Search results

This study examines the family- and non-family-related reasons that may determine the choice of the anticipated entrepreneurial exit strategy (exit intention).

The study is based on a survey of 267 owner-managers of micro-and small-sized firms in Poland and focuses on their exit intentions (rather than actual actions) as precursors to entrepreneurial exit. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses.

The results show that family-related reasons may encourage entrepreneurs to choose the stewardship strategy over the financial harvest or voluntary cessation strategies, while non-family-related reasons such as maintaining financial independence and health may encourage the choice of the financial harvest or the voluntary cessation strategy.

This research contributes to both the entrepreneurial exit literature and psychological ownership theory by demonstrating the potential relevance of psychological ownership in the selection of exit strategies.

This study explores the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and earnings management (EM) in China and whether family ownership impacts this relationship.

The research data are the financial reports and CSR disclosure reports of Chinese listed companies from the CSMAR database for the 2010–2020 period. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to analyze the relationship between various variables in this study.

Results show that CSR significantly and positively affects accrual-based EM (AEM) but does not affect real EM (REM). Moreover, family ownership influences the positive relationship between CSR and AEM. Compared with non-family enterprises, family enterprises tend to disclose less CSR performance but also have lower AEM behavior.

This result is related to the information transparency of listed enterprises and Socioemotional Wealth theory. This study provides reference for domestic and foreign investors and other stakeholders in understanding the impact of family ownership on the relationship between CSR and earnings management to optimize their investment decisions.

Several studies of family firm failures have pointed to non-family members in leading positions as a reason. However, non-family members have often played a key role in family-firm longevity, while non-family executives’ involvement in family firms is increasing. These non-family executives who (co-)run family firms are thought to require an almost impossible set of behavioural qualities. The aim of this exploratory study is to find out how specific leader behaviours of effective family executives and non-family executives may differ.

Based on Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2005) broad leadership frame, the authors draw attention to a large range of behaviours of family-firm executives. In-depth interviews were conducted with successful German executives, both family and non-family ones. Their answers had to contain specific behavioural examples.

More behavioural similarities than differences are shown between family- and non-family-based executives. Yet, the self-reflective communicative behavioural qualities of the non-family executives could balance a lack of such qualities among the family-based executives. Based on the three major differences – decision-making style, communication versatility and self-awareness – specific new research propositions are distilled about effective family firm leadership.

Practical suggestions for recruiting non-family executives are offered. Future quantitative longitudinal research on how to pair specific behavioural qualities of family and non-family based executives that optimise family-firm longevity is urgently needed.

This article seeks to explore success factors for integrating non‐family chief financial officers (CFOs) in family firms. The integration of non‐family CFOs is of great importance to family firms, as the CFO position is often the first management position in family firms for which non‐family managers are recruited. Moreover, non‐family CFOs can bring in valuable know‐how to the family firm and reduce the family firm's financial risk.

The findings of this study are based on a qualitative field study in Austrian family firms. The views of non‐family CFOs, family managers, family board members, and non‐family CEOs were obtained through semi‐structured interviews.

Four larger success factors for non‐family CFOs and five for controlling families were derived. The most important factor for non‐family CFOs that emerged from the study was that CFOs should be appreciative of the peculiarities of family firms. For controlling families, the results suggest that it is advisable to provide the non‐family CFO enough space to effectively conduct their job as well as respect the CFO's views.

Both non‐family CFOs and controlling families may find the results presented in this article useful for creating a successful integration of non‐family CFOs in family firms. The success factors presented should be directly applicable for CFOs and controlling families.

This study is the first to investigate success factors for the integration of non‐family CFOs into family firms. Moreover, the results of this article may also be useful to the under‐researched field of non‐family managers in family firms in general.

Family firms strive for transgenerational survivability. Thus, bankruptcy is a daunting event. Whether family firms fail for other causes than non-family firms has been scarcely researched and is investigated in this study.

The paper draws on a sample of 459 Austrian bankruptcy cases to examine the effects of the distinct characteristics of family firms on failure causes.

Our results indicate that family firm characteristics impact their failure, as bankruptcy causes differ from non-family firms. While family firms fail less often than non-family firms due to unqualified management and poor business-economic competencies, external bankruptcy causes, in particular bad debt and economic slowdown, are more widespread.

As our findings suggest that the close social bonds of family firms may become a burden in crisis situations and make them especially prone to external bankruptcy causes, owner-managers should pay more attention to the dependencies, deficiencies and risks that come with their binding social ties. Moreover, they should rely on external advice and appropriate management tools to better recognize and fend off the resulting risks.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that quantitatively examines differences in bankruptcy causes between family and non-family firms.

The aim of the present study is to test the main differences between private small/medium‐sized family businesses and non‐family businesses with regard to management variables such as: strategy, strategic planning, manager's training and professionalism and financial techniques implementation.

