Search results

Nonfamily farms are responsible for a disproportionate amount of US agriculture production. The importance of these operations to the volume of agriculture production in the United States has led researchers and policymakers to understand nonfamily farms as large commercial operations. This paper examines whether the distinction between family and nonfamily helps explain the financial outcomes of farm operations and households.

We test for differences in financial outcomes of the household and operations of family and nonfamily farms using an Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. We compare these results to a decomposition of other possible typologies.

We present evidence that nonfamily farms are a heterogeneous group with a majority of small operations that are dominated by a small number of large operations. We discover that differences associated with the family-nonfamily distinction are largely explained by observable farm and operator characteristics that arise mechanically from the definition. However, we find suggestive evidence that family-nonfamily classification captures differences in economic behavior that lead to higher profitability measures to nonfamily farms. We find little evidence of any inherent structural differences between family and nonfamily farms that helps explain financial outcomes related to leverage or household finances.

We conclude that including nonfamily farms in official statistics of farm households may provide a more comprehensive overview of the farm sector, as our results suggest that family and nonfamily farms do not have innate differences that help explain many of their financial outcomes.

We incorporate previously unused data on nonfamily farm households and test the difference in mean financial outcomes between family and nonfamily farms.

The purpose of this paper is to identify different types of resource and capability configurations among Hungarian family and nonfamily firms and explore which compositions can be considered competitive. In a rivalrous, dynamic world, understanding which sets of resources and capabilities lead to a higher level of competitiveness is vital.

This paper is based on a quantitative competitiveness survey carried out between November 2018 and July 2019 in Hungary. The authors used the Firm Competitiveness Index (FCI) to measure competitiveness and the resource-based view (RBV) approach to understand which configurations of resources and capabilities are responsible for a higher level of competitiveness based on 32 variables. An exploratory factor and cluster analysis were conducted to analyze the ownership's effect on firm competitiveness. The final sample size contained 111 companies, of which 53 were identified as family and 58 as nonfamily firms.

Factor analysis reveals five factors determining resources and capabilities: “operational,” “leadership,” “knowledge management,” “transformation” and “networking.” Based on these factors, the cluster analysis identified five groups in terms of types of family and nonfamily firms: “Lagging capabilities,” “Knowledge-based leadership,” “Innovativeness and transformation-oriented management,” “Relationship-oriented management” and “Business operation-oriented management.” Results show that nonfamily businesses focus on operational and leadership capabilities, reaching a higher FCI than family businesses, which are likely to invest more in their networking, transformation and knowledge management capabilities.

By defining the different configurations family and nonfamily firms rely on to reach competitiveness, the paper applies an essential element to the Hungarian and Middle Eastern European contexts of family business research. The findings contribute to developing family business literature and point out specific resources and capabilities family firms should focus on to shift toward reaching a higher level of professionalization and competitiveness. The characterization of different types of competitiveness comparing family and nonfamily firms enables the firms to assess customized implications.

The role of family business staffing practices in their ultimate success remains largely unknown. The purpose of this paper is to test the notion that firms with greater family essence manifest their commitment by leveraging referrals as a recruitment source, which in turn is associated with higher performance. The hypothesized model posits that reduced agency costs from hiring through owner referral utilization (ORU) provide high-family essence firms with stronger performance.

The study draws upon a sample of 194 small and medium-sized family business owners.

Findings from OLS regression and the PROCESS model in SPSS support the hypothesis that recruiting nonfamily employees from referrals helps lessen agency conflicts and serves as an intervening mechanism in the relationship between family firm essence and firm performance.

This study draws on agency theory to shed light on how family firms successfully bring nonfamily employees into the fold despite their human resource limitations. The results extend theory on family businesses by demonstrating that those with higher degrees of family essence are more likely to attract applicants via ORU. Leveraging this recruiting practice allows family businesses to hire nonfamily employees who share the values and goals of the family firm, thus lowering agency costs and fostering higher performance. More broadly, the findings offer insight into the role of staffing practices in family firm success.

This study investigates whether broad-based employee ownership (BBEO), in isolation and in conjunction with cash profit sharing (CPS), can enhance labor productivity in family firms over nonfamily firms.

Hypothesis testing was conducted using cross-sectional time-series regression with a matched sample of 393 family and nonfamily firms listed on the US S&P 500 over a five-year timeframe.

Overall, the findings indicate that BBEO does not increase labor productivity more in family firms compared to nonfamily firms in the short term; however, BBEO does enable family firms to experience greater labor productivity relative to nonfamily firms beyond the short term. Moreover, when BBEO is combined with CPS, labor productivity improves more for family firms than nonfamily firms both in the short term and beyond.

While prior studies have relied largely on agency theory, this study contributes to the literature on family firms and employee incentives by being amongst the first to draw upon temporal motivation theory to distinguish between family and nonfamily firms regarding the incentive effect of BBEO on labor productivity.

The phenomenon of defamilization of family firms is gradually increasing for the growth of family firms, that is, nonfamily executives are increasingly present in the executive teams of family firms. Although previous scholars have identified various determinants of family firms' defamilization, whether and when innovation underperformance affects the decision to defamilize family firms has not been explore. This study aims to fill the aforementioned research gaps.

This study empirically tests the theoretical view based on the data of Chinese A-share family listed companies from 2009 to 2017.

The authors found that innovation underperformance drives family companies to increase the percentage of nonfamily executives in their executive teams. Further, the authors found that family firms are less willing to hire nonfamily executives with an increase in socioemotional wealth, particularly when founders of such businesses serve as directors or are major shareholders, even when they are not directors.

This study shows that innovation underperformance and socioemotional wealth are important predictors of family firms’ defamilization decisions.

As family and nonfamily businesses differ in how they do business, the focus of this manuscript is on understanding how strategy-level models can be misinterpreted if family involvement is not considered. Thus, in this manuscript, the focus is on understanding the extent to which strategic orientations (market orientation and technology orientation, which reflect strategic approach), strategic performance metric focus (financial-based, optimization-based and market-based, which reflect strategy evaluations) and strategic audacity (which reflects boldness in envisioning and delivering strategic outcomes) play a role in driving firm performance – in family businesses vs nonfamily businesses. Understanding how these drivers impact performance differently in family vs nonfamily businesses enables companies to better direct their strategic efforts.

After presenting theoretical concepts, authors use regression analysis on a sample of companies in a developing European Union (EU) country (n = 282) to evaluate the impact of strategic orientation, strategic performance metric focus and strategic audacity on firm performance separately in three samples: the full sample (consisting of both family and nonfamily-owned firms), sample of family businesses and the sample of nonfamily businesses.

The role of strategic orientation, strategic audacity and focal goals in driving firm performance differs depending on the company type (family vs nonfamily). In the case of nonfamily businesses, strategic audacity and technology orientation with the focus on efficiencies and markets are driving firm performance. In the case of family businesses, both market and technology orientation are important drivers of performance; the focus on financial and market indicators of performance is positively impacting performance, while the focus on efficiency indicators is diminishing the performance of family businesses. Thus, results show that of the performance drivers for family businesses, some are insignificant (strategic audacity), while some even have a negative impact (focus on optimization-based measures of performance) on family businesses' performance. Moreover, results show that some of the drivers of performance in case of family businesses (market orientation and focus on financial-based measures of performance) are not drivers of outstanding performance in the case of nonfamily businesses.

Best practices differ for family vs nonfamily businesses. In case of family businesses, comparing them to nonfamily businesses, market orientation and the focus on financial-based measures of performance have a greater impact on firm performance, while, at the same time, family businesses should refrain focusing on pursuing optimization-based measures of performance as such pursuit drives down their performance. Understanding the drivers of performance specific to family businesses will enable such firms to better navigate contexts characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty.

The manuscript evaluates how models, generally researched in the overall firm metrics, differ between family businesses and nonfamily businesses, thus delivering new insights into the important marketing concepts.

Since non‐family employees form a large portion of employees in many family firms and they play an important role in the transgenerational survival of those firms, the purpose of this paper is to explore how family influence factors affect non‐family employees' organizational identification and then organizational attachment, which can consequently influence their turnover intentions.

In this conceptual paper, the paper attempts to answer two important research questions: What are the family firm‐specific determinants of nonfamily employees' organizational identification in family firms? How does nonfamily employees' organizational identification affect their tenure in family firms? Thereby, the paper develops a conceptual model linking family influence dimensions (i.e. power, experience, and culture), nonfamily employees' organizational identification, organizational attachment, and turnover intentions within the domain of the stewardship theory.

The model presented in this paper can help scholars and family business managers better understand the idiosyncratic family influence dimensions that can affect nonfamily employees' perceptions and intentions associated with their tenure in family firms. If family firms can limit the negative effects of family influence factors, make the best use of the positive effects, and integrate key nonfamily employees into the family firm through helping them satisfy their higher‐order needs, they can uninterruptedly move forward toward achieving long‐term competitive advantages and superior performance.

Aside from the antecedents of nonfamily employees' organizational identification that are pointed out in this paper, there may be other determinants that are beyond the scope of this paper. The governance structure and strategic orientations are some of the possibilities constituting avenues for future research.

Family firms with great employee care cannot only increase employees' loyalty to their firms, but also help them develop work‐life balance.

This paper is one of the only attempts to use social identity theory to explain non‐family employees' organizational identification and attachment in family firms that can affect their turnover intentions. Not only does this add to our knowledge of family firm human resources management and provide new directions for future research, but it also suggests the usefulness of social identity theory in family business research.

The purpose of this study seeks to examine how nonfamily employees' job autonomy and work passion can influence their job satisfaction and intention to quit in family small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Current, research regarding the determinants of nonfamily employees' job satisfaction and turnover intentions has largely focused on the effects of family influence and family firm characteristics. Accordingly, not much is known of how the job characteristics and emotions of nonfamily employees influence their job satisfaction and intention to quit.

Data were collected from 160 nonfamily employees across 28 family-SMEs. Process macro was used to analyze the mediating role of nonfamily employees' work passion in the relationship between their job autonomy and job satisfaction and intention to quit.

Findings showed that nonfamily employees' job autonomy only had a significant direct effects on their job satisfaction and not their intention to quit. Subsequently, nonfamily employees' work passion was found to only partially mediate the relationship between their job autonomy and job satisfaction.

By focusing on the concepts of job autonomy and work passion, the study adds additional insights about the drivers of nonfamily employees' pro-organizational attitudes in family-SMEs. Also the study represents one of the first efforts in the literature to establish a link between job autonomy and the work passion of nonfamily employees with respect to their job satisfaction.

This study investigates the influence of inclusion of nonfamily employees in family firms on their intellectual, social and affective engagement at the workplace. Furthermore, the framework proposed in the study considers the possible moderating influence of procedural justice in the above relationships.

A conceptual framework is developed with the support of the self-determination theory (SDT) and the social exchange theory. The study tests a set of hypotheses using survey data from 654 nonfamily employees working in private family firms in Malaysia.

The results reveal that inclusion has a positive and significant relationship with intellectual, social and affective engagement. While procedural justice moderates the association between inclusion and intellectual and affective engagement, it does not moderate the relationship between inclusion and social engagement.

The outcome of this study presents a nuanced understanding on how perceptions of inclusion of nonfamily employees by the dominant work group (DWG) (i.e. employees related to the firm owners) lead to positive firm-centric behavior among nonfamily employees.

The study provides clues to family firm managers for creating a work environment where nonfamily employees perceive a sense of belongingness while their uniqueness is appreciated in order to be more engaged at the workplace.

Little is known about how diversity created within family firms by inclusion of nonfamily employees impacts organizations. The outcome of this study may reinforce the positive effects of inclusiveness in any social context.

Diversity researchers have studied the influence of inclusion in areas related to sociology and psychology. However, there appears to be a dearth of studies in terms of how nonfamily employees would behave in family firms when they perceive a sense of inclusion in an organization dominated by employees who are related to the owners of the firm. Hence, this study appears to shed new light on how inclusion of nonfamily employees in family firms influences their behavior.

For family businesses, familiness constitutes a unique bundle of resources and capabilities resulting from family relationships and influences. The extant literature has shown that familiness impacts organizational outcomes such as performance and innovation. This paper investigates the role of familiness in relation to absorptive capacity (ACAP). It also explores the specificities of nonfamily members’ social capital when different knowledge management (KM) approaches are adopted.

An exploratory comparative case study design is adopted. Data from three family firms based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) provide the empirical setting for this study. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews, available documents, observations and company websites.

Our results reveal that the role of familiness in relation to ACAP varies according to the adopted KM approach. Familiness targets the potential ACAP when an explicit KM approach is adopted, the realized ACAP when a tacit KM approach is adopted, and both potential and realized ACAPs when a strategic KM approach is adopted. Our results also show that family firms invest in KM processes that support knowledge exploration and/or exploitation.

This paper provides further evidence for the role of familiness. It moves beyond the study of familiness from a resource-based view and adopts a knowledge-based perspective to develop a better understanding of the role of familiness in relation to ACAP. It also improves our understanding of nonfamily members’ social capital in family firms.