A Reflection by David Jiang on “More Than Meets the Eye”

[We’re pleased to welcome authors David S. Jiang of Georgia Southern University, Franz W. Kellermans of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Timothy P. Munyon of the  University of Tennessee, and M. Lane Morris of the University of Tennessee. They recently published an article in the Family Business Review entitled “More Than Meets the Eye: A Review and Future Directions for the Social Psychology of Socioemotional Wealth,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Jiang reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

fbra_30_2.coverThis research is based on the first author’s dissertation, which is a winner of the Family Firm Institute’s 2017 Best Dissertation Award. The article reviews 421 papers published across 25 journals during the past decade to propose new directions for the social psychology of socioemotional wealth (SEW), which is a popular concept and theoretical perspective in the family business literature that deals with the nonpecuniary benefits that family members derive from control over their family firm.

What motivated you to pursue this research?
SEW research has helped significantly advance the family business literature since Luis Gomez-Mejia and colleagues first introduced SEW in 2007. However, although SEW research has already done a lot for the literature, we also believe that it can do so much more. Motivated by these beliefs, we originally spent 2 years (2014-2015) in the review process at the Academy of Management Review (AMR) trying to outline the emotional aspects of SEW, only to have our work rejected in the last round on a split editorial team decision. After this rejection, we realized that what we really needed to do was review the SEW literature in ways that would first establish a foundation to understand the many psychological phenomena that fit within SEW research. This is why we are thrilled to have our work on this subject published in Family Business Review (FBR) – a high-quality outlet that can help further the psychological understanding of various SEW phenomena and outcomes.

What has been the most challenging aspect of conducting your research?
We think that the most challenging aspects probably came from the review process. We were trying to say something that was connected to but very different from what existing SEW research has already said and/or done. Naturally, it’s often difficult to seamlessly communicate novel ideas in ways that reviewers will immediately understand with a first draft. Recognizing this, after we received feedback from the first round of FBR reviews, we realized that we had to extensively change our analytical strategy and approach in order to be as comprehensive as possible. This way, we could address the reviewers’ many concerns while still maintaining our core message and contributions. Although our original submission to FBR reviewed 41 SEW articles, as can be seen in the published article, our final sample included 421 articles. Altogether, it was extremely challenging to increase the review’s scope by more than ten-fold in a 3-month revision window! Needless to say, the first author spent a lot of late nights culling through the expansive SEW literature to create an action plan that utilized the authorship team’s collective strengths and expertise.

How do you think your research will impact the field?
It is difficult to tell at first but we hope that our article will ultimately help build stronger family firm microfoundations. We think there are a lot of novel directions that SEW and broader family firm research could go from here and hope that other scholars will agree and join us in these pursuits!

 

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Family Business Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Family Constitution and Business Performance: Moderating Factors

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Rocio Arteaga and Susana Menéndez-Requejo of the University of Oviedo, Spain. They recently published an article in the Family Business Review entitled “Family Constitution and Business Performance: Moderating Factors,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reflect on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

fbra_30_2.cover

What motivated you to pursue this research?

Family Constitution is a relevant instrument that is used in practice for facilitating the continuity of family businesses. Nevertheless few academic studies have studied Family Protocols, due to the difficulty in obtaining pertinent information at both the aggregate and company levels.

However, Spain is characterized by an above-average implementation of Family Protocols and the prominent development of institutions that are linked to family businesses. The Family Business Institute of Spain (www.iefamiliar.com) is an important international leader regarding initiatives such as the Network of Family Business Chairs that exists throughout the Spanish university system and the Family Business Regional Associations that are present and active in every region in Spain.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

We performed in-depth interviews with expert consultants who specialize in Family Constitutions to grasp primary components of a Family Constitutions. We have also analyzed a unique sample of 530 Spanish family businesses. Half of these firms received financial aid from the government to implement a Family Protocol during 2003-2013.

We present possible explanations to expect a positive relationship between Family Constitutions and future firm performance, primarily linked to its ability to reduce conflicts among family, shareholders and managers. We specifically explore the improvement in monitoring managers and firm professionalization, the improved alignment between firm owners that shareholder agreements entail, and the communication and transparency between family members that Family Constitutions foster.

We expect that this research promotes that business families engage in the complex and lengthy communication and agreements process of Family Constitutions with determination. Even during times of economic crisis, we observed that companies that had implemented a Family Protocol reported higher levels of firm performance growth.

We also expect that this article encourages family firm scholars to develop future studies regarding the topic of Family Constitutions.

What did not make it into your published manuscript that you would like to share with us?

A Family Protocol is the result of a process of communication and agreements among owners of a family business that are collated in a written document that includes a set of rules and procedures for governing family business relationships and is signed and ratified by each family member.
Family Constitutions address the firm history, the future vision of the family firm, include norms and rules for family members regarding their incorporation into the business, succession planning, shareholder agreements (transfer of shares, dividends, firm valuation), and develop power structures in the firm and the family in regard to the company (Board of Directors, Family Council). Protocols improve and channel communication, information (also prior to decision-making) and transparency among family members who are in some manner linked to the firm and guide future generations. Family Constitutions contribute to improving the coexistence and cohesion of family generations that are linked to the firm.

