Search results

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate whether the transition from a family business to a non‐family business affects the institutionalisation of management accounting.

This paper is based on an online survey among all large and medium‐sized Austrian firms. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to test the impact of the level of family influence on aspects of the institutionalisation of management accounting. Firm size is included as the main control variable.

A lower level of influence from the controlling family was found to be correlated with the institutionalisation and intensification of management accounting in medium‐sized firms. For large firms, such a linear relationship could not be drawn. The level of education of management accountants was inversely correlated with the level of family influence in both large and medium‐sized firms.

Further research into the reasons, underlying drivers and inter‐organisational promoters of management accounting change in family businesses is needed. Furthermore, the organisational impacts of the transition from family businesses to non‐family businesses deserve further investigation.

A framework for assessing the organisational effects of the transition from family businesses to non‐family businesses is provided. The empirical results on the impact of the transition on the institutionalisation of management accounting are presented. The level of family influence was found to act as a significant contextual factor for the organisation of management accounting in medium‐sized firms.

The purpose of this paper is to study the internationalization of family firms, exploring specifically if the transition from family control to non-family control (losing family managerial influence) affects a firm’s export activity.

Based on panel data for Spanish firms from 2006 to 2012, a random effect tobit and probit regression and a propensity score matching were run on a sample of 225 firms moving from family to non-family control (switchers) matched with 4,213 firms remaining under family control (non-switchers).

Although from a static viewpoint family controlled firms export less than their non-family counterparts, from a dynamic perspective family firms remaining under family control (non-switchers) are associated with a fall in export activity in comparison with family firms transitioning to non-family control (switchers). Both findings are related back to the socioemotional wealth (SEW) perspective.

The findings of this study shed light on the trade-offs that family firms experience in order to balance their desire to increase their internationalization (and the risk associated with it) and their wish to maintain SEW.

The findings should encourage family owners and managers to take long-term strategic decisions leading to internationalization which, although risky, will prevent subsequent loss of SEW in terms of family control.

This work provides evidence concerning family firms’ willingness to undertake risky activities, such as internationalization, considering the threats to their wealth.

The characteristics of businesses change with the change in ownership structure of the business. This study examines the change in ownership structure of the firm after the departure of lone founders, and its influence on dividend payout decisions of the firm.

The authors employed 4,302 firm-year observations of non-financial firms listed on Pakistan Stock Exchange over the period 2007–2021. To test the hypotheses, the authors employed ordinary least squares regression, and additionally, generalized method of moments estimation and fixed effect analysis were applied to check for the robustness of results.

Using the lens of agency theory and social identity theory, the authors report that the presence of lone founder (family owners) is negatively (positively) associated with dividend payout, however, transition of lone-founder ownership to family-owned and family-managed firm leads to more dividend payout, whereas its transition to family-owned and non-family-managed firm results in lesser dividend payments.

This study provides novel insight into the strategic behavior of lone founders and extend the limited family business heterogeneity literature by examining the effects of ownership transition and its influence on firm's dividend payout decisions.

Much of the literature relating to human resource management (HRM) has attempted to demonstrate that the “Human resource” is the most valued asset in a company. Large companies have revolutionised their approach to the training and development of their personnel in order to maximise their “competitive edge”. Hotly debated is whether investment in “good HRM” is linked to commercial success. However, very little is known about HRM practices within the small‐ to medium‐size business (SME) and even less is known about the practice within a family business. This survey describes the HRM practices of SMEs (both family and non‐family businesses) in Northern Ireland. Comparisons between the groups are made and findings suggest that family businesses practice HRM differently than their non‐family counterparts. Implications for the training and development of these two groups question whether family businesses need to be treated as a “special case”.

This paper examines the findings of a large‐scale postal survey based on an adaptation of the Cranfield Network (CRANET) Survey of International Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) to facilitate the analysis of HRM practices in the SME business environment. These findings are considered in light of a review of HRM literature. The survey utilised a sample of 1,369 organisations representing every company employing between 20‐100 people in Northern Ireland. This paper analyses key issues emerging from the 219 (16 per cent) responses received and provides a comparison of HRM practices in family and non‐family businesses. Overall, the findings suggest that family business practices within HRM are different than their non‐family counterparts.

This chapter explores how stress may manifest among non-family member employees, family member employees, and family firm founders in family firms during the startup phases of the organization. Understanding how stress arises in family firm startups has received limited attention to date. Notably absent in the research is the understanding of how stress arises in non-family member employees, which is important to understand as non-family member employees often outnumber family member employees. As stress increases for the non-family member employee due to issues such as role ambiguity and conflict, negative outcomes resultant from this stress may increase the chances of the employee exhibiting withdrawal behaviors. It is suggested these outcomes increase the stress of the family firm entrepreneur and family members by increasing interrole and interpersonal conflicts and negatively impacting decision-making. These effects on the family members may adversely impact the family firm’s chances of performing well, thus decreasing its chances for survival. Recommendations for future research are also made.

The interaction of the chief financial officer (CFO) with family and non‐family managers is important for the financial management of a family business to maximise wealth creation within the business. This paper explores the role and the possible conflict with managers from the family.

A mixed method is used combining interviews of CFOs, CEOs and a telephone survey of CFOs in Australia. Three propositions are tested.

Surprisingly, the authors find no evidence that there is substantial role conflict as has been found in previous research. Relationships with the family CEO and other family and non‐family managers are usually positive. Commitment to the business from the family and strong support from the CEO are identified as making the CFO's job easier. Conflict with external accountants appears to be minimised as external accountants usually focus on the management of personal financial affairs and taxation issues while the CFO focuses on business financial management.

The sample is Australian and relatively small.

The contribution of the CFO will be optimised by giving them the opportunity to move out of the “bean counter” role to a more strategic financial management position.

There is limited empirical evidence relating to the role of the CFO in the family business.

With strategy-as-practice theory the authors explore successful business-owning families hand-over of roles to the next generation. The authors argue for the usefulness of strategy-as-practice theory in exploring the complexity and plurality of best practices in intergenerational hand-over. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A cross-cultural in-depth case study with best practice cases from China, Germany, Sweden, England, Tanzania, Israel and the USA, based on in-depth interviews of family members and non-family employees.

The authors identified three different succession patterns: a “monolithic practice,” a distributed leadership hand-over, and active ownership with a non-family managing director/CEO. Two other types of hand-over practices were categorized as incubator patterns that formed a part of, or replaced, what we traditionally see as a hand-over of roles. Families would switch between these practices.

Surprisingly, a monolithic succession practice (a one-company-one-leadership role) was rarely used. Quantitative and qualitative research should consider, as should advisors to family owners and family businesses, the plurality of succession practices. Education should explore a variation of succession and how the dynamic of gender influences the process.

Giving practitioners, such as research and practitioner, an overview of strategic options so as to explore these in a client or research case.

Adding the notions that the family is an incubator for new entrepreneurship makes it possible to show how not only sector or public policy generate new ventures. That family as source of entrepreneurship has been well established in the field but it mainstream policy thinking the family is not seen as such a source.

The paper offers an integrative model of the complexity of hand-over practices of ownership and leadership roles. It shows how these practices are fundamental for understanding how a family’s ownership and their leadership of businesses and new entrepreneurship develops.

This 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.

The 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.

Using 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.

Family 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.

Understanding 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.

The 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.

This 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.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the impact of family ownership on the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of firms in an emerging market and the contingencies under which it is likely to be affected.

The paper adopted a panel data multiple regression using ordinary least square methodology on a sample of 51,972 observations belonging to 12,250 firms from India.

The study finds that family businesses have higher EO than non-family firms. However, it is likely to be affected during institutional transition due to environmental uncertainty. Furthermore, during institutional transition, there will be differences in the EO of family business groups and stand-alone family firms due to the former’s ubiquitous network-level resource advantages.

This paper contributes to the literature on family business by reconciling the positive and negative views on the effect of family ownership on EO by arguing that the risk-taking behavior of family firms is contingent on the environmental conditions and the resource position of the firm.

This study will enable managers and other stakeholders to predict the entrepreneurial attitude of family-owned firms during environmentally stable as well as turbulent times.

This study highlights the implication of institutional transition through reforms on a vital part of the economy. Policy makers have to be sensitive to repercussions on family business due to environmental turbulence.

This is one of the first papers that investigate the influence of institutional transition and the resource position of Indian family firms on their EO.