ARE FAMILY BUSINESSES VALUES-DRIVEN ORGANIZATION? AN EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
Angela Dettori, PhD University of Cagliari
Department of Business and Economics Via Sant’Ignazio, 74
09123 CAGLIARI – ITALY angela.dettori@unica.it
Michela Floris, PhD University of Cagliari
Department of Business and Economics Via Sant’Ignazio, 74
09123 CAGLIARI - ITALY micfloris@unica.it
ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates how values become strong identity elements in family businesses. The aim is to identify the peculiarities inherent to this kind of business to address other business models and to better understand and follow the principles that shape family businesses. The research was conducted using the NVivo 12 software for a sample of 3 family businesses. Findings challenge the existing literature and offer direction for future scholarly research. Evidence from this study
suggests that family values are the heart of the family business culture and are based on the figure of the “father”. A family guards this type of firm by protecting, developing and transmitting the firm to its successors, thus creating a link between the old and new generations to conserve and preserve the values, and spread them with the territory where the family firm is embedded.
INTRODUCTION
Scholars argue that family businesses possess a conglomerate of values that strongly
characterizes them (Binz Astrachan & Botero, 2018) and acts as a support and stimulus especially during periods of change or particular challenges, when family businesses draws their vital
nourishment from their shared and transmitted values.. These are sometimes defined as “lived” values and sometimes as “married” values, which may not survive changes or challenges (Gatrell, Jenkins, & Tucker, 2001). Aronoff and Ward (2001), describing the power of family business values emphasize that they represent the foundation of corporate culture and provide a model for decision-making processes. Moreover, family business values are a determining element in the recruitment and motivation phase of employees and often contribute to providing meaning to the work; they can also encourage solidarity, commitment and enthusiasm among shareholders (Aronoff & Ward, 2011).
However, even if the attention of scholars is clear, researches remain often at a conceptual level. This situation emphasis that there are very few empirical analysis. In this scenario, the aim of this chapter is to contribute in filling this need in order to analyze which are the main family business values that contribute to define these as values-driven, assuring the continuity and success across generations.
The chapter is organized into three sections: literature background, methodology, and conclusion. Literature background defines the concept of “value”, firstly in a general view and secondly, focusing on family business scholars’ perspectives, in order to investigate the main studies and frame the system of values that family businesses possess. The methodology section explains the research design, the qualitative methods used and finally, focuses on the data analysis and findings. The concluding section depicts how and why family businesses base their behavior and strategies on specific values that are able to determine their success and survival. Implications and limitations are then discussed.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The concept of value
The term value in everyday language refers to desirability, importance, usefulness and monetary worth; in a plural form, the term values can also mean moral principles, ethical standards or
behavioral norms (Koiranen, 2002).
Several authors have provided more than one definition of value. Kluckhohn (1958) defines value as a concept, either implicit or explicit, of the desire that influences the selection of available ways, means, and aims of an action. Guth and Tagiuri (1965) describe values as desirable end-states, Rokeach (1973) argues that values are generalized, enduring beliefs regarding the personal
and social desirability of different means of contact or end-states of existence, whereas Connor and Becker (1975) underline the attitudinal and behavioral processes.
Values represent the bedrock of any corporate culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1983), identify influences that affect each aspect of social life, stimulating individuals to act and to pursue objectives (Dumas & Blodgett, 1999), and it refer to an individual’s reasons for acting and their judgments regarding such reasons (Özar, 1997). Other scholars (Aronoff & Ward, 2011) affirm that values represent the cornerstones of human effort, achievement, solidarity, enthusiasm and
commitment, which encourage shareholders to face difficulties. Values are relatively stable across time and situations, which differentiates them from other more contextual constructs such as attitudes. Psychologists have agreed that values are abstract psychological concepts that lie at the foundation of more concrete psychological constructs, such as interests, preferences, attitudes and these are strongly linked to the individual’s or organization’s identity (Rokeach, 1973).
Accordingly, they transcend specific situations and are applied more generally to guide
organizational behavior and decision making (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Values are considered as normative rather than positive states; they guide stakeholders to what ought to be rather than what is (Rokeach, 1973). In other words, “values specify an individual’s personal beliefs about how he or she ‘should’ or ‘ought’ to behave” (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998, p. 354).
It is widely accepted that values can be classified and hierarchically ordered (Lyons, Higgins, & Duxbury, 2010). For example, according to Meglino and Ravlin (1998), there are three kinds of values: values referred to as objects or outcomes (e.g., the value an employee places on quality or excellence); terminal values (e.g., self-sufficient end-states a person is willing to achieve, such as happiness or success); and instrumental or behavioral values (e.g., the behaviors that facilitate the attainment of terminal values, such as altruism or optimism). Moreover, there is a distinction between explicitly stated values and implicit values. For instance, Osborne (1991) explains the use of corporate value statements and the term espoused values, which indicates the materialization of values (Thornbury, 2003).
In sum, it can be affirmed that values have become a important management tool in the post-industrial economy (Anderson, 1997; Pruzan, 1998), therefore, organizations require values-based management that inspires employees, while also serving as a source of identity and pride for the organization’s members.
Toward a definition of family business and of family business values
The concept of the family business warrants particular interest from scholars given the presence and diffusion of these entities around the globe, explained as the firms’ ubiquity (Poza, 2013).
Though family businesses represent more than 90% of all businesses worldwide (IFERA, 2003), theoretical research frameworks continue to be fragmented, and no common definition of a family business exists.
This field of study is relatively new, with the first publication on family business appearing in the 1970s. Since then, family business studies have gradually increased (Dyer, 1986; Ward, 1997).
In the early 1990s, scholars attempted to cluster family firms based on distinctive features. These studies produced numerous definitions of family business based on the distinguishing factors present in this form of entrepreneurship.
Litz (1995) identified a family firm by the extent to which its ownership and management are concentrated within a family unit and by the extent to which its members strive to achieve and/or maintain intra-organizational family-based relatedness.
Astrachan and Shanker (2003) studied the objective and subjective aspects identifying three definitions of a family business. These definitions depend on the degree of family involvement as follows: broad, in which the family has effective control over the strategic direction and the business is intended to remain in the family; middle, which adds to the broad concept through the involvement of the founder or descendant who runs the company; and narrow, which in addition to
the former criteria, involves multiple generations with direct family involvement in the daily operations and more than one family member with significant management responsibilities.
Chua, Chrisman and Sharma (1999) define a family firm as a firm governed and/or managed with the intention of shaping the firm and pursuing a vision held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially
sustainable across generations of the family or families.
Other scholars have contributed to the debate by delving into the elements that, more than others, characterize the family business, such as: property (Barnes & Hershon, 1976; Barry, 1975; Diaz-Moriana, Clinton, Kammerlander, Lumpkin, & Craig, 2018; Lansberg, Perrow, & Rogolsky, 1988; Muñoz-Bullón & Sanchez-Bueno, 2011; Stanley, Hernández-Linares, López-Fernández, &
Kellermanns, 2019); family involvement (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002; Astrachan & Shanker, 2003); family control and management and the intention to transfer the business to subsequent generations (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Handler, 1989; Litz, 1995); culture (Litz, 1995); family attachment (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, & Steier, 2005; Zahra, Hayton, & Salvato, 2004); power and experience (Astrachan et al., 2002); the values of the founder and the attention of the family towards the preservation of the socio-emotional heritage, that is all that determines the attachment and commitment to the firm by family members and determines their unity, solidity and serenity in their relationships (Arregle, Naldi, Nordqvist, & Hitt, 2012; Barnett, Long, & Marler, 2012; Cennamo, Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez‐Mejia, 2012; García‐Álvarez & López‐ Sintas, 2001; Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003).
When an owning family’s values form the basis of a business culture, vital synergies can arise. Indeed, “shared values” (Aronoff & Ward, 2001) allow family members to derive satisfaction and meaning by supporting relationships between different generations, always reaching out for the organization’s goals. A constant commitment to values is the greatest strength that the family can bring to the firm. According to Aronoff and Ward (2000) the power of values in family businesses is linked to several factors: it lays the foundation for business culture, provides a model for
decision-making processes, supports a long-term vision, enhances the territory to which it belongs, challenges conventional thinking, adapts to change and the market, improves strategic planning, creates new strategic alliances, serves to recruit and retain employees, and finally gives meaning to “hard work”.
Scholars (Tàpies & Ward, 2008), regarding the fact that values constitute a great resource for companies, states that recent studies have provided significant evidence that family businesses have a special competitive advantage as values-driven, driven by values. In this sense, values pervade every aspect of the family business. Aronoff (2004) underlines the importance of values as pillars of the culture of the family business and that these elements, strong culture and unique values, allow family businesses to differentiate themselves from other types of companies, therefore they can rightly constitute an advantage irreplaceable competition.
Family business values can be defined as explicit or implicit conceptions of what is desirable in both the family and business life. Given that conflicts of interest often arise between the two dimensions (business and family goals), family business values should be defined and shared so as to create a common ground for a durable value system that benefits both dimensions (Aronoff & Ward, 2001).
Family values stabilize the three dimensions of the family business system: family, firm, and ownership (Neubauer & Lank, 2016). In this sense, as Collins and Porras (1996) argue, the core values and beliefs represent the glue that holds the family, the hard work and the firm together, specifically when conflicts of interests are present within the firm.
Among the various lists of values followed by the various scholars, Cappuyns (1998) identifies five values that could contribute to the success of the family business, summarized with the acronym ELISA: excellence, laboriousness, initiative, simplicity and austerity, while Aronoff and Ward (2011) identify a list of corporate values specific to family businesses: responsibility, value added, collective good, training, ethical behavior, concentration on values, fun, justice, meritocracy,
opening, pragmatism, initiative, confidence, leadership, social purpose, entrepreneurial spirit, input enhancement, attention and interaction with stakeholders.
Values are one of the key factors that constitute “the family effect” (Dyer, 2006) or the impact of the family on the performance of the company.
Solid and clear values can contribute to defining a business in which each member shares a sense of pride in belonging to that specific organization, which promotes not only economic efficiency, but also the well-being of the community in which it operates (Ceja, Agulles, & Tàpies, 2010).
In other words, values represent the essence of the spirit of the family business and guide all the actions of the company itself.
METHODOLOGY
Research design and setting
With the aim of investigating values in small family firms, by understanding whether these organizations are value-driven, this research engages in a qualitative study, particularly appropriate for family business studies (McCollom, 1990) to penetrate the veil of the family and avoid
gathering data that is not useful (Litz, 1997).
Specifically, this work is based on a cross-case analysis, a suitable method that facilitates the comparison of commonalities and differences among case studies (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to produce a synthesized outcome (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008), organizing data from the cases in tables and graphs. In addition, case studies are able to answer “how” and “why” questions,
providing explanation of events, exploring causality and generating theory (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Yin, 2008; Yin, 2011).
The chosen methodology comprised a structured approach where theoretical contents were identified first from the literature and then, through an iterative process, were refined with the
collection and analysis of data come from the cases and finally, were returned to earlier literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Wolcott, 1994). Selected case studies showed the ability in exploring meanings and processes (Van Maanen & Van Maanen, 1983) and in understanding individual behaviors without being influenced by researcher’s views (Finch, 1988), that is particularly relevant to investigate the effects of culture (Howorth & Ali, 2001) and, conversely, context.
In line with other scholars (Miles & Huberman, 1994), the choice of the cases was purposeful. Moreover, this agreed also with Patton’s suggestions (1990; 2002). Specifically, “the logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information‐rich cases for study in depth.
Information‐rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling. Studying information‐ rich cases yields insights and in‐depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations (Patton, 2002, p. 230). Specifically, we built on a sample of 3 meaningful firms, with the family business owner-manager as our unit of analysis. These small family firms are able to generate innovation and are representative as described by Howorth, Rose, and Hamilton (2006). Their owners can be labeled as “heroes,” (Welter, Baker, Audretsch, & Gartner, 2017) as they manage “everyday entrepreneurships,” characterized by a blooming heterogeneity, and they operate under resource constraints and condition of adversity (Bradley, 2015; Powell & Baker, 2014).
Data gathering
As regard data collection, we gathered data from multiple sources: a. in depth semi-structured interviews with the family owner managers (to understand the firm history, strategy and behavior and, above all, the main family business values); b. archival data (business reports, press articles, firm materials); c. informal follow-ups by phone.
Specifically, in the third quarter of 2018, we conducted in-depth interviews with the family owners of the 3 small family firms sampled. After a prior understanding of the demographical data
of each firm, the interviews were planned with each family-owner and were conducted in person using an interview protocol. The interviews (average duration: 70 minutes) consisted of
unstructured and semi structured questions to gain an understanding of firm’s history, the family-owner’s feelings, the implemented strategies and, the conglomerate of values that the sampled firms was aware to possess and spread. Each conversation was recorded for a total of 210 minutes of interviews and transcribed verbatim shortly after the interview. We then transcribed 30 pages of interview transcripts and, when information was missed, we engaged in informal follow-ups phone calls. Therefore, we gathered further secondary information, consisting of ten business reports, three journal articles, and the official Internet pages of the firms.
Data analysis
To analyze our qualitative data, we applied a three-step process (Mayring, 2010). In the first step, we created a chronological structured description of each firm with all the relevant
demographic information of the family and the firm. These documents comprised 3-10 pages per firm. All sampled firms were small- and medium-sized business that involved 10–100 employees. The table 1 shows the main demographical characteristics of each firm.
TABLE 1. SHOULD APPEAR ABOUT HERE
In the second step, we engaged in a cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989b; Patton, 1990) to identify common patterns across the sample (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). To do this, after having read each the primary and the secondary data, we used Nvivo 12’s word count feature to calculate the most frequently occurring words within the in depth interviews. The words used most often were viewed as a proxy that represented participants’ perspectives. Supporting this approach was the assumption that important and significant words would be used more frequently (Carley, 1993) (see table 2 and figure 1).
FIGURE 1. SHOULD APPEAR ABOUT HERE
In the third step, three subsequent levels of coding were done. In the first, each author
independently proposed a list of codes, derived from the most frequently occurring words in the interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In the second, the authors compared their own codes with those of the other and, together, determined the finals (Krippendorff, 2004). In the third, the data were analyzed switching the original transcripts with the coded data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Findings and discussion
The analysis revealed that the sampled family firms were grounded on a conglomerate of values that catch on the figure of the father, as the most influential family firm member able to impress his footprint within the firm and trace how family firm relates with the territory, spreading and
developing his values. In fact, “(…) my father has transmitted us the passion, the spirit of
sacrifices and hard work. He shared with us his knowledge and his care for the territory in which we are embedded. Thanks to him, we started since our infancy to consider the firm as our treasure to preserve across generations. (…) he [the father] created a strong relationship with our territory, developing and spreading trust, respect, and green policies” (Firm A).
The father is considered as “the most influential person within our family firm, able to motivate employees, to create a positive organizational climate, to sustain our family especially in difficult periods and to promote and activate positive values with the local community” (Firm B). Thanks to this charismatic attitude, the father is depicted as able to develop the sense of “we” and “our”, meaningful for building the sense of community and mutual aids within the firms. This emerges not only for what concerns the family but also with reference to the employees. In fact, “our father has established very special relations with our employees. He considers them as part of our family and tries to guarantee them and their families, satisfaction and happiness.” (Firm C). In addition, the father is seen as the “truth voice” (Firm A), particularly attentive towards the generational passage
and the responsibility of the incoming generation. In other words, “every day our father remembers us that we have to assume the responsibility to guarantee family firm survival for posterities” (Firm B).
In sum, the father centrality includes the ability that the father had in sharing the sense of “we” and “our”, developing the concept of community, the sense of firm belonging, and the feelings of psychological possession and the long-term vision, based on the willingness towards the firm survival across the future generations.
These kinds of values are transmitted in the family and lived in the firm, as a result of the sense of community that the father has created with family and non-family members. “Our father has based his relationship with us on reliability, accuracy, trust and unity, also when we conflict. (…) he continuously tells us that we have to create the same relationship with our employees, with our customers, with our suppliers.” (Firm A). In addition, “our father transmitted us the pride for the hard work and the high commitment and the proclivity toward the increasing efforts and sacrifices. Our firm is part of our life.” (Firm B). Moreover, “(…) we started in our firm very early and thanks to our father’s teachings, we know all aspects of the firm, particularly the dynamic and peculiarities of our difficult market.” (Firm C).
What briefly underlined allows interpreting that from the father’s centrality derives an inherited strong attachment to the firm, in terms of commitment, hard work, and market awareness. This means that the fathers’ values are transmitted inside the firm and represent the driver to manage the family business. The father’s ability to transfer values within the family firm continues his virtuous circle by producing positive effects to the territory in which the firm is embedded. In other words, “(…) our father has always demonstrated his special care for our region, Sardinia, and for our territory in particular. Now, we are actively engaged in many green initiatives to reduce the impact of our business activity. (…) the investments, in this sense, preserve the natural environment and increase in value our territory, by emphasizing its unpolluted nature (…)” (Firm A). Moreover, “he [the father] has taught us how to meet tradition and innovation, by reinterpreting the Sardinian
culture in innovative ways, valorizing our isle and our local specificities. He sustains that we have a twofold responsibility: one is related to internal firm aspects and dynamics, the other refers to the relation with our territory, that has to be based on trust” (Firm B). Finally, “our product possesses an excellent quality, but it depends not only of us, but of our territory. For this reason, we have to maintain cleaned and unpolluted our region. What we experience in our home and in our firm, we experience in our territory. And not only with reference to the natural environment, but also to the civic communities.” (Firm C).
The exemplary quotes show that the father’s centrality plays an important role, also for what concerns the relations between family firms and the territory. The attachment for Sardinia and the care for the local areas in which family firms are embedded permits to transform the system of internal family business values into a system of lived and experienced local values.
The expressed concepts are synthesized in the following figure, which frames the dynamic values creation and diffusion in the context of family firms. The pivotal role of the father activates the sharing of a conglomerate of family business values that are restored to the territory, by
concurring in developing values.
FIGURE 2. SHOULD APPEAR ABOUT HERE
The proposed dynamic model underlines the role that the father has in creating, sharing and developing values inside and outside his family firms.
CONCLUSION
This chapter aimed to contribute to the debate around the topic of values by focusing on a
specific kind of firm: the small family firm. Scholars have underlined that family businesses possess a conglomerate of values that concur to differentiate them from the others. However, a large amount of studies has remained at a conceptual level. This study challenging this topic, by proposing a qualitative empirical analysis carried out through the deep analysis of what happens in three
exemplary small family businesses. Thanks to the content analysis of the unstructured and semi-structured interviews with the family owners, what has emerged is the father centrality as the cornerstone from which values are created, shared and diffused inside and outside the family firm. A dynamic model has been conceived as an useful tool to immediately understand the role of the father in this virtuous mechanism.
Findings contribute to the literature on values, by focusing on small family businesses as one of the most diffused form of businesses in the world that possess specific values that take form from the family and, specifically, from the father centrality. In addition, the dynamic model contributes to the literature on family business values, challenging and extending previous studies, by proposing an empirical evidence of what is the real contribution of small family firms in the development of values. Further research can address to enlarge the sample and, by conducting a content analysis of narratives and interviews, understand whether the proposed model fits also in other settings and samples.
This study shows interesting insights for practitioners. Identifying how, why and which the father’s values affect the family firm and, thus, the territory, could generate a set of best practices that can be followed also by other firms, contributing to a more widespread of values, firstly in a local perspective and secondly, in a more ample vision.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Aronoff, C. (2004). Self‐perpetuation family organization built on values: Necessary condition for long‐term family business survival. Family business review, 17(1), 55-59.
Aronoff, C., & Ward, J. (2000). Family Business Values: How to Assure a Legacy of Continuity and Success, Family Business Leadership Series. Marietta, GA: Business Owner Resources.
Aronoff, C., & Ward, J. (2001). Family business values: How to assure a legacy of continuity and success. Marinetta, GA: Family Enterprise Publisher.
Aronoff, C., & Ward, J. (2011). Family business values: How to assure a legacy of continuity and success. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Arregle, J. L., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Internationalization of family‐ controlled firms: a study of the effects of external involvement in governance. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(6), 1115-1143.
Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family Businesses' Contribution to the U.S. Economy: A Closer Look. Family business review, 16(3), 211-219.
Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: a proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family business review, 15(1), 45-58. Barnes, L. B., & Hershon, S. A. (1976). Transferring power in family business. Harvard Business
Review, 54(4), 105-114.
Barnett, T., Long, R. G., & Marler, L. E. (2012). Vision and Exchange in Intra‐Family Succession: Effects on Procedural Justice Climate Among Nonfamily Managers. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(6), 1207-1225.
Barry, B. (1975). Development of Organization Structure in Family Firm. Journal of General Management, 3(1), 42-60.
Binz Astrachan, C., & Botero, I. C. (2018). “We are a family firm” an exploration of the motives for communicating the family business brand. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(1), 2-21. Bradley, S. W. (2015). Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness. In C. L. Cooper, M. H. Morris, & D. F.
Kuratko (Eds.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (pp. 1-3). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cappuyns, K. (1998). Reasons for success of successful family businesses. Paper presented at the FBN 9th Annual World Conference Proceedings, Paris, France.
Carley, K. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociological methodology, 75-126.
Ceja, L., Agulles, R., & Tàpies, J. (2010). The importance of values in family-owned firms. Working paper No. 875, Spain University of Navarra, IESE BusinessSchool, Barcelona.
Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(6), 1153-1173.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(3), 237-247.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company's vision. Harvard business review, 74(5), 65-77.
Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1975). Values and the organization: Suggestions for research. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 550-561.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498-505.
Diaz-Moriana, V., Clinton, E., Kammerlander, N., Lumpkin, G., & Craig, J. B. (2018). Innovation motives in family firms: A transgenerational view. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718803051.
Dumas, C., & Blodgett, M. (1999). Articulating values to inform decision making: Lessons from family firms around the world. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 12(3), 209-221.
Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Family business review, 19(4), 253-273.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management review, 14(1), 57-74.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Finch, J. (1988). Research and policy: The uses of qualitative methods in social and educational research. Lewes: Falmer Press.
García‐Álvarez, E., & López‐Sintas, J. (2001). A taxonomy of founders based on values: The root of family business heterogeneity. Family business review, 14(3), 209-230.
Gatrell, J., Jenkins, H., & Tucker, J. (2001). Family values in family business. Paper presented at the 12th Annual FBN World Conference, Roma, Milano.
Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems theory of family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 18(4), 451-465.
Handler, W. C. (1989). Managing the family firm succession process: The next-generation family member's experience. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
Howorth, C., & Ali, Z. A. (2001). Family business succession in Portugal: An examination of case studies in the furniture industry. Family business review, 14(3), 231-244.
Howorth, C., Rose, M., & Hamilton, E. (2006). Definitions, diversity and development: Key debates in family business research. In M. Casson (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 225-247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Paper presented at the Forum qualitative, Qualitative social research, Sozialforschung/forum.
Kluckhohn, C. (1958). The scientific study of values and contemporary civilization. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102(5), 469-476.
Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneurially active in business: Exploring the values and family characteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family business review, 15(3), 175-187.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pubblications.
Lansberg, I. S., Perrow, E. L., & Rogolsky, S. (1988). Family business as an emerging field. Family business review, 1(1), 1-8.
Litz, R. A. (1995). The family business: Toward definitional clarity. Family business review, 8(2), 71-81.
Litz, R. A. (1997). The family firm's exclusion from business school research: Explaining the void; addressing the opportunity. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 21(3), 55-71.
Lyons, S. T., Higgins, C. A., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Work values: Development of a new three‐ dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 969-1002.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Technik. Beltz: Weinheim und Basel.
McCollom, M. (1990). Problems and prospects in clinical research on family firms. Family business review, 3(3), 245-262.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of management, 24(3), 351-389.
Muñoz-Bullón, F., & Sanchez-Bueno, M. J. (2011). The impact of family involvement on the R&D intensity of publicly traded firms. Family business review, 24(1), 62-70.
Neubauer, F., & Lank, A. G. (2016). The family business: Its governance for sustainability: Springer. Osborne, R. L. (1991). Second-generation entrepreneurs: Passing the baton in the privately held
company. Management Decision, 29(1).
Özar, Ö. (1997). Economic Co-operation Organization: A Promising Future. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 2(1).
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential
perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. (2014). It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1406-1433.
Poza, E. J. (2013). Family business: Cengage Learning.
Pruzan, P. (1998). From control to values-based management and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1379-1394.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values (Vol. 438). New York, NY: Free Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 550.
Stanley, L. J., Hernández-Linares, R., López-Fernández, M. C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2019). A Typology of Family Firms: An Investigation of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance. Family business review, 0894486519838120.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tàpies, J., & Ward, J. (2008). Family values and value creation: The fostering of enduring values within family-owned businesses. Basingstone, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Thornbury, J. (2003). Creating a living culture: the challenges for business leaders. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 3(2), 68-79.
Van Maanen, J., & Van Maanen, J. (1983). Qualitative methodology: Sage Beverly Hills, CA. Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges and best practices. Family
business review, 10(4), 323–337.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship—a call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research: sage.
Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the efect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 28(4), 363-381.
Table 1. Firms' characteristics
Table 2. Using NVivo Queries to Identify the Most Frequently Used Words in the Data
Firm Generation Sector Employees Interviewee
A III Winery 20-70 Junior
B II Bread and bakery 10-20 Junior
C II Tourism sector 30-100 Junior
Words Length Number
of Uses Weighted Percentage (%) Father 5 106 0,54 We 7 105 0,53 firm 7 95 0,48 Our 6 53 0,32 Family 8 43 0,22 Passage 9 34 0,17 Hardwork 6 32 0,16 Market 7 31 0,16 Territory 8 30 0,15 Generation 11 24 0,12
Figure 1. Wordcloud
Angela Dettori is a Research Fellow at the Department of Economics and Business, University of Cagliari, Italy. She received her PhD in Management and holds a master’s degree in Economics from the University of Cagliari, Italy. She has been teaching Corporate Social Responsibility for several years. She has published articles in various journals (e.g., Journal of Management and Sustainability, International Journal of Marketing Studies) and has participated in several conferences (e.g., Toulon Verona Conference, Academy of Management). Her main interest of research focuses on sustainable development and sustainability-oriented behavior, especially in family businesses.
Michela Floris is an Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Economics and Business, University of Cagliari, Italy. She received her PhD in Management and holds a master’s degree in Economics from the University of Cagliari, Italy. She has been teaching Family Business Management for several years. She has published articles in leading journals (e.g., Family Business Review, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development) and received relevant grants for her studies (e.g., Academy of Management Best Paper - 2009 and 2015 -, Carolyn Dexter Award – 2015; IFERA & STEP Best Paper on conference theme – 2019). Her main interest of research focuses on strategy, organizational goals and goal-driven behaviors in family firms, including entrepreneurship, marketing, innovation, and growth.
