-
The Relationship between Managerial Characteristics and
Succession Planning in Family Businesses: A Multinational
Analysis1
Matthew C. Sonfield
Hofstra University [email protected]
Robert N. Lussier Springfield College
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the relationship between managerial
characteristics and succession planning in family businesses. Data
was obtained from the owner-managers of 883 small and medium-sized
family businesses in nine diverse countries, and was statistical
tested using hierarchal regression. Regression analysis identified
four characteristic variables significantly related to succession
planning: 1) a shared decision-making management style, 2) a focus
on strategic management, 3) the use of sophisticated financial
management, and 4) consideration of going public.
These findings are analyzed, and implications are presented for
family business owner/managers, for advisors to such firms, and for
researchers in the field. The major contribution of this research
study is that it investigates family business succession, in a
multinational context, with a focus on planning for succession
rather than on the process of the actual succession, which has been
the focus of most prior research. Keywords: Entrepreneurship;
Family Business; International JEL: D1, F66, L26
1 With data collection from: Mohsen Bagnied, American University
of Kuwait Robert J. Barbato, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA
Mamdouh Farid, Hofstra University, USA S. Manikutty, Indian
Institute of Management, India Silvia Ins Monserrat and Claudia
DAnnunzio, Centro de Estudios en Administracin, Argentina Sanja
Pfeifer, Univ. of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Croatia Nina
Radojevich-Kelly, Metro State College of Denver, USA Louis Verdier
and Loc Maherault, Ecole de Management, France
-
2
Introduction Family control is the dominant ownership structure
globally, and family
businesses account for a significant portion of all publicly
traded firms. For example, in
the United States, one-third of Fortune 500 companies are at
least partially controlled by
a single family which maintains substantial ownership in the
firm (Combs et al., 2010).
The succession of top management is critical to any type of
organization, and family-
owned business succession is critical to ensure that competent
family leadership
continues across generations. Research has shown that failure to
provide for successful
succession is the primary cause for the demise of family
businesses (Bocatto et al., 2010).
Succession in family businesses has been identified as a primary
issue in the study
and practice of family business management. Over a decade ago,
analyzing the first ten
years of the publication of Family Business Review, Dyer and
Snchez (1998) developed
a listing of the most frequent topics of that journals articles,
and succession was the
second-most researched subject (after interpersonal family
dynamics). Subsequent to that
listing, other studies have ranked succession as the most
important issue facing family
business top managers (Chua et al.,2003; Handler, 1994), the
most important area of
assistance requested of consultants to family firms (Upton et
al., 1993), and the topic
most frequently studied by family business researchers
(Brockhaus, 2004; Handler, 1992;
Montemerlo, 2000; Ward, 2004). And currently, managerial and
generational
succession and succession planning have continued to be one of
the most important
family business research focuses (DeMassis et al.,2008; Heck et
al., 2008; Menzies &
Lococo, 2011; Steier et al., 2009).
The practitioner-oriented literature also stresses the
importance of planning for
succession. A search at Amazon.com will identify more than 800
trade books with a
-
3
specific focus on family business succession, and virtually all
books more broadly
covering family business management include substantial
discussions of the importance
of planning for successful succession (Poza, 2007).
The need for effective and successful planning for family
business managerial
succession has been identified by many researchers in the field,
who have concluded that
too often such planning does not take place or is insufficient,
resulting in unsuccessful or
less-than-fully-successful succession (Astrachan et al., 2003;
Fox et al., 1996; Stavrou,
2003).
The major contribution of this research study is that it
investigates family business
succession, in a multinational context, with a focus on planning
for succession rather than
on the process of the actual succession, which has been the
focus of most prior research
(Handler, 1994). This specific focus has been largely ignored in
the literature.
Specifically, this is the first research study investigating a
number of managerial
characteristics of the family business and their relationship
with succession planning.
Specifically, this study works to begin to answer the question:
Do certain factors
increase the likelihood of planning for family business
managerial succession? Since
there is general agreement on the importance of successful
succession in family
businesses, then it follows that planning for succession is a
desirable component of
family business management. Thus an appropriate research
objective is to develop a
better understanding of those factors which lead to such
planning. Such an understanding
would allow family business owner/managers, and those who
consult to them, to increase
the likelihood of succession planning and successful succession
implementation. This
-
4
investigation can lead to taking family business research on
succession planning in a new
and valuable direction.
This study is not intended to compare succession planning in one
country versus
another. A comparative study would certainly be an appropriate
objective for future
research by these authors or by others. The nine-country sample
(Argentina, Croatia,
Egypt, France, India, Kosovo, Kuwait, Serbia, and the United
States) is a combined
sample, intended to represent family firms in a variety of
countries, each with differing
business contexts, providing a representation of a generality of
family businesses world-
wide.
This article addresses this research focus following the
scientific method: first a
review of the succession literature in general, and with regard
to a number of managerial
factors that have been determined important in the family
business literature, with
resulting hypotheses, thus providing a model of succession
planning to be tested. The
following sections include the methodology, the results of the
regression analysis testing
of the model, and a section of discussion and conclusions.
Review of the Succession Literature
The literature on family business succession has been reviewed
in a large number
of journal articles; thus a brief overview should suffice here.
Perusal of the citations in
this section will provide more details on the many studies and
analyses which have
focused on this specific issue.
Some of the earliest analyses of family business succession
focused on the
frequent unwillingness and/or resistance of founders to yield
control of their businesses to
the next generation or to other successors. Many explanations
and theories have been
-
5
suggested for this phenomenon, such as psychological loss of
role and image, uncertain
feelings about the managerial abilities of the potential
family-member successors, or fear
of a possible decline in the business performance and income
(Brun de Pontet et al.,
2007).
More recent analyses have attempted to develop models which can
identify
variables leading to more effective family business succession.
Chittoor and Das (2007)
categorized five broad groups of such variables: (1)
predecessor-related, (2) successor-
related, (3) family-specific, (4) business-specific, and (5)
succession process-related.
Another categorization of family business succession model
development has
been suggested by Cadieux (2007). One approach involves the
different groups of actors;
another approach focuses on the steps in the organizations life
cycle, while a third
approach is based on the process itself.
A variety of other factors which influence succession in family
businesses have
also been suggested, and are worth mentioning. Dyer (1998)
investigated culture and
continuity in family firms, and the need for firm founders to
understand the effects of a
firms culture and that culture can either constrain or
facilitate successful family
succession. Fiegener and Prince (1994) compared successor
planning and development
in family and non-family firms, and found that family firms
favor more personal
relationship-oriented forms of successor development, while
non-family firms utilize
more formal and task-oriented methods. Building upon these and
other studies of
succession in family firms, Stavrou (1998) developed a
conceptual model to explain how
next-generation family members are chosen for successor
management positions. This
-
6
model involves four factors which define the context for
succession: family, business,
personal and market.
In still other studies, Royer et al. (2008) developed a
contingency model of
succession involving the factor of preferred successors.
DeMassis et al. (2008) have
investigated factors that hinder family business succession.
