Conflict between Controlling Family Owners and Minority Shareholders: Much Ado about Nothing?

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 999-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Martin ◽  
Luis R. Gómez–Mejía ◽  
Pascual Berrone ◽  
Marianna Makri

We examine the unique nature of conflict between controlling family owners and minority shareholders (principal–principal conflict) in publicly traded family controlled firms through examining shareholder proposals. Implicit in prior governance and family business research has been that nonfamily shareholders are likely to be in conflict with the dominant family owners. In general, we find that much of this fear may be unwarranted except under specific circumstances. Our findings elucidate sources of heterogeneity in family firm principal–principal conflict and add greater nuance to our understanding of this type of agency problem within family firms.

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atanas Nik Nikolov ◽  
Yuan Wen

PurposeThis paper brings together research on advertising, family business, and the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm to examine performance differences between publicly traded US family vs non-family firms. The purpose of this paper is to understand the heterogeneity of family vs non-family firm advertising after such firms become publicly traded.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on the RBV of the firm, as well as on extensive empirical literature in family business and advertising research to empirically examine the differences between family and non-family firms in terms of performance.FindingsUsing panel data from over 2,000 companies across ten years, this research demonstrates that family businesses have higher advertising intensity than competitors, and achieve higher performance returns on their advertising investments, relative to non-family competitors. The results suggest that the “familiness” of public family firms is an intangible resource that, when combined with their advertising investments, affords family businesses a relative advantage compared to non-family businesses.Research limitations/implicationsFamily involvement in publicly traded firms may contribute toward a richer resource endowment and result in creating synergistic effects between firm “familiness” and the public status of the firm. The paper contributes toward the RBV of the firm and the advertising literature. Limitations include the lack of qualitative data to ground the findings and potential moderating effects.Practical implicationsUnderstanding how family firms’ advertising spending influences their consequent performance provides new information to family firms’ owners and management, as well as investors. The authors suggest that the “familiness” of public family firms may provide a significant advantage over their non-family-owned competitors.Social implicationsThe implications for society include that the family firm as an organizational form does not need to be relegated to a second-class citizen status in the business world: indeed, combining family firms’ characteristics within a publicly traded platform may provide firm performance benefits which benefit the founding family and other stakeholders.Originality/valueThis study contributes by highlighting the important influence of family involvement on advertising investment in the public family firm, a topic which has received limited attention. Second, it also integrates public ownership in family firms with the family involvement–advertising–firm performance relationship. As such, it uncovers a new pathway through which the family effect is leveraged to increase firm performance. Third, this study also contributes to the advertising and resource building literatures by identifying advertising as an additional resource which magnifies the impact of the bundle of resources available to the public family firm. Fourth, the use of an extensive panel data set allows for a more complex empirical investigation of the inherently dynamic relationships in the data and thus provides a contribution to the empirical stream of research in family business.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Brune ◽  
Martin Thomsen ◽  
Christoph Watrin

Family business research suggests that the population of family firms cannot be regarded as a homogenous group. Therefore, with respect to tax avoidance, we analyze the role of the founder as one dimension of family firm heterogeneity. Specifically, we consider socioemotional wealth loss aversion and find that founders may affect the level of tax avoidance not only when they have direct influence (i.e., serving as CEO) but also when they possess solely indirect influence (i.e., having substantial ownership or a seat on the board). Overall, our results suggest that founders remain attached to their firms despite giving up executive positions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Allison ◽  
Aaron Francis McKenny ◽  
Jeremy Collin Short

Organizational ambidexterity refers to a firm’s ability to pursue both exploitation and exploration orientations. Despite research that suggests ambidexterity is a critical phenomenon in family firms, few studies directly examine the role of ambidexterity over time in family business. This study examines how family firm ambidexterity changes over time as a result of temporal-, firm-, and industry-level factors. We find that family firm ambidexterity is stable over time, punctuated by dramatic changes. We also find that the level of innovation required to compete in an industry is a predictor of changes in exploration versus exploitation over time among family firms.


