Publishers. First family business text book in English.

1995 The first annual Psychodynamics of Family Businesses (PDFB) conference hosted by the Northwestern University (Chair: Ken Kaye).FFIs Body of Knowledge (BOK) task force created.Reginald Litz receives best paper award from the Entrepreneurship division of the Academy of Management for his article entitled: The family business:

Toward definitional clarity (first family business article to be honored at the Academy of Management meetings).National family business forum hosted by Australian Center for Family Business in Sydney. First FB forum in Australia.

1996 A Review and Annotated Bibliography of Family Business Studies by Sharma, Chrisman, and Chua published by Kluwer Academic Publishers (first majorannotated bibliography of family business studies).

First Family Business concentration in management offered at the Texas Tech University.Melissa Shanker and Joseph Astrachan publish the first comprehensive estimate of the size of the family business sector in the U.S. economy (FBR, 9(2)).Cornell University Conference on the Entrepreneurial Family Building Bridges, NewYork (Proceedings entitled: The entrepreneurial family, published in 1998.

Family Business Resources Ltd. Editor: Ramona K.Z.Heck).1997 First National Family Business survey (first large study using household sample). 25 researchers from 17 institutions involved in this study. Findings reported in

FBR special issue 7(3).Gersick, Davis, Hampton, & Lansberg's book entitled: Generation to Generation published by Harvard Business School Press.Family business courses introduced at Graduate and Undergraduate levels in Bond University, Australia. First FB courses in Australia.

1998 Sharma's dissertation receives the NFIB Best Dissertation award (First FB dissertation recognized by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management).1999 First Family Business professorship established in Northern Europe at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Founding of GEEF, the European Group of Owner Managed and Family Enterprises dedicated to family business lobbying at European level.

Table 1 (continued)

1016 P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

Stetson University Conference on the Role of University based family business centers, DeLand, Florida (Proceedings edited by Greg McCann and NancyUpton). Second conference held in 2001.

International Family Business Program Association (IFBPA) merged with Family Business Division of the United States Association for Small Business andEntrepreneurship (USASBE).

2001 Tim Habbershon & Mary Williams publish the first paper using the resource-based view to explain the behavior of family businesses (FBR, 12(1)).International Family Enterprise Research Academy (ifera) founded (Founding President: Albert Jan Thomassen). First ifera conference hosted by INSEAD

Fountainbleau (co-organizers: Christine Blondel and Nicholas Rowell; 35 attendees).First Theories of Family Enterprise (ToFE) conference co-hosted in Edmonton by the Universities of Alberta and Calgary. (Conference co-organizers: Jim

Chrisman, Jess Chua, & Lloyd Steier).Gomez-Mejia, Nuñez-Nickel & Gutierrez's article entitled: The role of family ties in agency contracts published in the Academy of Management Journal.Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino & Buchholtz's article entitled: Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and Evidence published in Organization Science. First

article to incorporate altruism and agency theory in a study of family business.2003 Journal of Business Venturing publishes two special issues on family business studies (Co-Editors for 18(4) issue - Jim Chrisman, Jess Chua, & Lloyd Steier;

and for 18(5) issue Ed Rogoff and Ramona Heck).Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice publishes the first of a continuing series of special issues on family business linked to the ToFE Conference (ETP special

issue editors: Jim Chrisman, Jess Chua, & Lloyd Steier).Anderson & Reeb's article entitled: Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from S&P500 published in Journal of Finance.EuropeanMinisters of EconomicAffairs and Finance gather inMadrid for special family business seminar (hosted byMariano Puig andFernandoCasado, IEF, Spain).Andrea Colli's The History of Family Business, 1850–2000 published by the Cambridge University Press.

2004 Petrina Faustine establishes family business center in Indonesia (first family business center in Asia).First major in family business at the undergraduate level launched at Stetson University. 8 courses, 5 required, 3 elective.First Family Business Casebook Annual published (Eds. Joseph Astrachan, Panikkos Poutziouris & Khaled Soufani. Published by Kennesaw State University).

2005 International Masters Programme for Family Business established at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland (lectured in English and Finnish) and at the EHSALEuropean University College, Brussels, Belgium.

First Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC) hosted by the Austin Family Business Program, Portland (co-organizers: Mark Green and PramoditaSharma; 55 attendees).

Miller & Le-Breton Miller's book entitled: Managing for the long run published by Harvard Business School Press.Randall Morck edits A history of corporate governance around the world: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers.Family Business Review is listed in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences (CCBS) (Editor: Joseph

Astrachan).2006 First cross disciplinary undergraduate major in family business studies launched by University of Alberta's School of Business.

Kennesaw's State University's Cox Family Enterprise Center launches the Best Family Business Paper award at the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academyof Management. (First award recipients: Reddi Kotha and Gerard George).

2007 Special issue of Journal of Business Research onFamilyBusiness Studies linked to FERC06 conference (Co-editors: JimChrisman, Pramodita Sharma, SimonTaggar).

Table 1 (continued)

1999

1017P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

(ABFI) concentrates on working directly with business families.This combination of differentiation and integration enables thefamily business champions to contribute towards the achieve-ment of quality research, teaching, and active outreach alignedwith the university's mission.

Not only doCenters facilitate the development of a communityof scholars and interested practitioners, but they also enableresearch and curriculum development. While each of the threecenters described above started with a different core focus –outreach for Kennesaw, student programs for Stetson, andresearch for Alberta – over time each has engaged in varyinglevels of research, curriculum development, and outreachactivities highlighting the symbiotic relationship between theseeducational pursuits. For example, Kennesaw's Cox Centerlaunched outreach educational initiatives such as the FamilyBusiness Forum. This Center has supported various researchinitiatives including large studies such as Mass Mutual surveys(1993), while providing an academic home for the FamilyBusiness Review. In 2004, the Cox Center launched the AnnualFamily Business casebook to provide easy access to case mate-rials useful for classroom instruction.

With its focus on educational activities, the Stetson Centerdeveloped the first undergraduate major in family businesseducation and hosted the Stetson conferences (1999, 2001),

which focused on research related to the efficacy of familybusiness centers and educational programs. With a focus oninterdisciplinary research, the University of Alberta's Center, inconjunction with the University of Calgary, created the Theoriesof Family Enterprise (ToFE) conferences (2001). These confer-ences provided links across academic fields by inviting notedscholars from a variety of disciplines to write on family businesstopics and have led to the publication of special issues in Entre-preneurship Theory & Practice and the Journal of BusinessVenturing, thus contributing to the knowledge base of familybusiness studies. In addition to research initiatives, this Centermeets the educational needs of family business stakeholdersthrough its outreach programs and has launched an interdisci-plinary family business major in the undergraduate program.

4.3. Professional associations

Collective efforts leading to the building of professionalassociations are one means of procuring resources to beginpopulating a broad niche. Some argue that in perceived scarcity(resources for the study of family business or for assisting familybusinesses in this case) where great need exists (need for servicesand study in this case), communities band together to accomplishtasks and set aside competitive urges (Milofsky, 1988). As post-

1018 P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

World War II entrepreneurs approached retirement, they beganlooking for help with family business succession in a variety ofvenues including academe. Several entrepreneurs lent their timeand money to promoting the academic study of family businessincluding George Raymond, Aaron Levinson, and Ivan Lansberg(senior). The increasing recognition of the demand for familybusiness education and practitioner support and encouragementof established infrastructures fostered more scholarly research, inturn generating knowledge for instruction.

The founding of the Family Firm Institute Inc. in 1986 hashad an integral influence on family business education. In 1988,the Family Firm Institute (FFI) first published a scholarly journaltargeting a multi-disciplinary audience that included practi-tioners and academics, Family Business Review (FBR). FBRoffered an outlet for refereed publications. This breakthroughencouraged more academics to conduct research and publishnew knowledge for the field. In an era marked by ‘publish orperish’ cultures, journal access is an important incentive tomaintain a stream of research. Moreover, the annual conferencesof the FFI provided a venue for continuous development of thecommunity of professionals serving family businesses. Aca-demic awards for dissertations and unpublished research papersestablished in the late 1980s by the FFI recognized and furtherencouraged the scientific study of family firms.