Stavrou et al. (2005) have
focused on the relationship between leadership personality and
succession. And with still
another focus, Yan and Sorenson (2006) examined family business
succession from the
perspective of Confucian values.
Most recently, Bocatto et al. (2010) investigated the
relationship between the
level of a family businesss financial performance and the
nomination of family members
versus non-family members as managerial successors. Their
conclusions were that
positive firm performance will lead to the nomination of a
family member as a successor,
while negative firm performance will lead to the nomination of a
non-family member.
Managerial Characteristics of Family Business and Hypotheses
A review of the overall literature on family business identifies
a variety of
managerial characteristics which are postulated to be important,
because they may relate
to different levels of managerial performance and/or overall
company performance. Yet
there has been very little investigation with regard to the
relationship between these
managerial characteristics and the specific variable of planning
for succession. From the
literature, twelve managerial characteristics have been
identified as worthy of
investigation for their relationship to such planning.
Significant relationships identified
-
7
by such testing can then be used as a foundation for the
development of a model to
predict succession planning.
1. Generations
A first-generation family firm is defined as a family-owned and
managed firm,
with more than one family member involved, but only of the first
and founding
generation of the family. Second- and third-generation family
firms are defined as firms
in which the second or third generations of the family are also
involved in the ownership
and the management of the company. In a second- or
third-generation firm, the original
founder(s) and/or other members of earlier generations may be
retired from the firm or
deceased; thus not all (two or three) generations need be
currently participating.
Furthermore, the locus of managerial and family primary
leadership may be located at
any generational level (Beckhard & Dyer, 1983; Davis &
Harveston, 1999; Dyer, 1988;
Handler, 1989; Hershon, 1975; Kelly et al., 2000; Lambrecht,
2005; Schein, 1983).
Recent research has found a relationship between family
generations and
perception of leadership effectiveness (Davis et al., 2010),
which could influence
succession planning. However, there has been limited empirical
research focusing on
whether family firm generational level specifically influences
succession planning, and
the results are inconclusive. Multinational studies by Sonfield
et al. (2005) indicate that
as family firms move beyond the first generation of family
member ownership and
involvement in management (into second- and third-generations),
there is more
succession planning in some country family business samples but
not in all countries.
-
8
Similarly, research conducted by Brun de Pontet et al. (2007)
also produced mixed and
inconclusive findings with regard to this relationship.
In a USA study, Sonfield and Lussier (2004), found a significant
difference in the
formulation of specific succession plans between first and
combined second and third
generations, but not between second and third generations. Thus,
younger firms tend to
do less succession planning than mid-age and older firms, but
mid-age firms do not do
any more planning than older family firms, and thus there may be
a positive linear
relationship that levels off between the 2-3 generations.
For this variable of generations (and for the following eleven
variables) there is
insufficient prior research or resulting theory to support a
prediction of either a positive
or negative relationship, or a lack of a relationship, between
the variable and succession
planning. However, for the purposes of this studys testing, all
twelve hypotheses will be
stated to denote a positive relationship. Whether testing
supports each of the hypotheses
or not, the results should be of value in expanding our
understanding of the nature of
family business and in suggesting paths for future research in
the field of family business.
Thus:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the number of
generations and
succession planning.
2. Non-Family Managers
While most definitions of a family business include the
criterion of the
prevalence of family members in the management team, an
extensive review of the
-
9
family business literature has found few academic papers or
journal articles that
specifically investigated the relationship between
non-family-members in the top
management team and the performance of family firms. Somewhat
more frequently
found, but still moderate in number, were papers and articles
that compared family
businesses and non-family businesses, an issue quite different
in nature.
Agency Theory is perhaps the dominant basis for investigating
the relationship
between the owners (principals) and the managers (agents) of a
company (Chua et al.,
2003). Agency problems may arise if the interests, values of
these two groups, and/or the
information available to them, are divergent. If such
divergences exist, then agency
costs arise in the efforts to reduce these divergences (Jensen
& Meckling, 1976).
Certainly the presence of non-family-member managers in a family
firm raises the issue
of Agency Theory and several prior researchers have investigated
this issue.
For example, Chua et al. (2003) emphasized the relevance of
Agency Theory in
explaining and understanding the relationship between
family-member managers and
non-family-member managers in family firms. They empirically
investigated the
percentage of non-family-member managers in the management team
of a family firm
and its relationship to the family-member managers concerns
about their relationships
with non-family-member managers. Among their conclusions was
that past assumptions
of zero or low agency costs in family firms require further
thinking, as these costs are
more complex and asymmetric than previously supposed. Recently,
Blumentritt et al.
(2008) investigated and compared family-member and
non-family-member CEOs of
family firms.
-
10
Although no prior studies have found a relationship between the
inclusion of non-
family-member managers and succession planning, some family
business researchers
have focused on developmental issues or the stages of evolution
of family business
growth. Gersick et al. (1997) present a four-stage model of
family firm development, and
Peiser and Wooten (1983) focus on the life-cycle changes in
family businesses. Thus, the
body of literature specifically relating to family-member
managers and non-family-
member managers in family firms provides limited empirical
evidence and little
consensus or clear conclusions with regard to the focus of this
study.
H2: There is a positive relationship between the number of
non-family
managers and succession planning.
3. Women Family-Members
The proportion of women family-member managers in family
businesses is
growing in many countries (Smith, 2007; Wilson et al., 2004). As
an example, it is
estimated that women now own more than 33% of all North American
family firms
(Astrachan, 2002). Yet there have been few research studies
specifically focusing on
women in family business, and those studies which were conducted
were more often
conceptual rather than empirical (Bowman-Upton & Heck, 1996;
Hisrich & Flp, 1997).
Most of these studies investigated issues of womens roles in
family firms, family
relationships, the glass ceiling and other aspects of gender
bias, and succession
planning (Barbieri, 1997; Cole 1997; Galiano & Vinturella,
1995; Gundry & Welsch,
-
11
1994; Harveston et al., 1997; Iannarelli, 1992; Nelton, 1998;
Rowe & Hong, 2000; Vera
& Dean, 2005).
Other studies have focused on similarities and differences in
performance, with
mixed conclusions (Danes et al., 2005; Fasci & Valdez, 1998;
Shim & Eastlick, 1998;
Watson, 2002). Still other studies have investigated social
capital as a possible
differentiating factor for men and women in family businesses
(Renzulli et al., 2000), the
social policy implications with regard to supporting womens
participation in family
businesses (Wilson et al., 2004), and gender influences on the
succession process in
family firms (Pyromalis et al., 2004). A Spanish study has
focused on the traditional
family environment, and how women family members impact family
businesses from the
home (Cappuyns, 2007). And a Danish study (Bennedsen et al.,
2007) investigated the
impact of the gender of the founders first-born child to
succession decisions. Still, a
comprehensive search of the literature indicates that there have
been no studies
specifically relating women versus men family business managers
to succession
planning.
H3: There is a positive relationship between the proportion of
women family
members in the management team and succession planning.
4. Shared Decision-Making
The locus of decision-making in family firms is an important
focus of the existing
research. On one hand, family firm founders identify strongly
and personally with their
businesses, and often find it difficult to share authority with
others, even though these
-
12
others may be their children or other close relatives. Yet on
the other hand, the fact
that the entire top management team of a family firm is
generally related may lead to
greater team decision-making, due to positive family
relationships and dynamics.
Those who study or consult to family businesses see both of
these alternative
management characteristics in different groups of the companies
they work with, and
they consider this factor an important component of the
phenomenon of the family firm
(Aranoff, 1998; Dyer, 1988; Eddleston et al., 2008).
H4: There is a positive relationship between shared
decision-making and
succession planning.
5. Level of Conflict and Disagreement
Another aspect of the issue of interpersonal dynamics in family
firms, closely
related to the previous variable, involves conflict and
disagreement among family
members, and this subject too has been a major focus of family
firm research. A
significant cause in the failure of family businesses after one
or two generations of
ownership/management is conflict and disagreement among
family-member managers
(Beckhard & Dyer, 1983; Davis & Harveston, 1999, 2001;
Eddleston et al., 2008). Still,
the literature supports neither a positive nor negative
relationship.
H5: There is a positive relationship between the amount of
conflict among
family members and succession planning.
-
13
6. Use of Outside Consultants, Advisors and Professional
Services
7. Long-Range Strategic Thinking and Planning
8. Formal versus Informal Top Management Style
9. Use of Sophisticated Financial Management Techniques
These four variables relate to the style of management practices
chosen by family
business owner-managers. Such variables may significantly impact
company
performance (Brettel et al., 2010). Researchers have found that
many family business
owner-managers tend to prefer a style of management that avoids
the involvement of
outsiders, is less professional in nature, and is more informal,
subjective and
paternalistic. This seems to be the result of familiness
out-weighing other influences
on management style. Because family firms involve a system of a)
the family, b) the
individual family members, and c) the business unit, the first
two components of this
system may have greater influence on family-member managers than
more traditional
and rational business objectives of methods - component c in the
family business system.
On the other hand, researchers have also seen a movement toward
more formal
and professional management as family firms grow and move into
subsequent
generations. This development of a more objective managerial
style may include the use
of outside consultants, advisors and professional services;
greater use of sophisticated
financial management techniques; and more strategic management
involving long-
range thinking and planning (Aronoff, 1998; Cole & Wolken,
1995; Coleman & Carsky,
1999; Danes et al., 2008; Dyer, 1988; Filbeck & Lee, 2000;
McConaughy & Phillips,
1999; Miller et al., 2001; Schein, 1983).
-
14
H6: There is a positive relationship between the use of outside
advisors and
succession planning.
H7: There is a positive relationship between long range
strategic planning
and succession planning.
H8: There is a positive relationship between the use of a formal
management
style and succession planning.
H9: There is a positive relationship between the use of
sophisticated
financial management techniques and succession planning.
10. Active Founder
11. Founder Influence
An important factor impacting family firm behavior and
performance is the
influence of the founder(s) of the firm. The founder may
continue to lead the firm or be
part of the current management team, or he or she may no longer
be actively involved,
due to retirement or death. Early research conclusions were
mixed with some researchers
arguing that founders have an imprinting effect on their firms,
setting them on trajectories
from which it is difficult to depart (Boeker, 1988), while
others suggest that founders
have no enduring influence on their firms because organizations
are malleable, sensing
and reacting to changes in the environment (Teece et al.,
1997).
The founders influence on the subsequent management of family
firms has been
given different names by different researchers. Davis and
Harveston (1999) call this
influence generational shadow. In a multi-generation family firm
a generational
shadow, shed by the founder, may be cast over the organization
and the critical processes
-
15
within it. In such a situation, succession is considered
incomplete, may constrain
successors, and may have dysfunctional effects on the
performance of the firm. Yet this
shadow may also have a positive impact, by providing a clear set
of values, direction
and standards for subsequent firm managers. Specifically,
analyzing data from a 1994
telephone survey of family-owned businesses, Davis and Harveston
concluded that the
strength of the generational shadow of the founder correlated
positively and significantly
with organizational conflict in third-generation family firms.
Although a similarly
statistically significant correlation was not found for
second-generation firms, the authors
did find increases in second-generation family firm conflict
when the founder was still
involved in the firms management.
Kelly et al. (2000) similarly proposed that a family firm
founders legacy
centrality will influence the strategic behavior of succeeding
generations family
member managers, with both positive and negative impact. Looking
at three dimensions
of legacy centrality betweenness centrality, closeness
centrality and connectivity
centrality these researchers postulated that the founders
centrality will impact the
strategic management of a family business with regard to
strategic vision, strategic goals,
culture, strategy behavior and inward/outward orientation.
Furthermore, family firms
with high legacy centrality may be especially vulnerable to
significant changes in the
economic or competitive environment. Kelly, et. al did not
conduct an empirical study
but did conclude that family firm founder influence has been
underrepresented in the
management literature. They conclude that measures of founder
influence can be very
useful in understanding family businesses and recommend further
empirical research in
this area.
-
16
More recent investigations of founder influence consider this
issue in the light of
stewardship theory and transformational leadership behaviors
(Eddleston, 2008; Feltham
et al., 2005; Zara et al., 2008). Thus, founder influence in
family firms, denoted as
generational shadow, legacy centrality, or by another label, is
a valid component of
the family business system and deserves further study.
Presumably, founder influence will be stronger if the founder is
still active in the
management of the firm. Thus both the presence of the founder
and his or her influence
are related but separate variables.
H10: There is a positive relationship between the founder being
active and
succession planning.
H11: There is a positive relationship between the degree of
founder influence
and succession planning.
12. Consideration of Going Public
Family firms need not always be privately owned. As they grow
and/or as they
move into subsequent generational involvement, opportunities and
needs for going
public may arise. The family may not be able, or may not choose,
to provide sufficient
management or financial resources for growth, and added outsider
ownership can resolve
this situation. And even publicly owned companies can continue
as family businesses,
if management or financial control is maintained by the family.
McConaughy (1994)
found that 20% of the Business Week 1000 firms are
family-controlled, while Weber and
-
17
Lavelle (2003) report that one-third of S&P 500 companies
have founding families
involved in management. .
H12: There is a positive relationship between considering going
public and
succession planning.
Thus each of the twelve variables listed and discussed above is
an important focus
of family business research. And given the minimal prior
research with this current
studys focus to build upon, all twelve factors are therefore
worthy of investigation as to
their relationship with succession planning in family firms.
Methodology
Sample
The goal for sampling was to obtain wide and diversified global
coverage. Each
country selected in the sample represents a different global
geographic area, and the total
group of countries presents a wide variety of economies,
cultures, and family business
environments. Furthermore, the objective of this study was not
to compare family firms
in each of the nine countries, but rather to combine the data to
provide a comprehensive
and large sample of family firms that might in turn lead to more
general and universal
findings than a single-country sample can generate. Thus, the
nine countries data were
combined into one sample, as suggested by Bruton et al. (2008).
Dickson and Weaver
(2011) combined a sample of 8 countries with similar sampling
methodology. The
combined sample was also used because of the possibility of
obtaining weak and invalid
-
18
results whenever a large sample is broken down into smaller
sub-samples (Lussier, 1997).
The sample (n) from each of the nine countries was combined and
the weighted average
is reported.
A random sample or a known population of family business was
taken in each
country, and in each country the sample size was relatively
large, thus reducing the
chances of bias. Identifying family firms from various listings
or asking companies if
they are family businesses is consistent with the methodologies
of other family business
researchers, who have similarly been constrained by the lack of
national databases of
family firms (Chua, et al,. 1999; Sonfield & Lussier, 2004;
Teal et al., 2003). Because of
varying difficulties in identifying and contacting family
businesses in the various
countries, the data collection in each country was slightly
different due to the availability
of family business listings. Like Dickson and Weaver (2011), in
countries where mailing
lists were available, mail surveys were utilized (the USA,
Argentina, France, Egypt, and
India). In countries where family firm mailing lists were not
available, data collection
generally involved personal interviews (Croatia, Kosovo, Kuwait,
and Serbia).
In the United States, survey instruments were randomly mailed or
hand-delivered
to a variety of family firms which had been identified from
listings. A total of 159 usable
questionnaires were returned, providing a response rate of 28.9
percent. In Argentina,
databases provided contact information. Of the 159 family firms
contacted, 102
questionnaires were received, providing a response rate of 64
percent. In Egypt, the
survey was sent through a family business network. Six hundred
(600) family businesses
received copies of the survey; 172 responded to the survey, but
25 were found to be non-
family businesses. This resulted in 147 usable survey responses,
providing a response
-
19
rate of 28.66 percent. In France a random sample of 800 was
selected to receive a mail
survey; 116 were returned for a response rate of 14.5 percent.
In India a mailing to 312
family businesses resulted in 40 usable responses for a response
rate of 12.8 percent.
In Croatia, randomly selected businesses were contacted and
asked if they were
family businesses. Seventy family firms were identifiable and
intensive contact effort
resulted in 50 completed questionnaires, for a response rate of
71.4 percent. In Kosovo a
similar data collection method was used and 80 questionnaires
were returned for a
response rate of 100 percent. In Kuwait, students were asked to
identify and personally
interview family business owners, producing an 85 percent
response rate with 81
completed questionnaires. The method for data collection in
Serbia was a combination of
mail and hand delivered; 145 surveys were distributed and 108
surveys were completed
for a response rate of 75 percent.
The combined weighted average response rate was 50 percent
providing a total of
883 respondents from nine countries. This is a large sample size
and response rate for
family business research, as it has been reported that 62
percent of prior family business
studies included no sample at all, or a sample with less than
100 family businesses and 66
percent of these were convenience samples (Bird et al., 2002).
In three highly-rated small
business and entrepreneurship-oriented journals
(Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Journal of Business Venturing, and Journal of Small Business
Management) around one-
third of the articles had a response rate of less than 25
percent (Dennis, 2003). The
Dickson and Weaver (2011) eight country combined sample had an
overall 23.9 percent
response rate.
-
20
Data Collection
The data was collected using the previously published Sonfield
and Lussier
(2004) survey instrument. The survey questions were published in
Family Business
Review (2004, 17[3], pp. 201-202). In each country, the survey
instrument was
accompanied by a cover letter and/or verbal instructions, so
that respondents understood
the studys working definition of a family business, and thus
only appropriate business
owner-managers responded to the survey. Analyses of some of
these countries data,
using the same survey instrument, were previously published by
Sonfield and Lussier
(2004, 2005, 2009) and Lussier and Sonfield (2006, 2012). Thus,
the variables and survey
instrument have been tested prior to this current study.
The questionnaire was developed in English. Thus, in Argentina,
Croatia, Egypt,
France, India, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Serbia the questions were
translated into the
language of the country by business professors and checked for
translation by language
experts of each country (Dickson & Weaver, 2011). In
addition, the questionnaire was
pilot tested in each country to ensure understanding of the
questions. Thus, precautions
were taken to ensure that the data collected was the same in
each country.
Note that the measures of the variables reported here are not
taken word for word
from the survey instrument. In many cases the questions were
more detailed. Measures as
reported in this article are shorter to conserve space and keep
the focus on the variables.
The italic words are used as an abbreviation of the
variables.
-
21
Variables
The dependent variable was the extent of succession planning.
Whether the firm
has formulated specific plans for the future succession of
junior family members into top
management positions, and all family members are aware of these
plans. It was measured
using a scale of 1-7, with 7 indicating a greater extent of
succession planning.
Note that the use of the terms dependent variable and
independent variable is
not meant to imply or measure causality, nor is the major focus
of the study on
prediction. The statistical hypothesis testing is designed to
measure the relationship
between the research variables using regression in order to make
multiple relationship
analysis possible while using control variables. This use of
regression is common in the
field of entrepreneurship/management (Dickson & Weaver,
2011; Kraimer, et al., 2012).
There were 12 independent variables. 1. Generation was measured
on a scale of
1-3 with each number representing the number of generations. 2.
Percentage of non-
family managers in the top management team was measured with the
actual percentage of
those who were not family managers. 3. Percentage of women
family-members involved
in the operations of the firm was measured with the actual
percentage of women.
The next seven variables were measured on a 7 point scale 7
describes our firm,
1 does not describe our firm. 4. A shared decision-making style
is used, as most or all of
the family members, not just top-level managers are included in
decisions. 5. Family
members are often in conflict and disagreement. 6. The firm uses
outside advisers,
consultants and professional services. 7. Top management spends
much of its time
thinking about and making decisions regarding the long-range
strategic thinking and
planning of the firm, rather than only day-to-day operations. 8.
The top management
-
22
style is formal, objective, non-paternalistic versus informal,
subjective, paternalistic. 9.
Sophisticated financial management techniques are used. 10.
Founder active was a
dummy variable coded 1 for founder is active in the family
business and 0 for not active.
11. The original business objectives and methods of the
founder(s) continue to strongly
influence current top management styles and decisions. 12. This
firm has already or is
seriously thinking about taking the firm public by selling
stock.
Control Measures
It is common to control for the effect of the size, age, and
industry of the family
business (Foo, 2010; Oswald et al., 2009; Pieper et al., 2008;
West & Noel, 2009)
because these variables can affect many aspects of the family
business, including
succession planning. Due to the level of analysis measure being
organizational, no
controls are used for individual characteristics of the family
owners and managers. A.
Age of the firm was measured by the number of years it has been
in business. B. Size of
the family business was measured by the number of employees. C.
industry was
classified as either product or service.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
See Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, and correlations
matrix between
variables in the study. The correlations between succession
planning and the control
variables have mixed positive and negative coefficients and none
of them were
significant at the .05 level. Age of the business had a negative
relationship to succession
-
23
planning, but as stated, age has been shown to have a positive
relationship in the earlier
years and then to level off. Size of the firm did have a
positive relationship with
succession planning. Industry also has a negative relationship,
but being a dummy
variable, essentially this indicates that service firms do more
succession planning, but
again none of the control variables coefficients are
significant.
Of the 12 independent variables, 11 have a positive
correlational relationship with
succession planning. Only the founder being active had a
negative coefficient, but being
a dummy variable, this indicates that when the founder is not
active, the firm engages in
more succession planning. Two-thirds of the correlations between
the independent
variables and succession planning are significant at the .05
level.
When comparing the relationship between the independent
variables, due to the
large sample size, statistical power is high, but as is common
effect size is low (Combs,
2010; Connelly et al., 2010). However, the correlation
coefficients among the
independent variables are low, with the highest being only .28.
Thus, the correlations are
low and therefore multicollinearity should not be problematic
(Foo, 2010; Oswald et al.,
2009).
Multicollinearity Tests
The correlations coefficients between the independent variables
shown in Table 1
are low. Only three (4.5%) are above .30 with the highest being
.44. All three
correlations involve financial management. Only six coefficients
(9%) are between .20-
.26. Thus, of the 66 correlations, 57 (86%) have coefficients
less than .20, the highest
being only .28. Thus, all 66 correlations between the
independent variables are well
-
24
below the problematic coefficients of being equal to or greater
than .70. Therefore
multicollinearity should not be problematic (Lussier, 2011).
With the regression, two other tests of multicollinearity were
run. All of the
tolerance collinearity statistics were well above the
problematic .20; they ranged between
.647 and .960. The collinearity statistic variance inflation
factors (VIF) were all below
the problematic 4.00; they ranged between 1.04 and 1.55. Thus,
the correlations,
tolerance and VIF are well within acceptable ranges (Lussier,
2011). Therefore,
multicollinearity should not be problematic (Foo, 2010; Oswald
et al., 2009).
Hypotheses Testing
Hierarchal regression was used to test the family business
variables in the study;
see Table 2 for the results. The first step, Model 1, includes
the three control variables. In
step two, Model 2, the 12 independent variables were introduced.
Although it is common
to use interaction terms between the independent variables, due
to the fact that this is the
first study to directly test the relationship between managerial
characteristics and family
business succession planning, there is no theoretical background
supporting any
interaction between the variables, so they are not included in
the analysis.
-
25
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (N =
883)
Variable Mean SD 0 A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 Succession
3.64 2.41 A Age 25.70a 25.28 -.12 B Size 297.83b 247.38 .05 .08 C
Industry 1.50 .50 -.04 -.02 .01 1 Generation 1.89 .73 .01 .55 .08
-.05 2 Nonfam mgt % 25 .32 .01 .17 .17 -.04 .12 3 Women fam % 26
.27 .01 .02 -.06 .12 .02 -.02 4 Share decisions 4.54 2.25 .24 -.11
-.00 -.04 -.00 -.06 .12 5 Conflict 2.33 1.84 .03 .05 -.04 .10 .04
-.00 .06 .17 6 Outside advice 4.17 2.32 .08 .18 .04 -.07 .17 .21
.05 .05 .08 7 Strategic mgt 3.60 2.00 .28 -.12 .04 .01 .03 .07 .03
.06 .07 .19 8 Mgt style 4.31 2.02 .16 -.09 .08 -.06 -.05 .20 .02
.11 -.02 .11 .18 9 Financial mgt 4.07 2.24 .22 -.04 .12 - .06 .07
.23 .00 .12 -.03 .30 .36 .44 10 Active founder 1.27 .44 -.09 .33
-.02 - .05 .16 .04 .02 -.08 .02 .14 -.08 -.07 -.04 . 11 Foun
influence 4.92 2.12 .11 -.20 .02 .03 -.06 -.12 .00 .06 -.08 -.03
.05 .02 -.02 -.22 12 Go Public 1.96 1.96 .16 -.07 .23 -.02 .01 .26
-.05 .03 .09 .10 .17 .21 .25 -.07 .04
a This large mean is due to some older company outliers, the
median is 21 and the mode is 20 b This large mean is due to some
large company outliers, the median is 25 and the mode is 15.
Correlations of .06 or higher are significant at the .05 level of
significance Correlations of .08 or higher are significant at the
.01 level of significance
-
26
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step 1 2 Control Variables Age (years in business) -.128 -.067
Size (number of employees) .065 .020 Industry (product or
service)
-.044* -.028
Independent Variables 1. Generation .041 2. Non-family managers
-.039 3. Women family members -.005 4. Shared decisions making
.197** 5. Level of conflict and disagreement -.013 6. Use of
outside advice .010 7. Long range strategic planning .195** 8.
Formal vs. Informal management style .043 9. Use of sophisticated
financial management .080* 10. Active founder -.022 11. Founder
influence .043 12. Consider going public .089** F 6.226** 10.659**
R2 .021 .157 Adj R2 .018 .142 R2 .136**
Standardized coefficients * p .05 ** p .01
In testing the combined variables into models, ANOVA results
indicate that both
models do predict succession planning (F 6.226, p = .000; F
10.659, p = .000). The model
summary R2 and adjusted R2 increases from step 1 to step 2, and
the change in R2 is
significant (p = .000). Thus, there is support for the combined
managerial characteristics
relationship with family business succession planning.
One of the current concerns in business research is increasing
sample size to gain
statistical power while effect sizes are decreasing (Combs,
2010; Connelly et al., 2010).
-
27
In this study, the sample size of 883 is not so large that very
low predictions can be
found. Also, effect size at the organizational level of
measurement tends to be lower than
at the individual level of analysis (Combs, 2010). The R2 and
adjusted R2 effect sizes of
model 2 are within the range of family business effect size of
.11 to .31 found by
Connelly et al. (2010).
The second analysis, the major focus of the study, tests the
relationship of each
variable with succession planning based on its coefficient. In
model 2, none of the three
control variables were significant. Thus, the age of the
business, the size (number of
employees), and the industry (product or service) do not have a
significant effect on
succession planning.
Of the 12 independent variables, four were significant at the
.05 level, and they all
had a positive linear relationship with succession planning.
Thus, the data analysis
supports hypotheses H4, H7, H9, and H12.
H4: Family businesses that engage to a greater degree in shared
decision-making also are
more likely to develop succession plans (p = .000).
H7: Family businesses that make greater use of sophisticated
financial management also
engage in more succession planning (p = .000).
H9: Family business in which the managers spend more time in
long-term strategic
planning also are more likely to develop succession plans (p =
.040).
H12: Family firms that plan to go public make greater use of
succession planning (p =
.010).
-
28
Discussion
The four managerial characteristics identified above as possible
predictors to
family business succession planning are based on statistically
significant relationships
identified in a sample of 883 family businesses in nine diverse
countries.
Implications
Each of the four positive relationships is supported by prior
research. A
commitment to shared decision-making would logically involve
subsequent generations
in managerial activities and thus call for succession planning
(Aranoff, 1998; Dyer, 1988;
Eddleston et al., 2008; Simon, 1979). Similarly, strategic
planning involves thinking
about and preparing for the future of the firm, and a central
component of this process in
family businesses is succession planning (Aronoff, 1998; Danes
et al., 2008; Dyer, 1988;
Miller et al., 2001; Schein, 1983; Teece, 2009).
Managerial behavior that includes the use of sophisticated
financial management
techniques would also understandably show a relationship to
succession planning, as both
managerial preferences involve rational and ordered
decision-making (Cole & Wolken,
1995; Coleman & Carsky, 1999; Ehrhardt, 2010; Filbeck &
Lee, 2000; McConaughy &
Phillips, 1999). And the relationship between the consideration
of going public and
planning for succession is also supported by prior research. The
consideration of going
public is certainly an indication of professional rather than
informal management,
and it need not imply a desire to move managerial control away
from family members.
Family firms generally maintain family managerial control after
initial public offerings
-
29
(Lavelle, 2003; McConaughy, 1994; Ritter & Welch, 2002), and
the new obligation to
outside shareholders strengthens the need for successful
managerial succession.
Since, as previously discussed, there has been minimal prior
study of managerial
characteristics and their relationship to succession planning,
it cannot be said that this
studys findings either decisively support or refute previous
research. Instead, the value
of this research and its findings is that it begins to fill an
identified gap in the family
business literature through its quantitative investigation of an
important issue, and that it
provides some starting points for further research into family
business succession.
From the research perspective, the current research focus is on
the process of
succession planning. These findings provide a better
understanding of the managerial
characteristics that lead to, and support the use of, succession
planning in family
business. If further studies, both quantitative and qualitative,
support the identification of
these and/or other managerial characteristics related to family
business succession
planning, then family business owner/managers, their advisors,
and those who study such
businesses can benefit from these findings. Furthermore, for
research purposes, such an
understanding of succession planning might eventually contribute
to a model of family
business succession.
Also, from a practitioner point of view, by analyzing the
managerial
characteristics of a family business, the likelihood of
succession planning would be more
predictable, thus allowing the owner/manager, advisor, or
researcher to focus on planning
accordingly. For consultants, in addition to helping family
businesses develop their
succession plans, this might include placing greater emphasis on
certain managerial
-
30
characteristics, or prioritizing managerial behavior, so as to
foster and support succession
planning.
Limitations and Further Research
A limitation of this study is the lack of a strong and
conclusive body of prior and
narrowly focused research as the foundation for the choice of
the twelve independent
variables and the hypotheses. But at the same time the results
of this study add to the
very limited body of empirical research with this focus on
succession planning and to the
broader body of literature on succession in general. Because the
12 hypotheses are not
based on a strong body of research, there is need for further
research to support these
findings.
Another limitation is the low effect size. With low r-squares,
it is clear that to
develop a theory and a model of managerial characteristics to
explain their relationship to
succession planning, there are other variables that need to be
added to the model to
increase the variance in succession planning that is explained
by the model independent
variable managerial characteristics.
Although the nine-country combined sample provides the benefit
of diversity, it is
also a limitation because there are many differences between
countries and cultures that
one cannot control for. For example, there are differences in
legal systems, economies,
attitudes toward business and family business, GEM TEA, and
other factors. Future
researchers may develop cultural control variables and explore
how country
characteristics in fact affect family business succession
planning.
-
31
Although the sample size of 883 is large, the sample is drawn
from nine countries.
Thus, the sample size, with a mean of around 100 per country, is
still relatively small in
relation to the total population in some of the countries.
Further research with larger
sample sizes in individual countries may provide more
generalizable internal validity
results. Collecting data in other countries that are not
included in the sample will also
help to increase the external validity of the results.
As in prior research, the measure of the dependent variable,
succession planning,
is a single measure, self-reported by the owner/manager of the
family business. Although
not commonly done in entrepreneurial and small business
research, including multiple
measures (triangulation) in future research could improve the
reliability and validity of
the measurement of succession planning.
Conclusions
Limitations aside, this study is the first study to directly
test the relationship
between managerial characteristics and family business
succession planning. Data
analysis from 883 small and medium-sized family firms in nine
diverse countries found
positive relationships between each of the 12 independent
variables and succession
planning, and four variables (shared decision making, use of
sophisticated financial
management, strategic planning, and considering going public)
were significant. Thus,
this research enters new areas of investigation and should
suggest directions for other
family business researchers. Much of the dynamics and the system
of the family firm
remain largely unexplored, and certainly planning for succession
has been minimally
researched. Hopefully, this study is a starting point.
-
32
References
Aronoff. C. (1998). Megatrends in family business. Family
Business Review. Vol. 11 No. 3. pp. 181-192.
Astrachan. J. (2002). Editors notes. Family Business Review Vol.
5 No. 1. p. v. Astrachan. J.. Allen. E.. Spinelli. S.. Wittmeyer.
C. & S. Glucksman (2003). American
Family Business Survey 2002. George & Robin Raymond Family
Business Institute. New York.
Barbieri. E. (1997). A Batalha das Herdeiras na Empresa
familiar. Sagra-D.C. Luzzatto
Editores. Porto Alegre. Brazil. Beckhard. R.. & Dyer. R.
(1983). Managing continuity in family-owned business.
Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 12 No. 1. pp. 5-12. Bennedsen, M.,
Nielsen, K., Perez-Gonzalez, F. & Wolfenzon, D. Inside the
family firm:
the role of families in succession decisions and performance.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 122 No. 2. pp.
647-691.
Blumentritt. T. (2006). The relationship between boards and
planning in family
businesses. Family Business Review. Vo. 19 No. 1. pp. 65-72.
Bocatto. E.. Gispert. C. & Rialp. J. (2010). Family-owned
business succession: The
influence of pre-performance in the nomination of family and
nonfamily members: Evidence from Spanish firms. Journal of Small
Business Management Vol. 48 No. 4. pp. 497-523.
Boeker. W. (1988). Organizational origins: Entrepreneurial and
environmental imprints at
the time of founding. In G.R. Carroll (Ed.). Ecological models
of organizations (pp. 33-51). Ballinger Publishing. Cambridge.
MA..
Bowman-Upton. N.. & Heck. R. (1996). The family dimension of
Entrepreneurship. in
D.L. Sexton (Ed.). The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship.
Upstart. Chicago. Brettel. M.. Engelen. A. & Voll. L. (2010).
Letting go to growEmpirical findings on a
hearsay. Journal of Small Business Management Vol. 48 No. 4. pp.
552-579. Brockhaus. R. (2004). Family business succession:
Suggestions for future research.
Family Business Review. Vol. 17 No. 2. pp. 165-177. Bruton. G..
Ahlstrom. G. Obloj. K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging
Economies:
Where are we and where should the research go in the future.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Vol. 32 No. 1. pp. 1-14.
-
33
Brun de Pontet. S.. Wrosch. C. & Gagne. M. (2007). An
exploration of the generational differences in levels of control
held among family businesses approaching succession. Family
Business Review Vol. 20 No. 4. pp. 337-354.
Cadieux. L. (2007). Succession in small and medium-sized family
businesses: toward a
typology of predecessor roles during and after instatement of
the successor. Family Business Review. Vol. 20 No. 2. pp.
95-109.
Cappuyns. K. (2007). Women behind the scenes in family
businesses. Electronic Journal
of Family Business Studies. Vol. 1 No. 1. pp. 38-61. Chittor. R
& Das. R. (2007). Professionalization of management and
succession
performance A vital linkage. Family Business Review. Vol. 20 No.
1. pp. 65-79. Chua. J.. Chrisman. J. & Sharma. P. (2003).
Succession and nonsuccession concerns of
family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers.
Family Business Review. Vol. 16 No. 1. pp. 89-107.
Cole. P. (1997). Women in family business. Family Business
Review. Vol. 10 No. 4. pp..
353-371. Cole. R. & Wolken. J. (1995). Financial services
used by small businesses: Evidence
from the 1993 National Survey of Small Business Finances.
Federal Reserve Bulletin. July. pp. 629-666.
Coleman. S. & Carsky. M. (1999). Sources of capital for
small family-owned businesses:
Evidence from the National Survey of Small Business Finances.
Family Business Review Vol. 12 No. 1. pp. 73-85.
Combs. J. G. (2010). Big samples & small effects: Lets not
trade relevance & rigor for
power. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 53 No. 1. pp. 9-13.
Combs. J. G.. Penney. C.. Crook. T. & Short. J. (2010). The
impact of family
representation on CEO compensation. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice. Vol. 34 No. 6. pp. 1125-1144.
Connelly. B.. Irel&. R.. Reutzel. C. & Coombs. J.
(2010). The power and effects of
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Vol. 34 No. 1. pp. 131-149.
Danes. S.. Haberman. H. & McTavish. D. (2005). Gendered
discourse about family
business. Family Relations. Vol. 54 No. 1. pp. 116-130. Danes.
S.. Loy. J. & Stafford. K. (2008). Business planning practices
of family-owned
firms within quality framework. Journal of Small Business
Management. Vol. 46 No. 3. pp. 395-421.
-
34
Davis. J.. Allen. M. & Hayes. H. (2010). Is blood thicker
than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 34 No. 6. pp.
1109-1116.
Davis. P. (2001). The phenomenon of substantive conflict in the
family firm: A cross-
generational study. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.
39 No. 1. pp. 14-30.
Davis. P.. & Harveston. P. (1999). In the founders shadow:
Conflict in the family firm.
Family Business Review. Vol. 12. pp. 311-323. DeMassis. A.. J.
Chua. & J. Chrisman (2008). Factors preventing intra-family
succession.
Family Business Review 20(2). 183-199. Dennis. W. (2003).
Raising response rates in mail surveys of small business
owners:
Results of an experiment. Journal of Small Business Management.
Vol. 41 No. 3. pp. 278-295.
Dickson. P. & Weaver. K. (2011). Institutional readiness and
small to medium-sized
enterprise alliance formation. Journal of Small Business
Management. Vol. 49. No. 1. pp. 126-148.
Dyer. W. (1988). Culture and continuity in family firms. Family
Business Review. Vol. 1
No. 1. pp. 37-50. Dyer. W. & Snchez. M. (1998). Current
state of family business theory and practice as
reflected in Family Business Review 1988-1997. Family Business
Review. Vol. 11 No. 4. pp. 287-295.
Eddleston. K. (2008). Commentary: The prequel to family firm
culture and stewardship:
The Leadership perspective of the founder. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice. Vol. 32 No. 6. pp. 1055-1061.
Eddleston. K.. Otondo. R. & Kellermanns. F. (2008).
Conflict. participative secession-
making. and generational ownership dispersion: A multilevel
analysis. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 46 No. 3. pp.
456-484.
Ehrhardt. M. (2010). Financial Management Theory and Practice.
South-Western.
Mason. OH. Fasci. M.. & Valdez. J. (1998). A performance
contrast of male- and female-owned small
accounting practices. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.
36 No. 3. pp. 1-7.
-
35
Feltham. T.. Feltham. G. & Barnett. J. (2005). The
dependence of family businesses on a single decision-maker. Journal
of Small Business Management. Vol. 43 No. 1. pp. 1-15.
Fiegener. M. & Prince. R. (1994). A comparison of successor
development in family and
nonfamily Businesses. Family Business Review. Vol. 7 No. 4. pp.
313-329. Filbeck G. & Lee. S. (2000). Financial management
techniques in family businesses.
Family Business Review. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 201-216. Foo. M.
(2010). Member experience. use of external assistance and
evaluation of
business ideas. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 48
No. 1. pp. 32-45. Fox. M.. Nilakant. V. & Hamilton. R. (1996)
Managing succession in family-owned
businesses. International Small Business Journal. Vol.15 No. 1.
pp. 15-26. Galiano. A. & Vinturella. J. (1995) Implications of
vender bias in the family business.
Family Business Review. Vol. 8 No. 3. pp.177-188. Gersick. K..
Davis. M.. Hampton. R. & Lansberg. I. (1997). Generation to
Generation:
Life Cycles of the Family Business. Harvard Business School.
Boston. MA. Gundry. L.. & Welsch. H. (1994). Differences in
familial influence among women-
owned businesses. Family Business Review. Vol. 7 No. 3. pp.
273-286. Handler. W. (1989). Methodological Issues and
considerations in studying family
businesses. Family Business Review. Vol. 2 No. 3. pp. 257-276.
_____ (1992). Succession experience of the next generation. Family
Business Review.
Vol. 5 No. 3. pp. 283-307. _____ (1994). Succession in family
business: A review of the research. Family Business
Review. Vol. 7 No. 2. pp. 133-157. Harveston. P.. & Davis.
P. (1997). Succession planning in family business: The impact
of
owner gender. Family Business Review. Vol. 10 No. 4. pp.
373-396. Heck. R.. Hoy. F.. Poutziouris. P. & Steier. L.
(2008). Emerging paths of family
Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Small Business Management.
Vol. 46 No. 3. pp. 317-330.
Hershon. S. (1975). The Problems of Succession in Family
Businesses. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. Cambridge. MA.
Hisrich. R. & Flp. G. (1997). Women Entrepreneurs in Family
Business: The
Hungarian case. Family Business Review. Vol. 10 No. 3. pp.
281-302.
-
36
Iannarelli. C. (1992). The socialization of leaders in family
business: An exploratory study of gender. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Jensen. M. & Meckling. W. (1976). Theory of the firm:
Managerial behavior. agency
costs. and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics.
Vol. 3. pp. 305-360.
Kelly. L.. Athanassiou. N. & Crittenden. W. (2000). Founder
centrality and strategic
behavior in the family-owned firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice. Vol. 25 No. 2. pp. 27-42.
Kraimer. M.. Shaffer. M.. Harrison. D. & Ren H. (2012). No
place like home? An
identity strain perspective on repatriate turnover. Academy of
Management Journal. Vol. 55. No. 2. pp. 399-420.
Lambrecht. J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family
businesses: A new
explanatory model. Family Business Review. Vol. 18 No. 4. pp.
267-282. Lussier. R. (1997). Predicting entrepreneurial success
versus failure: A comparison of
multi and single-industry techniques. Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal Vol. 3 No. 1. pp. 89-101.
_____ (2006). The effect of family business size as firms grow:
A USA France
comparison. Journal of Small Business & Enterprise
Development. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 314-325.
_____ (2011). Research Methods and Statistics for Business.
Waveland. Long Grove. IL. Lussier. R. & Sonfield. M. (2012).
Family business succession planning: a seven-
country comparison. Journal of Small Business & Enterprise
Development. Vol. 19. No. 1. pp. 7-19.
McConaughy. D. (1994). Founding family controlled corporations:
An agency-theoretic
analysis of corporate ownership structure and its impact upon
corporate efficiency. value. and capital structure.. unpublished
dissertation. University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati. OH.
McConaughy. D. & Phillips. G. (1999). Founders versus
descendants: The profitability.
efficiency. growth characteristics and financing in large.
public. founding-family-controlled firms. Family Business Review.
Vol. 12 No. 2. pp. 123-131.
Menzies. T. & Loco. J. (2011). Building our knowledge of
family business: What are the
major topics and theoretical perspectives being published a 10
year review. Small Business Institute National Conference. pp.
195-210.
-
37
Miller. N.. McLeod. H. & Oh. K. (2001). Managing family
businesses in small communities. Journal of Small Business
Management. Vol. 39 No. 1. pp. 73-87.
Mitchell. J.. Hart. T.. Valcea. S. & Townsend. D. (2009).
Becoming the boss: Discretion
and postsuccession success in family firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice. Vol. 33 No. 6. pp. 1201-1218.
Montemerlo. D. (2000). Il governo delle imprese familiari.
Modelli e strumenti pergestire
I rapporti tra proprieta e imprese. EGEA. Milan. Morris. M..
Allen. J. Kuratko. D. & Brannon. D. (2010). Experiencing family
business
creation: Differences between founders. nonfamily managers. and
founders of nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Vol. 34 No. 6. pp. 1057-1083.
Nelton. S. (1998). The rise of women in family firms: A call for
research now. Family
Business Review. Vol. 11 No. 3. pp. 215-218. Oswald. S. Muse. L.
& Rutherford. M. (2009). The influence of large stake
family
control on performance: Is it agency or entrenchment? Journal of
Small Business Management. Vol. 47 No. 1. pp. 116-135.
Peiser. R. & Wooten. L. (1983). Life-cycle changes in small
family businesses. Business
Horizons. May-June. pp. 58-65. Pieper. T.. Klein. S. &
Jaskiewicz. P. (2008). The impact of goal alignment on board
existence and top management team composition: Evidence from
family-influenced businesses. Journal of Small Business Management.
Vol. 46 No. 3. pp. 372-394.
Pearson. A.. & Marier. L. (2010). A leadership perspective
of reciprocal stewardship in
family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 34 No.
6. pp. 1117-1124.
Pyromalis. V.. Kalkanteras. T.. Rogdaki. M. & Sigalas. G.
(2004). An integrated
framework for testing the success of the family business
succession process according to gender specificity. Proceeding of
the Academy of Family Business. Vol. 2 No. 2. pp. 1-6.
Poza. E. (2007). Family Business. Thompson. Mason. OH. Renzulli.
L.. Aldrich. H. & Moody. J. (2000). Family matters: Gender.
networks. and
entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces. Vol. 79 No. 2. pp.
523-546. Ritter. J. & Welch. I. (2002). A review of IPO
activity. pricing. and allocations. The
Journal of Finance. Vol. 57 No. 4. pp. 1795-1828.
-
38
Rowe. B.. & Hong. G (2000). The role of wives in family
businesses: The paid and unpaid work of women. Family Business
Review. Vol. 13 No. 1. pp. 1-13.
Royer. S.. Simons. R.. Boyd. B. & Rafferty. A. (2008).
Promoting family: A contingency
model of family business succession. Family Business Review.
Vol. 21 No. 1. pp. 15-30.
Schein. E. (1983). The role of the founder in creating
organizational culture.
Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 12 No. 1. pp. 13-28. Shim. S..
& Eastlick. M. (1998). Characteristics of Hispanic female
business owners: An
exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 36
No. 3. pp. 18-34.
Simon. H. (1979). Rational decision-making in business
organizations. The American
Economic Review. Vol. 69 No. 4. pp. 493-513. Smith. M. (2007).
Women take charge of more gamily companies but face added
hurdles.
Family Business. Caledonian Family Business Centre. UK (Autumn
2007). pp. 1-2.
Sonfield. M. & Lussier. R. (2004). First-. second-. and
third-generation family firms: A
comparison. Family Business Review. Vol. 17 No. 3. pp. 189-202.
_____ (2009). Family-member and non-family member managers in
family business.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol. 16
No. 2. pp. 196-209.
Sonfield. M.. Lussier. R.. Pfeifer. S.. Maherault. L..
Manikutty. S.& Verdier. L. (2005). A
cross-national investigation of first-generation.
second-generation. and third-generation family businesses: A
four-country ANOVA comparison. Journal of Small Business Strategy.
Vol. 16 No. 1. pp. 9-26.
Stavrou. E. (1998). A four factor model: A guide to planning
next generation
involvement in the family firm. Family Business Review. Vol. 11
No. 2. pp. 135-142.
_____ (2003). Leadership succession in owner-managed firms
through the lens of
extraversion. International Small Business Journal. Vol. 21 No.
3. pp. 331-346. Stavrou. E.. Kleanthous. T. & Anastasiou. T.
(2005) Leadership personality and firm
culture during hereditary transitions in family firms: Model
development and empirical investigation. Journal of Small Business
Management. Vol. 43 No. 2. pp. 187-206.
-
39
Steier. L.. Chua. J. & Chrisman. J. (2009). Embeddedness
perspectives of economic action within family firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 33 No. 6. pp.
1157-1167.
Teece. D. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Oxford University
Press). Teece. D.. Pisano. G.. & Shuen. A. (1997). Dynamic
capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 18. pp. 509-533.
Upton. N.. Vinton. K.. Seaman. S. & Moore. C. (1993). Research
note: Family business
consultants Who we are. What we Do. and How we do it? Family
Business Review. Vol. 6 No. 3. pp. 301-311.
Vera. C. & Dean. M. (2005). An examination of the challenges
daughters face in family
business succession. Family Business Review. Vol. 18 No. 4. pp.
321-345. Ward. J. (2004). Perpetuating the family business. 50
lessons learned from long-lasting.
successful families in business. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.
Weber. J. & Lavelle. L. (2003). Family. Inc. Business Week.
Nov. 10. pp. 100-114. Wilson. L.. Whittam. G. & Deakins. D.
(2004). Womens enterprise: A critical
examination of national policies. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy. Vol. 22 No. 6. pp. 799-815.
Yan. J. & Sorenson. R. (2006). The effect of confucian
values on succession in family
business. Family Business Review. Vol. 19 No. 3. pp. 235-250.
Zara. S.. Hayton. J.. Neubaum. D.. Dibrell. C. & Craig. J.
(2008). Culture of family
commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of
stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 32 No. 6.
pp. 1035-1054.
-
Copyright of American Journal of Entrepreneurship is the
property of Addleton AcademicPublishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print,download, or email articles for individual use.