Search results

This chapter takes a socioemotional wealth (SEW) perspective to explain the adoption of human resource (HR) practices in family-controlled firms. Previous studies on human resource management (HRM) in family firms have focused only on a small range of HR practices and have rarely utilized strong conceptual frameworks. As a result, these studies have overlooked important factors that contribute to the distinctiveness of HRM in these organizations. Based on ample evidence that shows family businesses' preference for non-economically motivated objectives collectively labeled as SEW, we propose that the presence of SEW influences HR practices in family firms.

Consequently, we reexamine existing empirical evidence of the determinants of HRM in family-controlled firms under the SEW approach. We also reinterpret existing theoretical models of family-controlled firms and their implications for HRM under the SEW umbrella. Our final goal is to establish an integrated framework through a set of sound propositions on HRM in family businesses. By integrating the literature, we aim to fill theoretical gaps in our understanding of the determinants of HR practices in the family business context and direct future research in this area.

Changing work/family dynamics and economic developments have made it more likely that an employee might work with a family member or spouse. Such working relationships offer a unique perspective by which to understand the work/family interface; however, relatively little research has explored the implications of working with family for employee stress and well-being. In this chapter, we review the existing research concerning stress associated with working with family. We integrate this research into broader demand/resource perspectives on employee stress and well-being, highlighting the manner in which working with family provides unique demands and resources through differences in work–family linking mechanisms. We conclude with suggestions for future research that might enhance our understanding of the work/family interface by considering the dynamics of working with family.

Are the social domains of kinship and business on balance complementary or contradictory? Do ventures that invest heavily in both – conventionally referred to as “family firms” – bear a net gain or net loss? We are scarcely the first to raise these questions. How then will we try to contribute to an answer? We try this in five ways, all of them based on previous literature. First, we develop the dichotomy of kinship and business by taking seriously the metaphor of yin and yang, merging it with the anthropological constructs of structural domains such as “domestic” and “public.” This metaphor proves to shed light on the relevant literature. Second, we provide a qualitative survey of the costs and benefits of kinship in business. Third, we summarize the empirical work that addresses the performance outcomes from family involvement. Fourth, we consider the practitioner implications of these studies. Finally, we ask if scholars are as yet in a position to answer these questions.

Purpose – This chapter explores the m+eaning and significance of family business social responsibilities (FBSRs) using a metasystem approach, placing emphasis on the role of the family.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We employ a revelatory case study to investigate the complexity of family business (corporate) social responsibility. The main case, a German shoe retailer, is supplemented by other case illustrations that provide additional insights into FBSR.

Findings – To fully understand social responsibility in a family firm context, we need to include social initiatives that go beyond the actual family business as a unit. This FBSR connects family members outside and inside the business and across generations. As FBSR is formed through individual and family-level values, its character is idiosyncratic and contrasts the often standardized approaches in widely held firms.

Practical Implication – Family businesses need to go beyond the business as such when considering their engagement in social responsibility. Family ownership implies that all social initiatives conducted by family members, regardless if they are involved in the firm or not, are connected. This includes a shared responsibility for what family members do at present and have done in the past.

Family businesses must be examined within the cultural contexts in which they are bred, nourished, and grown. According to Chrisman, Chua, and Steier (2003), family businesses are launched for reasons other than the desire for dollars and cents (or rupees and yen). In fact, the authors note, “Family businesses… bring together so starkly the economic and non-economic realities of organizational life…” (2003, p. 442). Calls for family business research that extend beyond traditional geographical boundaries to include global comparisons have been issued by Hoy (2003) and others. Fortunately, recent developments in cultural assessment and measurement methodology have provided tools to enable a better understanding of families and family businesses vis-à-vis the use of regional clusters and comparative lenses (Gupta & Hanges, 2004). Gupta and Hanges (2004) note three clusters of the Catholic ethic: Southern (or Latin) Europe, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. As shown in Table 1, more than three-fourths of the population in these clusters follows the Catholic faith. In this study, we examine the spirit of family business in these three clusters.

Human resource management is an understudied but burgeoning topic in the family business scholarly domain. This chapter provides a summary review of the existing literature on human resource management in family businesses and offers pathways for future research. The authors cluster the extant research into topic areas of compensation, recruitment and selection, training, employee performance, and turnover, and offer future research directions for each. In identifying gaps and tension in the literature, the chapter also highlights several broader theoretical pathways for future research. These opportunities include further inquiry into the outcomes of bifurcation bias, or the disparate treatment between family and non-family employees, the nuanced ways family firms recruit and select new employees, the role of high-performance work systems in family firms, the ways image considerations influence human resource practices in family firms, and the application of social network perspectives.

Women are becoming more and more visible in family firms. They appear to be the adhesive that bonds the family together and may, therefore, help explain why some families are a key source of strength for their business while others struggle to maintain family harmony and business success. Yet, these women face many challenges in working for their family’s business. In this chapter, we offer a brief review of the literature as related to the historical perspectives in terms of CEO wives and daughters and concerns about primogeniture. We conclude with a discussion on progress and capture the experiences of women working in their family’s business.

Personal political connections with politicians have positive contribution to the abnormal returns of firms (Hillman, Zardkoohi, & Bierman, 1999; Chung, 2006; Dinc, 2005; Faccio, 2006; Morck, Wolfenzon, & Yeung, 2005; Imai, 2006). Business owners and executives have incentives to invest in political connections because such relationship may enable their firms to gain access to key information not available to the competitors. However, the impact of political connections on the behaviors of firms has only received scant interest in the literature (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009).

The objective of this research is to examine the impact of formal and informal political connections on the scope of family business diversification. We focus on family business because of their unique access to family ties or family social capital to achieve business objectives (Sharma, 2004; Steier, 2003). We test our hypotheses using panel data from 35 Taiwan-based family business groups from 1988 to 2002. Our analysis shows that the informal political connections possessed by the parent generation owners of family business groups are better predictors of family business diversification than the informal political connections established by the children generations owners. This result complements the resource dependence theory by suggesting that durable and non-transferable political connections possessed by family leaders have a unique effect in the corporate decision to diversify. Additionally, the personal ties between politicians and parent generation family leaders are “sticky.” They cannot be easily succeeded by the younger generations.

This chapter is an exploratory study of business ethics as it relates to family firms; it primarily aims to explore virtue ethics as an alternative proposal for the ethical concerns that family firms face in their management, thus overcoming the limitations of relevant business ethics approaches and integrating them into an overarching paradigm. Ethics can be classified into three main streams: (1) deontology, (2) utilitarianism, and (3) virtue ethics. The former two approaches have been widely used in the realm of business and family firms for many years and they tend to instrumentalize ethics for business purposes. Yet, they are mostly powerless to explain and promote the ethical concerns surrounding the family firm’s culture. Virtue ethics regained philosophical interest in the second half of the twentieth century, shifting the focus of morality from “the right thing to do” to the “best way to live.” By bringing together two consolidated research fields, family firms and virtue ethics, this chapter contributes a rich perspective to current research in both fields and opens up new ways of answering many of the cultural questions that family firms bring to the table.