Formation of associations of family business members suchas the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise (1983) and theEuropean-based Family Business Network (1990) facilitatedfurther research investigations that could be used by familyenterprises. Given their penchant for privacy, data collectionfrom family firms can be an onerous task. Members of theprofessional associations encouraged their members to supportresearch initiatives undertaken by scholars. FBN supported thelaunch of the International Family Enterprise Research Acad-emy (IFERA), which further helped promote research activities.

While the associations provided initial impetus to familybusiness research, best article and dissertation awards from theAcademy ofManagement's Entrepreneurship Division (Table 1:1995, 1998, 2006) provided external validation. The parallelemergence of rigorous research on family firms published in themainstream journals (Table 1: 2001, 2003) and institutionaliza-tion of educational programs also contributed to building thelegitimacy of family business studies in academia.

In summation, the path dependent evolutionary nature offamily business studies is evident. The chronology in Table 1shows a convergence on four fronts: centers and other university-based programs, professional associations with conferences thathighlight research, journal outlets for scholarly studies, andacademic curricula. All four played a role in the developingcredibility and perceived value of one another. As the field hasevolved, centers demonstrated the market for family businesseducation by attracting participants. To feed their knowledgebase, centers and others sought external expertise and, ultimately,research. Research added value in the areas of practical manage-rial and strategic knowledge, public policy, and by generatingsignificant publicity. These contributed to attracting donorsupport. In addition, associations of practitioners recognized theneed for high quality research in order to add value to their

services and clients, so as to obtain competitive advantages. Theincrease in the quantity and quality of research both demandedmore publishing outlets and ensured a pipeline of material tomeetjournal requirements. Finally, the generation of knowledgebeyond stereotypes, testimony and anecdotes emboldeneduniversities to implement courses that provided valid learningopportunities for students. These students will form the basis ofresearch sites, student referrals, and donations of the future.

5. The future

New initiatives in an environment, like family business educa-tion, favor all kinds of variations in organizational forms, with agradual shift towards dominant structures occurring over time (cf.Aldrich, 1979). The field is still growing rapidly at this stage. Fewactivities have become stable in their niches, either in terms ofoutreach services, educational programs, or research. While ashakeout seems distant, signs of increasing competition are on thehorizon, and one might expect significant creative destruction,characteristic of selective-retention phase of evolution. As compe-tition increases and the relative munificence of the environmentdecreases, a quest for survival appears to be finding generalistactivities gradually giving way to increasing specialization andadoption of rigorous standards. Against this backdrop, the nextsection speculates on the future of family business centers,research, and educational programs over the next decade andbeyond.

5.1. Future of family business centers

Even though the number of family business centers hasincreased worldwide (Birdthistle and Fleming, 2003), profit-making entities are beginning to exert extraordinary competitivepressures. The biggest names in business education and service(not-for-profits and for-profits alike, including accounting andlaw firms) are making significant commitments to the familybusiness space. Banks seem at this point to be making the largestinroads in the family wealth/family office arena. Service pro-viders, especially in urban settings, now offer free educationalseminars to family business owners, thus encroaching on themarket earlier captured by the university based centers. Addingfuel to the competitive fire is the heightened educational qualityexpectations of family business stakeholders.

While some centers are likely to perish in this rapidly changingenvironment, others that adopt creative niche strategies meetingthe needs of a carefully selected group of external stakeholders arelikely to thrive. Universities vary in terms of their focus on threeaspects of education — executive, undergraduate–graduate, re-search. Centers closely aligned with the central mission of theiraffiliating institutions and vision of senior leadership, are likely toimprove their odds for survival (cf., Dickeson, 1999; Eckel, 2002;Gumport, 1993).

In addition to adoption of niche strategies that align withexternal needs and internal structuring logic, a shift in theresource base of family business centers is expected. Whereservice providers and educational forum attendees were oncethe only sources of stable income for centers, research grants

1019P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

(governmental and private), donations and endowments arelikely to play increasingly important roles in future, addingother important stakeholder groups into the mix of familybusiness centers.