We observe that family businesses that implemented a Family Constitution had significantly improved performance within 2 years after the implementation. This positive relationship between the implementation of a Family Constitution and future firm performance is stronger for firms that had a nonfamily CEO, had multiple family owners, or were controlled by later generations.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Family Business Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Is It Better to Govern Managers Via Agency or Stewardship?

[We’re pleased to welcome author Albert E. James of Dalhousie University, Canada. James recently published an article in the Family Business Review entitled “Is It Better to Govern Managers via Agency or Stewardship? Examining Asymmetries by Family Versus Nonfamily Affiliation,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, James reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

fbra_30_2.coverThe research is based upon the first author’s dissertation. It is the result of his effort to understand the many different behaviours and outcomes that he witnessed during his 20-year career working as a non-family employee for various family firms—particularly his desire to understand why and how some families’ businesses seem to be more successful than others. It is also the result of a PhD supervisor’s determination to see her student succeed as an academic and her willingness to let him follow his passion and research questions.

The most challenging aspect of this process has been finding the way to tell the story of the research project. What is published here is the result of many re-writes, iterations, and direction changes. It was challenging to adapt concepts and measures to the particularities of the family business field. And it was challenging to make full use of the reviewers’ and editor’s advice. All in all, though, the challenges were an opportunity for a new academic to learn many things about rigorous research and publishing. Without the patient work, extensive knowledge and leadership of the co-authors, none of the challenges would have been overcome.

One of the study’s most surprising findings is the high level of positive work outcomes exhibited by both the family and non-family managers in the sample. Sometimes family business managers—of either type—are portrayed with at least a hint of negativity. Those in our sample, however, tended to score highly on behaviours and attitudes that are normally considered beneficial to organizations (i.e., job performance, organizational identification and affective commitment). As for the anticipated impact of our research, we hope that it will become known for providing empirical evidence that challenges commonly held assumptions regarding the attitudes and behaviours exhibited by non-family versus family managers and the mechanisms by which each group should be governed.

The advice I would give new scholars is to be willing to re-work the story you wanted to tell to your chosen audience. No matter how interesting you believe your research to be, you have to be willing to find the right way to tell the story. You need to tell the story in a way that fits your audience’s conversations. It is not easy to let go of parts of your research that were highly motivational for you. As hard as it is upon a first read, don’t take the reviewer and editor comments personally. Instead, take your time with the comments, let your reactions cool, and then find the nuggets and gems within them. Don’t be afraid to ask for help. This research started off as a study of non-family manager turnover intentions and became a story of the governance mechanisms used in family businesses. It is important to keep your eye on your end goal. If you can’t tell the entire story this time around, tell what you can, save the rest, add what you learned from the current round, and mix it into your next project.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Family Business Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers

Get the latest insight on what editors are looking for in your submitted manuscript! SAGE Publishing is proud to feature the latest editorial from Family Business Review, entitled, “The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers.” This editorial is co-authored by James J. Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma and Jess Chua, and is currently free to read for a limited time.

Below, please find an excerpt from the editorial, shedding light on the necessary steps an author must face when preparing a manuscript that stands out:

The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.

Click here to read the full article. Don’t forget to sign up to receive email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Family Business Review!

Introducing the Editor-Elect for Family Business Review

We are excited to announce the new incoming editor for Family Business Review, Dr. Tyge Payne. Dr. Payne graciously provided some information regarding his education, career, and experience in the management field:

Dr. Payne is the Georgie G. Snyder Professor of Strategic Management and a Jerry S. Rawls Professor at Texas Tech University (TTU). He returned to TTU in 2006 after four years as an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management and an MBA, both from Texas Tech University. He also has a BS in PharmaPayne_RCOB_1.jpgcy from Southwestern Oklahoma State University and has been a registered pharmacist since 1994. Dr. Payne’s research interests include configurations, family business, organizational ethics, multi-level methods, social capital, and venture capitalism. He has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed publications, which appear in such outlets as Business Ethics Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP), Family Business Review (FBR), Group & Organization Management, Health Care Management Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management (JoM), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Organizational Research Methods, Organization Science, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ), among others.

Dr. Payne is currently an Associate Editor (AE) for FBR and was recently selected to take over FBR as Editor-in-Chief beginning on January 1, 2018.  This appointment follows extensive editing experience including serving four years as AE at FBR and as a Special Issue Editor on various topics, including 1) Social Capital and Entrepreneurship (2013) in ETP, 2) Process and Variance Methods in Family Business Research (2017) for FBR, 3) Reviews on Family Business (2018) for FBR, and 4) Market Entry: The Who, Where, What, How and When (2018) for the JMS.

Family Business Review  provides a scholarly forum to publish conceptual, theoretical and empirical research aimed to advance the understanding of family enterprise around the world. FBR publishes insightful articles that address issues at the interface of family and business systems. It is not tied to any particular discipline, methods, or topFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgics.