In this empirical research, we use a sample of 639 small and medium‐sized industrial firms, distributed in 456 family and 183 non‐family firms, with the intention of determining whether family SMEs possess specific structural characteristics distinct from non‐family ones. The data collection technique used was a questionnaire obtained from a postal survey, and addressed to the manager of the company.

Results show that managers of family firms use some management tools such as management accounting systems and cash budgets for the decision making process and also give less importance to strategic planning and personnel training programmes as a competitiveness factor.

There is a need for additional research because the findings indicate that there are different managerial behaviours between family and non‐family firms, but we need to corroborate and look for the basis of such differences, in order to address what the advantages and disadvantages of family firms are.

The results lead us to support the need for family firms to focus on “management development”, which should be understood as the general enhancement and growth of management skills through a learning process.

The paper contributes with new empirical evidence about the management function in family businesses. It is also expected that the results of the study help policy makers to make further efforts facilitating the progress of family firms, knowing they are the real engine driving and contributing to welfare of developed economies.

To examine differences between family and non‐family SMEs in business goals, management practices and performance as they grow.

The study was based on 233 small non‐family and 362 small family firms. Medium firms comprised 305 family and 341 non‐family firms. Chi‐square tests and t‐tests were used to investigate the hypotheses formulated.

Small family firms were less likely to pursue growth compared with similar non‐family firms. Although medium family proprietors desired growth, their actual growth was lower than similar non‐family firms. Management practices were less formal in family firms and the gap between family and non‐family firms in this area widened with growth. Small family firms achieved greater profits than their non‐family counterparts, although this disparity disappeared at the medium level. Exports were low for both firms at the small level. However, medium family firms were less likely than similar non‐family firms to export.

Firms in the various size groups examined were independent of one another. A longitudinal investigation of family and non‐family firms as they progress through various growth stages should complement the findings.

The findings should assist policies makers, advisers, owners and management in designing policies and programs, providing advice and managing the two ownership types. Informal management procedures and the associated flexibility may enhance performance of small family firms but may impede their performance at larger sizes.

The paper demonstrates that the relationship between goals, strategies and performance varies between family and non‐family firms and the variations change with firm size.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of firm size on performance (measured as profits, growth, efficiency and liquidity) differences between family and non‐family small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).

The samples of 441 family and 473 non‐family firms were divided into four size groups and performance differences analysed for each size group using MANOVA.

The findings indicate that family SMEs perform at least as well as non‐family SMEs. Although the two types of firms shared several similar performance characteristics at the small level, certain differences were evident. Performance differences between family and non‐family SMEs became prominent at the critical growth phase (20‐49 employees), reached an optimum at 50‐99 employees and narrowed again thereafter. For family firms, the benefits of higher gross margins and efficient use of assets began to wane after 100 plus employees but the disadvantages of lower employee performance continued.

The study could be improved by a longitudinal examination of the same firms across various growth stages. Further, the findings may be industry‐specific and not generally applicable.

The findings show that greater resources do not necessary lead to better performance and that non‐family firms could benefit from more efficient use of resources. The findings also confirm that the benefits of the informal system are not sustainable at larger firm sizes and that larger family firms would benefit from improved management of employee performance.

The pattern of performance differences observed between family and non‐family SMEs is unique to the paper. The paper shows that differences in performance between the two types of firms noted in the literature do no hold at all firm sizes.

This paper aims to explore the application of the four-eyes principle (4EP) to management decisions in large family firms in the manufacturing sector, a heretofore neglected area of business and management research.

A theoretical analysis was first conducted of the 4EP in general and its application in family firms based on agency and stewardship theories. A qualitative field study of 15 large Austrian firms from the manufacturing sector with various degrees of family involvement was then conducted to explore how the 4EP is applied in these firms.

From the theoretical analysis, it can be concluded that the 4EP may generally serve as a mechanism to limit agency conflicts. Due to a theoretically lower level of agency conflicts in family firms than in non-family firms, a lower application of the 4EP in family firms can be expected. However, the field study shows that large family firms also regularly adopt the 4EP and that family-managed firms demonstrate a more flexible and opportunistic usage of the 4EP, limiting both its associated downsides and advantages. The present paper further shows that such flexible 4EP usage in family-managed firms may increase their abilities to make quick business decisions and to display high levels of flexibility; however, it may also increase the risk of making suboptimal decisions and experiencing unfavorable managerial behavior as firms grow in size and international activity.

This is the first paper to analyze the application of the 4EP in large family firms. Six propositions and a preliminary model of the 4EP in family firms are developed in the paper, which may lead to further research on the practical applications of the 4EP.

This research furthers our understanding of the interaction between the fields of entrepreneurship and family business. It presents a framework that introduces the family dynamic to Timmons’ driving forces model of entrepreneurship. The framework highlights the influence of the family in the entrepreneurship process and the importance of the fit among the three driving forces and the family. It highlights the importance of, and the pivotal roles played by, outside boards of directors when entrepreneurial activities are undertaken by family businesses. Using extracts from interviews with family and non‐family executives and board members, the research employs a single case study that describes an actual series of events to provide a practical application of the theory.