5.2. Future of family business research

In terms of scholarship, a trend is emerging in the familybusiness field to integrate the thinking from multiple disciplines.This has led to publication of family business research inmainstream journals in various fields. This trend may result in thedevelopment of new theories that combine family business andmore mainstream concepts in new syntheses. Such developmentsare already taking place along the fringes of family psychologyand behavioral finance. As this trend continues, the familybusiness field will become a discipline that gives back to otherdisciplines as much, if not more, than the field has received intheoretical and conceptual content, and this will help shape otherdisciplines (Zahra and Sharma, 2004). Some examples of theimpacts of multi-disciplinary research include the following:

• The study of ownership issues will extend beyond the legaland economic and into psychological, social psychologicaland social-symbolic.

• Greater attention will be given to non-traditional families andtheir effects on understanding of ‘family’ as an institution.

• Current research themes of management, succession andfinance will become less dominant in the literature asscholars discover productive areas of investigation ineducation, entrepreneurship, psychology, sociology, politicalscience and other fields.

Theory has already become a driver of research and con-ceptualization. The field has begun to rely on new funding sources(wealthy families, foundations, and governments) rather thantraditional sources (service providers such as accountants, lawyers,and consultants). These new funding sources are less interested inshort term revenues from family business clientele, and are moreinterested in outcome research (practical or proscriptive in nature),basic research and public policy. So, following the money, moreresearch is likely to be oriented toward these three arenas in thefuture. For example, the European Union has established aneconomic objective of collecting and disseminating data onfamily-owned enterprises. Eventually, when the science base offamily business becomes deep enough, money will flow frombusinesses themselves into research (the researchwill be providingpractical answers that in turn allow businesses to make money). Inthis way, similar to medical research, the market for familybusiness research dollars will ensure that family business scholarsstay sensitive to the needs of practice. Scholars interested in havinga greater impact, rather than a comfortable career, will make suretheir scholarship is not irrelevant and that their researchmakes realcontributions. This will provide benefit in the classroom becauseresearch will be more relevant to students.

As mentioned previously, a proliferation of publicationoutlets serves to stimulate research in a discipline. Of particularinterest for family business scholars is the introduction of

electronic journals. The FFI introduced the Family BusinessPractitioner as an electronic companion to the Family BusinessReview in order to communicate research findings to thepractitioner audience. Forthcoming from Europe is the Electro-nic Journal of Family Business Studies. The impact of electronicjournals on scholarly disciplines is yet to be determined.

5.3. Future of educational programs

Several notable business schools have started majorinitiatives in recent years, including Wharton and Harvard inthe United States, and Bocconi, Insead and IMD among othersin Europe. As the larger, better resourced institutions makegreater and greater inroads, the smaller less resource richplayers will need to increasingly specialize to survive, either interms of market segment (e.g., small business, junior genera-tion), industry (e.g., distribution, franchising), geography (e.g.,rural, international) or research niche (e.g., conflict manage-ment, governance, law, taxation).

Similarly, degree-granting programs that institutionalizefamily business in their curricula can be expected to have greatersuccess in meeting the needs of a large external stakeholder groupof family firms. The extent and mode of institutionalization offamily business programs into curricula will vary to fit the pre-vailing learning milieus of varied educational institutions. Steierand Ward (2006) suggest at least five alternative delivery optionsrelative to the family business curriculum: (i) integrating familybusiness topics into core courses; (ii) stand alone family businesscourses; (iii) a mix of stand-alone and traditional courses in-tegratedwith family business topics; (iv)majors or specializationsin family business studies; and (v) familializing the entirecurriculum. Over the next decade, significant progress along thedimension of institutionalization of family business in businesseducation can be expected, as varied educational pathways areadopted, modified, enhanced, and mastered. For some institu-tions, family business programs will be placed at the forefront as‘centers of excellence’.More andmore doctoral dissertations havefoci on family business topics suggesting that faculty will beavailable to staff such centers.

Another dimension along which progress can be anticipatedis that of professional designations for family business serviceproviders. While the Family Firm Institute has made somestrides along this dimension in developing certificate coursesfor certain aspects of family business consulting the develop-ment of certifications similar to those that prevail in accounting,finance, and law professions can be envisioned. Collaborationsbetween institutions of higher learning and professional asso-ciations are likely to enable successful development anddelivery of such designations. In turn, these initiatives shouldincrease the standardization of service delivery and increase theprofessionalization of the field.

6. Conclusions

This article reports the origins of family business education intraditional academic settings and tracks the progressiveexpansion of infrastructure and the research that feeds material

1020 P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

to those courses. University involvement in family businesseducation in these early years was driven less by scholarlyinquiry than by the demand from practitioners triggered bytraining programs supplied by consultants. This trend appears tobe reversing as the market for family business education maturesand the quality and relevance of the research improves.

Although the field has enjoyed rampant growth in the last threedecades, the struggle for survival and increased competition hasemerged. The field (research and education) seems to have gonefrom trying to justify a market, to demand out-pacing supply, tocompetition, and is reaching a state where niche adaptationwill beimportant for survival. In the earlier stages of development,survival is possible without great operational efficiency becausemargins tend to be great. As more efficient operators move intothe family business space, educational pioneerswill have tomatchefficiencies or be nimble enough to find new opportunities.

At this stage of family business education, both flux andopportunity are high. The field offers many choices of under-takings that need to be done well. Gone is the era when anindividual or organizational entity could simultaneously dabblein varied aspects of the field such as outreach, consulting, re-search, and teaching. Unless endowed with significant resourcesof ability, time and money, difficult choices of focus will have tobe made to enjoy sustainable growth into the future. Given thesuccesses of the last two decades, as long as orthodoxy andcareerism do not stunt creativity, the academic and scholarlyfuture of family business studies is bright indeed.

References

Aldrich H. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1979. Reprinted London: Sage Publications; 1999.

Aldrich H, Cliff J. The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward afamily embeddedness perspective. J Bus Venturing 2003;18:573–96.

Anderson R, Reeb D. Founding-family ownership and firm performance:evidence from S&P500. J finance (N Y) 2003;58:1301–28.

Astrachan JH. An interview with Craig E. Aronoff, founder of the KennesawState College Family Business Forum. Fam Bus Rev 1990;3(1):45–67.

Astrachan JH. Commentary on the special issue: the emergence of a field. J BusVenturing 2003;18:567–72.

Barnes LB, Hershon SA. Transferring power in the family business. HarvardBus Rev 1976;53:105–14.

Becker BM, Tillman FA. The family-owned business. Chicago: CommerceClearing House; 1978.

Bedeian AG. The gift of professional maturity. Acad Manage Learn Educ2004;3(1):92–8.

Bird B, Welsch H, Astrachan JH, Pistrui D. Family business research: theevolution of an academic field. Fam Bus Rev 2002;15(4):337–50.

Birdthistle N, Fleming P. Educating the family business: an investigation intoCenters of Excellence for family businesses and family business educationalprogrammes. Article presented at the 26th ISBA National Small FirmsPolicy Research Conference: SMEs in the Knowledge Economy; 2003.

Bluedorn AC. The human organizations of time: temporal realities andexperience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2002.

Bossard JHS, Dewhurst JF. University education for business: a study of existingneeds and practices. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1931.

Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Sharma P. Trends and directions in the development of astrategic management theory of the family firm. Entrep Theory Pract2005;29(5):555–75.

Christensen CR. Management succession in small and growing enterprises.Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration,Harvard University; 1953.

Colli A. The history of family business: 1850–2000. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press; 2003.

Collins JC, Porras JI. Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies.New York: Harper Collins Publisher; 1997.

Danco L. Beyond survival: a business owner's guide to success. Cleveland:University Press; 1975; 1975.

Dickeson B. Prioritizing academic programs: a comprehensive agenda forcolleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1999.

Dyer Jr WG. Cultural change in family firms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1986.Dyer Jr WG. The family: the missing variable in organizational research. Entrep

Theory Pract 2003;27(4):401–16.Dyer Jr WG, Sànchez M. Current state of family business theory and prac-

tice as reflected in Family Business Review 1988–1997. Fam Bus Rev1998;11(4):287–95.

Eckel PD. Decision rules used in academic program closure: where the rubbermeets the road. J High Educ 2002;73(2):237–62.

Ewing DW. Is nepotism so bad? Harvard Bus Rev 1965;43(1):22.Freeman J, Carroll GR, HannanMT. The liability of newness: age dependence in

organizational death rates. Am Sociol Rev 1983;48:692–710 (Oct.).Freeman J, Hannan MT. Niche width and the dynamics of organizational

populations. Am J Sociol 1983;88(6):1116–45.Freeman E. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984.Gersick KE, Davis JA, Hampton MM, Lansberg I. Generation to generation: life

cycles of the family business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress; 1997.

Gomez-Mejia L, Nuñez-Nickel M, Gutierrez I. The role of family ties in agencycontracts. Acad Manage J 2001;44:81–95.

Gumport PJ. The contested terrain of academic program reduction. J High Educ1993;64:283–311.

Habbershon T, Williams M. A resource-based framework for assessing thestrategic advantage of family firms. Fam Bus Rev 1999;12(1):1–125.

Handler WG. Methodological issues and considerations in studying familybusinesses. Fam Bus Rev 1989;2(3):257–76.

Hoy F. Commentary: legitimizing family business scholarship in organizationalresearch and education. Entrep Theory Pract 2003;27(4):417–22.

Hoy F, Sharma P. Navigating the family business educationmaze. In: PoutziourisPanikkos, Smyrnios Kosmos, Klein Sabine, editors. Family BusinessResearch Handbook. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2006.

Ianni FAJ, Reuss-Ianni E. A family business. New York: Russell SageFoundation; 1972.

Joaquin de Arguer A. La empresa familiar. Spain: Edciones Universidad deNavarra; 1979.

Kaplan TE, George G, Rimler GW. University sponsored family businessprograms: program characteristics, perceived quality and member satisfac-tion. Entrep Theory Pract 2000:65–75 Spring.

Katz JA. The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneur-ship education 1987–1999. J Bus Venturing 2003:283–300.

Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press; 1962.

Langton J. Darwinism and the behavioural theory of socio-cultural evolution: ananalysis. Am J Sociol 1979;85(2):288–309.

McCann G, DeMoss M. An overview of the holistic model: rethinking the roleof university-based family business centers. Family Business Gathering2000: holistic model. USA: Stetson University, Florida; 2000.

Miller D, Le-Breton Miller I. Managing for the long run: lessons in competitiveadvantage from great family businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press; 2005.

Milofsky C. Scarcity and community: a resources allocation theory of communityandmass society organization. In:MilofskyC, editor. Community organizations:studies in resource mobilization & exchange. New York: Oxford UniversityPress; 1988. p. 16–41.

Mintzberg H. Patterns in strategy formation. Manage Sci 1978;24(9):934–48.Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence

perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books; 1978. Reprinted in 2003.Santayana G. Reason in common sense: volume one of “the life of reason”.

Dover Publications; 1905. Reprinted in New York.Schulze W, Lubatkin M, Dino R, Buchholtz A. Agency relationships in family

firms: theory and evidence. Organ Sci 2001;12:99–116.

1021P. Sharma et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 1012–1021

Shanker MC, Astrachan JH. Myths and realities: family businesses' contributionto the US economy — a framework for assessing family business statistics.Fam Bus Rev 1996;9(2):107–19.

Sharma P. An overview of the field of family business studies: current status anddirections for future. Fam Bus Rev 2004;17(1):1–36.

Sharma P, Chrisman JJ, Chua JH. A review and annotated bibliography offamily business studies. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996.

Sharma P, Chrisman JJ, Chua JH. Strategic management of the family business:past research and future challenges. Fam Bus Rev 1997;10(1):1–135.

Sirmon D, Hitt M. Managing resources: linking unique resources, management,and wealth creation in family firms. Entrep Theory Pract 2003;27:339–58.

Steier LP, Ward JL. If theories of family enterprise really matter so does changein management education. Entrep Theory Pract 2006;30(6):887–95.

TrowDB. Executive succession in small companies. Adm Sci Q 1961;6:228–39.Van Fleet DD, Wren DA. Teaching history in business schools: 1982–2003.

Acad of Manage Learn Educ 2005;4(1):44–56.Ward JL. Keeping the family business healthy: how to plan for continuing

growth, profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassPublishers; 1986.

Wortman Jr MS. Theoretical foundations for family-owned businesses: aconceptual and research based paradigm. Fam Bus Rev 1994;7(1):3–327.

Zahra S, Sharma P. Family business research: a strategic reflection. Fam BusRev 2004;17(4):331–46.