Published since 1988, Family Business Review is an SSCI listed refereed journal devoted exclusively to exploration of the dynamics of family enterprise. Its interdisciplinary forum captures the insights of professions from diverse fields such as accounting, behavioral sciences, entrepreneurship, finance, management, family business and family wealth consulting, law and public policy.

 

Don’t miss the latest research from FBR, and sign up for email alerts through the homepage here

Family Firms and the Impact of Incentive Compensation

[We’re pleased to welcome authors James Chrisman of Mississippi State University, Srikant Devaraj of Ball State University, and Pankaj Patel of Villanova University. They recently published an article in Family Business Review entitled “The Impact of Incentive Compensation on Labor Productivity in Family and Nonfamily Firms.” From Chrisman, Devaraj, and Patel:]

 Family firms are thought to face a managerial capacity constraint owing to the preference of hFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgigh-ability job candidates from outside the family to seek employment with non-family firms, which usually offer higher compensation and more lucrative career opportunities. In our paper, we theorize that incentive compensation can ease this constraint by signaling the attractiveness of working in family firms, thereby increasing the average ability of a family firm’s workforce. We therefore hypothesize that incentive compensation will reduce the productivity gap between family firms and non-family firms.

We are interested in this topic because much of the focus in the literature on non-family employees in family firms deals with issues associated with alignment of interests after workers have been hired. Few studies deal with the pre-employment problem of adverse selection, which is primarily (but not entirely) an issue of worker ability rather than worker effort. We also wanted to emphasize that if job candidates seek employment with firms that are compatible with their self-interest, adverse selection can exist even in the absence of an opportunistic pursuit of self-interest (or in the presence of stewardship motives).

Bounded rationality and information asymmetry make judging the ability of potential employees difficult for the owner-managers of both family firms and non-family firms (and even for the potential employees themselves). However, when the labor pool available to family firms becomes attenuated because high-ability workers self-sort according to a preference to work in non-family firms, the adverse selection problem facing family owner-managers becomes even greater.

Incentive compensation will be more valuable for high-ability job candidates than it will for low-ability job candidates because the former are most likely to benefit from it. Thus, incentive compensation signals performance will be rewarded, which may help alleviate the adverse selection problem facing family firms. Our empirical analysis of a matched sample of over 200,000 small and medium-sized firms obtained from a U.S. Census survey supports our contentions. Findings indicate that the productivity of family firms that provide incentive compensation increases at a greater rate than the productivity of non-family firms that provide incentive compensation (compared, respectively, with family and non-family firms that do not offer incentive compensation).

We hope that our paper will inspire further work on the adverse selection problem facing family firms. We also hope that our paper will lead researchers to focus more on how bounded rationality and information asymmetry, rather than simply opportunism or the lack thereof, influences the behavior and performance of non-family employees in family versus non-family firms.  In this respect, we suggest that the presence of bounded rationality and information asymmetry make incentive compensation and monitoring valuable tools in family firms regardless of the composition or proclivities to behave opportunistically of the workforce.

Sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research. 

Small Family Firms: How Knowledge is Shared

One could imagine that every small family firm has their particular habits when knowledge sharing, especially when the success (or failure) of the business relies on effective communication.

A recent study published in Family Business Review analyzes the different leadership approaches to knowledge sharing, and we are pleased to welcome one of the authors, James Cunningham, who reflects on the foundation and findings of the research. The paper, entitled “Perceptions of Knowledge Sharing Amongst Small Family Firm Leaders–A Structural Equation Model,” is co-authored by Claire Seaman and David McGuire. From Cunningham:]

Family firms are known for the unique ways in which they view and run their business. This has led many to believe that firms with a family influence behave differeFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgntly to their non-family counterparts. While a lot of research focuses on the many implications of this difference for the economic impact family firms, in terms of strategi
c direction, longevity, etc., we were more curious to know how the influence of family impacts what it is like inside the firm.

In this respect, knowledge is increasingly becoming the most important internal resource for a competitive organisation in the contemporary business environment. Integrating and exploiting the knowledge of people in the business has become one of the key activities of the modern business leader. The impact of leadership on how the firm manages knowledge is long established in the broader management literature, but our instincts would tell us that family firms will have their own way of approaching and managing knowledge. In this article, we uncover the different leadership behaviours played out in small family firms and how these behaviours are related to the leader’s perception of knowledge sharing in the firm. Essentially, we ask the question, does family influence help or hinder the development of a knowledge resource?

Unsurprisingly, we found a variety of leadership behaviours employed by family firm leaders. We present a choice in how the family firm views its knowledge resource. We suggest that a greater level of family influence implies more guidance-based leadership when it comes to knowledge. Knowledge here is considered a quality the family leaders have, which must be ‘distilled’ to other organisational members. While, the alternative is a participative approach to knowledge in the firm, one more accepting of input from others, but with the potential to reduce family control.

This choice of leadership approach is important for family business leaders to consider, as there are important implications for the development of their knowledge resource. We see these findings as part of a research direction which moves away from viewing family firms as a homogenous group, subject to the overbearing influence of family. Instead, we present the behaviours inside these organisation as choices, and these choices at the most basic level represent the business intentions of family firm leaders.

Never miss new research published from FBR; sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage.