scholarly journals How Family, Business, and Community Logics Shape Family Firm Behavior and “Rules of the Game” in an Organizational Field

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trish Reay ◽  
Peter Jaskiewicz ◽  
C. R. (Bob) Hinings

The relationships between family firms and their institutional contexts are critical to family firm legitimacy and sustainability. However, we still know little about how these relationships influence firm behavior. We draw on the institutional literature—institutional logics in particular—to investigate the behavior of different types of wineries within the Okanagan region in Western Canada. We analyze how family, business, and community logics guide firm behavior, and how different combinations of logics lead firms to take action that modifies the field to support their own legitimacy and sustainability.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Ronald H. Humphrey ◽  
Alfredo De Massis ◽  
Pasquale Massimo Picone ◽  
Yi Tang ◽  
Ronald F. Piccolo

Exploring the psychological foundations of management in family firms is necessary to understand why they formulate and implement strategies differently from nonfamily firms, and why and how family firm behavior varies across different family firms. Picone et al. (2021. The psychological foundations of management in family firms: Values, biases, and heuristics. Family Business Review, 34(1), 12-32) have proposed a conceptual framework for the psychological foundations of management in family business, examining how the values, biases, and heuristics of family firm members affect strategic decision-making and family firm outcomes. Drawing on this framework, we examine emotions, memories, and experiences in family firms, disentangling “what we know” from “what we should know”, and offering some relevant questions to advance the field.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 2158
Author(s):  
Daniel Magalhães Mucci ◽  
Ann Jorissen ◽  
Fabio Frezatti ◽  
Diógenes de Souza Bido

In most studies, the affiliation of the manager (family-affiliated or non-family affiliated) and supposedly related behavior (agent or steward) is considered the sole antecedent to explain a family business’ (non) professionalization of managerial controls. This paper, based on Luhmann’s new system theory, examines whether a family’s decision premises influence the design of managerial controls in family firms in addition to a manager’s family affiliation status. Using survey data of 135 large and medium-sized Brazilian family firms and testing the hypotheses with SEM, this study provides evidence that a family’s decision premises significantly influence the design of managerial controls in family firms. This study provides evidence that when a family’s intention to transfer the firm to next generation (TGO) is high, more formal controls, as well as controls of a more participative nature are adopted in a family firm. Moreover, the results do not indicate that the level of family involvement in management affects the design of controls in firms with high TGO. The results only showed a significant relationship between a family’s intention to control and influence (FCI) the firm and the absence of participative controls. In addition, these findings also illustrate that each single family-induced decision premise has the potential to explain family firm behavior, since each of the two premises considered in our study is related to a different design of the controls adopted by the family firm.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-346
Author(s):  
Cristina López-Cózar-Navarro ◽  
Tiziana Priede-Bergamini ◽  
Sonia Benito-Hernández

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to suggest two main objectives: to analyze if the size of the company is determined by the use of external legal and human resources (HR) advice; and to analyze if the size of the family business is determined by the use of these two same types of external advice. Design/methodology/approach The assessment is developed (2,013 firms, the Spanish industrial sector) by using descriptive statistics to compare the features of the different types of firms in the sample: family and non-family ones. This is completed with a test of equality of means and using econometric models. Findings Regarding legal advice, results show that as far as legal matters are concerned, when family businesses make greater use of this type of advice, they are smaller. This is a remarkable and interesting result because it differs from non-family firms, in which the use of this type of advice is positively related with size. Regarding the use of HR advice, while it remains significant in general cases with a positive result, this is not the same for family firms. Originality/value The use of advising in family firms is seldom dealt with in the literature, despite its helpfulness for family firm managers. There is gap in this field and a great deal of interesting research remains to be developed, because the authors consider that factors determining the use of advice in family and non-family firms are different.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitry Khanin ◽  
Ofir Turel ◽  
Raj V. Mahto

The authors define family–business embeddedness as confluence of values and objectives stemming from the overlapping institutional contexts—family, business, and symbolic—in the family firm. Hence, the family–business embeddedness perspective investigates the effect of integrating divergent institutional values and objectives, economic and noneconomic, on family firm’s performance. The authors contend that family–business embeddedness and work centrality will magnify family employees’ job satisfaction, whereas superior job alternatives will produce an opposite effect. In turn, job satisfaction will be negatively related to family employees’ turnover intentions. A survey of 111 family employees from 70 family firms in the United States supported the hypotheses.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paloma Fernández Pérez ◽  
Eleanor Hamilton

This  study  contributes  to  developing  our understanding of gender and family business. It draws on studies from the business history and management literatures and provides an interdisciplinary synthesis. It illuminates the role of women and their participation in the entrepreneurial practices of the family and the business. Leadership is introduced as a concept to examine the roles of women and men in family firms, arguing that concepts used  by  historians or economists like ownership and management have served to make women ‘invisible’, at least in western developed economies in which owners and managers have been historically due to legal rules  of  the  game  men,  and  minoritarily women. Finally, it explores gender relations and  the  notion  that  leadership  in  family business  may  take  complex  forms  crafte within constantly changing relationships.


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 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 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine B. Rau ◽  
Viktoria Schneider-Siebke ◽  
Christina Günther

Family firm heterogeneity results in reduced predictability of firm behavior as well as inconsistent results regarding research on family firm behavior. We argue that family firm heterogeneity is based, among other factors, on values heterogeneity. In order to lay the ground for future research, we develop a taxonomy of family firms based on values. Using values theory, we identify six value categories, resulting in five family firm types with five distinct value profiles. Second, we posit family firm values profiles are distinct to the group of family firms as nonfamily firms do not display similar value profiles.


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.


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