Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Family Firms
Torsten M. Pieper, Sabine B. Klein
The purpose of this article is to develop a model of family business that accounts for the
unique characteristics and diversity of family businesses and addresses the dynamics
among family business subsystems. An open-systems approach serves as the conceptual
foundation of the model. The distinctive features of the proposed model are the multiple
levels of analysis and the dynamics and interdependencies among the subsystems, allowing the integration of mainstream theories. The model can serve to discover and explore
a relevant research question in the context of family business, which may help researchers
advance theory building on family business. Furthermore, the model may help family
business practitioners better understand the particularities of family rms.
Introduction
The family business eld is not only advancing
rapidly but is also constantly gaining relevance
within and beyond the business research eld. As
in any unknown and fast-changing area, navigating without a roadmap results in losing your way.
A guiding framework can help to effectively and
efciently reach the nal destination. In the family
business eld, many useful and important models
have been developed to structure and explain the
complex intersection of the family and the business. However, a holistic model able to illustrate
the interrelations between family business components at various levels of analysis is lacking.
Such a family business research roadmap may
contribute to advancing the family business eld
by enhancing the structure and design of theorybuilding research questions.
So far, models developed to explain family businesses are partial in that they exclude essential
family business dimensions and ignore important
relationships among subsystems that may inuence family business behavior. In addition, most
FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW, vol. XX, no. 4, December 2007 Family Firm Institute, Inc.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
301
Pieper, Klein
302
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Stage 3: Complex and specific models. During the last decade, family business academics
have established models of family business that
integrate different mainstream theories and allow
for an analysis of the distinctions between family
and nonfamily rms as well as among family rms
of different types (Chrisman et al., 2005; Sharma,
2004).
A main characteristic of the models from this
stage is the closed-systems approach. The only
exceptions are Carlock and Ward (2001) and Habbershon and Pistrui (2002). Although the earlier
models within this stage ignore the ownership
and the management subsystems (Habbershon &
Williams, 1999; Hollander & Elman, 1988; Hoy &
Verser, 1994; Stafford, Duncan, Danes, & Winter,
1999; Wortman, 1994), the subsequent models
add these two subsystems to their observations
(Carlock & Ward, 2001; Habbershon & Pistrui,
2002; Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). Only 4
of the 10 complex and specic models integrate
the individual in varying roles (Carlock & Ward,
2001; Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Habbershon,
Williams, & MacMillan, 2003; Hollander & Elman,
1988).
303
Pieper, Klein
Model Building
The Open-Systems Approach
The ultimate goal in family business research is
the development of a distinct theory on family
rms (Chrisman et al., 2005). As the above
summary mentions, an open-systems approach
may be particularly useful in combining the
various elements of a family business, thereby
potentially testing such a theory. The opensystems view (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Rousseau, 1979)
proposes that the organization is a system
composed of numerous subsystems, but the
organization is also a subsystem within a much
broader, complex economic and cultural system
(Naumann & Lincoln, 1989, p. 152).
An open-systems approach allows for the analysis at different subsystem levels (Ashmos & Huber,
1987) and acknowledges interactions among the
subsystems in different directions of inuence,
such as feedback loops. Open systems are therefore especially useful for research designs that
recognize time delays (Woodside, 2006) or cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980). Furthermore,
an open-systems approach integrates the human
element in the analysis (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1992),
which current research on family rms tends to
neglect (Zahra et al., 2006). Unlike closed systems,
open systems incorporate the potential interactions between the organization and the broader
304
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Definition of Subsystem
Frequently Mentioned
Variables
Dimensions
Environment
Pieper, Klein
306
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Any of the subsystems at the group or organizational level consists of individuals (Riordan &
Riordan, 1993). Thus, the individual represents the
basic level of analysis (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1992).
Yet too often research on family business omits the
human element. Since the individual is pivotal to
Pieper, Klein
Level of Analysis
Environment
Family Business
Family System
Ownership
System
Subsystem
Family System
Management
System
Ownership
System
Business
System
Management
System
Business
System
Individual
Figure 1 The Multiple Levels of Analysis of the Open-Systems Family Business Approach.
308
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Family Business
System
Family
System
Individual
Management
System
Ownership
System
Environmental
System
Business
System
Conclusion
According to Chrisman et al., the ultimate goal of
family business research is the development of a
theory of the family rm: A starting point for
achieving this objective is to examine whether and
how current theories of the rm can be applied
and combined to study family businesses (2005,
pp. 566567). The proposed model attempts to
guide research in this direction. The openness
and exibility of the systems approach allow the
researcher to integrate multiple mainstream theories that t to the particular research context. The
benet of this procedure is that mainstream theories can explain family business phenomena (and,
in the long run, help develop a distinct theory of
the family rm). At the same time, the model
allows to give back to mainstream theories (Zahra
& Sharma, 2004) by investigating their validity in
the research context of family businesses and,
hence, extending their applicability (Chrisman
et al., 2005).
By looking at theories that explain parts of the
phenomenon under question and by integrating
evidence from eld observations, the researcher
can use the model for nding an interesting and
relevant research question. By clarifying the different levels and units of analysis, the model also
helps the researcher to keep the level of analysis constant in further empirical and theoretical
explorations. In addition, the model acknowledges
the nonparallel development of the subsystems.
On the theoretical side, the model contributes
to a more unied and holistic view of the family
business eld (Zahra et al., 2006). It helps to
further improve the strength of the eld through
the integration of the necessary but large variety
of concepts that are relevant for a better understanding of family businesses. The application of
the model can assist the researcher in integrating
these different concepts in a coherent way and
help him or her to better describe and explain
family business reality. Family business practitioners and advisors can use the model to analyze the
interactions in order to disentangle complex situations and, in turn, nd and inuence the antecedents of either wanted or unwanted outcomes.
Family business teachers could apply the model
in order to structure courses and integrate
colleagues from related elds in order to grasp the
full potential of their classes.
Like previous models, the model proposed here
has some limitations that, at the same time, indicate promising routes for further research. The
proposed model needs further evaluation and
application in order to fully develop its capabilities. One of the dangers associated with the model
is the rising level of complexity. Due to a lack of
experience from applying it, no suggestions are
possible regarding the optimal number of theories
309
Pieper, Klein
Barnes and
Family, business,
Hershon (1976) individuals (family
managers,
employees,
relatives,
outsiders)
Beckhard and
Dyer (1983)
Family, business,
founder, linking
organizations
(e.g., board of
directors), business
environment
310
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Appendix A: (continued)
Author(s)
Carlock and
Ward (2001)
Family,
organization,
management,
ownership,
industry, market,
individual,
environment
Service providers,
family members
Churchill and
Hatten (1987)
Family, business,
ownership,
management,
individual
Academics
Danes et al.
(2002)
Family, business
Academics, service Study applies and tests three elements of the FIRO
providers
model in the family firm context, namely inclusion,
control, and integration. Inclusion refers to who is
included in the family firm, the connectedness of
the members, and the shared meaning of how the
members perceive themselves in relation to the
outside world. Control means the family interactions
in terms of exerting power and influence during
conflict. Integration concerns the interactions of
family members when working together to achieve
the family business goals. The authors find that a
sense of inclusion and a collaborative control management style positively influence family business
integration.
Davis (1983)
Family, business
Academics
311
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Pieper, Klein
Appendix A: (continued)
Author(s)
Donckels and
Frhlich (1991)
Family, business,
Academics
founder-ownermanager,
management,
equity, family
business-culture,
environment-culture
Gersick et al.
(1997)
Family, business,
ownership,
developmental
axes
Habbershon
and Pistrui
(2002)
Family, business,
leadership,
ownership
Academics
Habbershon
and Williams
(1999)
Family, business,
individual,
familiness
Academics
312
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Appendix A: (continued)
Author(s)
Habbershon
et al. (2003)
Family, business,
individual,
familiness
Academics
Hollander and
Elman (1988)
Family, business,
individual,
environment
Academics
Academics
Kepner (1983)
Family, business
Academics
Klein et al.
(2005) and
Astrachan
et al. (2002)
Power, experience,
culture
313
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Pieper, Klein
Appendix A: (continued)
Author(s)
Lansberg
(1983)
Family, business,
founder ownership
Academics
Lansberg
(1988)
Family, business,
founder,
managers, owners,
environment
Neubauer and
Lank (1998)
Family, business
(management and
employees), board
of directors, owner
Stafford et al.
(1999)
Family, business,
environment
Academics
Tagiuri and
Davis (1996)
Family, (business),
management,
ownership
Service providers,
family members
Ward (1988,
1991) in
Neubauer and
Lank (1998,
p. 37)
Family, business,
business owner,
ownership,
management
314
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Appendix A: (continued)
Author(s)
Whiteside and
Herz-Brown
(1991)
Family, business
Academics
Wortman
(1994)
Family, business,
environment
Academics
The literature review was conducted as follows. We first ran an analysis of several key words (family business, family
firm, privately held firm combined with model, scheme) at a literature databank comprising more than 35,581
recent (19902007) articles from journals important to the family business field (FBR, ET&P, JSBM, JBV) and
mainstream journals (AMJ, AMR, ASQ, SMJ a.o.). From the retrieved papers that discuss or employ models, we
tracked the quoted literature that was not already included in our list.
315
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Year
1980
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
1991
1976
1987
1988
1988
1991
1991
1997
1998
1988
1994
1994
1999
1999
2001
2002
2002
2003
2005
Type of models
System relevance
Author(s)
Family
Business
316
Management
Ownership
Individual
Environment
Systems
Pieper, Klein
References
Adams, A. F., Manners, G. E., Astrachan, J. H., & Mazzola,
P. (2004). The importance of integrated goal setting:
The application of cost-of-capital concepts to private
rms. Family Business Review, 17(4), 287302.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding family
ownership and rm performance: Evidence from the
S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 13011328.
Ashmos, D. P., & Huber, G. P. (1987). The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correcting the record
and suggesting the future. Academy of Management
Review, 12(4), 607621.
Astrachan, J. H. (2003). Commentary on the special
issue: The emergence of a eld. Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(5), 567572.
Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002).
The F-PEC scale of family inuence: A proposal for
solving the family business detinition problem.
Family Business Review, 15, 4558.
Barnes, L. B., & Hershon, S. A. (1976). Transferring
power in the family business. Harvard Business
Review, 54(4), 105114.
Beckhard, R., & Dyer, G. W. Jr. (1983). Managing continuity in the family-owned business. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(1), 513.
Carlock, R. S., & Ward, J. L. (2001). Strategic planning for
the family business: Parallel planning to unify the
family and business. New York: Palgrave.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends
and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family rm. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 29(5), 555575.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Steier, L. P. (2003). Extending the theoretical horizons of family business
research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(4),
331338.
Churchill, N. C., & Hatten, K. J. (1987). Non-marketbased transfers of wealth and power: A research
framework for family businesses. American Journal
of Small Business, 11(3), 5164.
Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1975). Values and the
organization: Suggestions for research. Academy of
Management Journal, 18(3), 550561.
Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-serving or selfactualizing? Models of man and agency costs in
different types of family rms: A commentary on
Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family
rms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(4), 355362.
Dahlstrom, R., & Ingram, R. (2003). Social networks and
the adverse selection problem in agency relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 767775.
317
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Pieper, Klein
318
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012
Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family rms: A resourcebased
analysis
of
organizational
culture.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(4), 363381.
Zahra, S. A., Klein, S. B., & Astrachan, J. H. (2006).
Theory building and the survival of family rms:
Four promising research directions. In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X. Smyrnios, & S.B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook
of research on family business. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Zahra, S. A., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business
research: A strategic reection. Family Business
Review, 17(4), 331346.
319
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at FFI-FAMILY FIRM INSTITUTE on April 24, 2012