Author(s):  
Carole Howorth ◽  
Mary Rose ◽  
Eleanor Hamilton

This article begins with an examination of definitions of family firms. The debate about what constitutes a family firm is every bit as complex as the definition of an entrepreneur. This article explores the range of definitions but shows that any definition needs to be interpreted in its economic, social, institutional, and cultural context. An explanation for the multiplicity of definitions is provided in in this article, which explores the diversity in scale, scope, organization, and longevity of family firms, and shows differences through time in different societies and between families. The article also demonstrates the strong path dependency of family firm development, with change (or lack of it) underpinned by the foundations of the past. The article further explores research which compares the performance of family firms with non-family firms and this highlights the potential policy implications of family business research.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Binz Astrachan ◽  
Isabel C. Botero

Purpose Evidence suggests that some stakeholders perceive family firms as more trustworthy, responsible, and customer-oriented than public companies. To capitalize on these positive perceptions, owning families can use references about their family nature in their organizational branding and marketing efforts. However, not all family firms actively communicate their family business brand. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to investigate why family firms decide to promote their “family business brand” in their communication efforts toward different stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach Data for this study were collected using an in-depth interview approach from 11 Swiss and German family business owners. Interviews were transcribed and coded to identify different themes that help explain the different motives and constraints that drive their decisions to promote the “family business brand.” Findings The analyses indicate that promoting family associations in branding efforts is driven by both identity-related (i.e. pride, identification) and outcome-related (e.g. reputational advantages) motives. However, there are several constraints that may negatively affect the promotion of the family business brand in corporate communication efforts. Originality/value This paper is one of the first to explore why family businesses decide to communicate their “family business brand.” Building on the findings, the authors present a conceptual framework identifying the antecedents and possible consequences of promoting a family firm brand. This framework can help researchers and practitioners better understand how the family business nature of the brand can influence decisions about the company’s branding and marketing practices.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Martin Jurek

Abstract Objective: This paper reviews the major family business research papers that address factors related to relationship and work-to-family conflicts. Methodology: The procedure this paper applies follows recommendations for literature reviews by Fink (2010) consisting of: (1) selecting a research question (2) selecting bibliographic or article databases, (3) choosing search terms, (4) applying practical screening criteria, (5) applying methodical screening criteria, (6) doing the review and (7) synthesizing the results. Findings: The article summarizes that, although family business research is progressing in terms of theory building, it continues to lack a systematic adoption of longitudinal, cross-national and multi-theoretical approaches. To date, research on conflict in family firms remains underdeveloped in the CEE. Value Added: Outlining the state of the art of theoretical and empirical studies by applying a resource-based view. Recommendations: Application of control variables, such as size of the business, business life cycles, generational status, type of industry and various cultural settings. Furthermore, the role of communication, sibling rivalry and perceived justice of family members could be investigated more thoroughly.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-371
Author(s):  
Nastaran Simarasl ◽  
David S. Jiang ◽  
Franz W. Kellermanns ◽  
Bart J. Debicki

Research often assumes that a controlling family’s social bonds contributes to superior firm performance. However, there is little theory to address these relationships and findings are often mixed. Here, we integrate resource-based and need-to-belong theories to address these issues, introducing family business potency as a key mediating variable between family cohesion, participative strategy processes, and firm performance in 109 family firms. Altogether, our study answers ongoing theoretical calls for more need-based psychological research in family firms, introduces family business potency to the literature, and contributes to research on family firm heterogeneity. Implications for future research and practice are also discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 775-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Salvato ◽  
Francesco Chirico ◽  
Leif Melin ◽  
David Seidl

Family-controlled firms are the most widespread form of business organization, but they have so far attracted limited attention from organizational scholars. The present work suggests that coupling research on family business organizations with organization studies will substantially benefit both areas of scholarly research. We explore how the five core defining features of family firms – ownership, management and governance, transgenerational intention, generational involvement and perceived identity – may be illuminated by extant research in organization studies, and how, in turn, organizational studies may be extended by investigating its key themes in the empirical context of family firms.


2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pramodita Sharma ◽  
A. Srinivas Rao

This study replicates the Chrisman, Chua, Sharma 1998 Canadian study in the Indian context. Using data from 43 Indian family firms, this study compares the successor attributes that Indian and Canadian family business owners consider most important. Despite significant differences in norms and culture prevalent in these two countries, results of this comparative study indicate that both sets of family firm owners rate integrity and commitment to the business as the two most important attributes of a successor. However, compared to Canadian family firm owners, Indian owners rate blood and family relationships higher. Canadian respondents, on the other hand, rate interpersonal skills, past performance, and experience higher.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document