COURSE

GUIDE

ENT 308
FAMILY BUSINESS AND SUCCESSION PLANNING

Course Team Dr. (Mrs) Bamidele Wale-Oshinowo (Course Writer)

Department of Business Administration
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Lagos

Prof. Emerole Gideon Ahamefula (Course Editor)

Department of Business Administration
Faculty of Management Sciences
Michael Okapara University, Umudike

Dr. Lawal Kamaldeen A. A (H.O.D)

Department of Entrepreneurial Studies
Faculty of Management Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria

Dr. Timothy Ishola (Dean)

Faculty of Management Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
University Village
Plot 91 Cadastral Zone
Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway
Jabi, Abuja.

Lagos Office
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos

e-mail: [email protected]
URL: www.noun.edu.ng

Published by:
National Open University of Nigeria

ISBN:

Printed: 2017

All Rights Reserved

CONTENTS

Introduction
Course Contents
Course Aims
Course Objectives
Working through This Course
Course Materials
Study Units
Textbooks and References
Assignment File
Assessment
Tutor-Marked Assignment
Final Examination and Grading
How to get the Best out of this Course
Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials
Useful Advice
Summary
Course Summary

Family businesses are the social and economic lifeline of most developed and developing
nations. The successes of these businesses contribute to the healthy development of any
nation. It is therefore important for understand how family businesses are run including the
dynamics of the family within the business and how these aid the performance of the
business enterprise. Statistics shows that approximately 80 percent the world‟s businesses
are owned or managed by families thus the possibility of you as a student working in or
with a family business is high. This course is therefore set to promote the continuity of a
successful family business and also provide the knowledge necessary to support longevity
and successful transfer of businesses from one generation to the other.

This course provides analysis of and insights into the behaviours and dynamics of family
businesses. Specifically, the course guide will help the students:

 understand the unique characteristics of family businesses

 understand the complexities that lie at the intersection of family ownership, control,
and management of a firm
 identify the contribution of family businesses to the world economy with focus on a
few countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, China, Japan,
and India
 identify notable examples of family dynasties in Nigeria
 understand the distinctive advantages of inherent in family businesses
 understand and identify the unique challenges facing a family business
 understand the knowledge, skills and attitudes required for entrepreneurship within a
family business
 identify the various stakeholders of a family business and understand their
relationship to business performance
 understand the critical issues that family businesses face in managing and improving
business performance
 Understand the importance of growth in relation to family businesses
  understand the psychological and emotional foundations of family businesses
 identify and cope with foreseeable obstacles to continuity of a family business

Course Design

This is an interactive course designed to help you learn about the workings of the family
business using the well established western literature as a guide. You are therefore advised
to study each units, cases, other recommended texts and literatures in order to get a good
grasp of the core concepts in this course. Please note that family business and family
firms will be used interchangeably in this manual.

Course Materials

 Course Guide
 Study Modules
 References
 Assignment File
CONTENTS

Module 1: INTRODUCTION

Unit 1: Introduction

Unit 2: Historical Presentations of the Family Business

Unit 3: Summaries of Major Studies of Family Business

Unit 4: Examples of Notable Family Businesses in the World

Module 2: DEFINING THE FAMILY BUSINESS

Unit 1: The Distinctiveness between family and non-family firm

Unit 2: Defining the Family Business by type of Family Involvement

Module 3: ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY BUSINESS

Unit 1: The Prevalence of Family Business

Unit 2: Economic Contribution of Family Business

Unit 3: Case Studies

Module 4: THE COMPETITIVENESS OF FAMILY BUSINESSES

Unit 1: Uniqueness of Family Businesses

Unit 2 Strength of Family Businesses

Unit 3: Weaknesses of Family Businesses

Module 5: Governance in the Family Business

Unit 1: Introduction to Governance

Unit 2: The Need for Governance in Family Firms

Module 6 – FAMILY BUSINESS VALUES AND CULTURE

Unit 1: Family Firm Values

Unit 2: Culture of Family Firms

Unit 3: Family Values and Business Culture

Unit 4: Building a Resilient Business Culture

Module 7: FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILY BUSINESS

Unit 1: The Structure of the Family Firm

Unit 2: The Interpersonal Dynamics of the Family Firm

Module 8: SUCCESSION PLANNING

Unit 1: Creating a Family Culture that Promotes Business Succession

Module 9: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Unit 1: Challenges of Working together in a Family

Unit 2: Types of Conflict

Unit 3: Handling the Ownership

Unit: Understanding Conflict Management

Unit 10: WOMEN IN FAMILY BUSINESSES

Unit 1: Women‟s Contribution to Family Firms

Unit 2: Work-Life Balance

Unit 3: Couples‟ Challenges

Unit 4: Women, Communication, and Leadership

MODULE 1

Unit 1: Introduction

Family business is the most prevalent form of business in the world (Colli, 2003).

Throughout history and worldwide, families and business have always co-existed to a large

extent mainly because most businesses commenced with the underlying motivation to earn
a living and support a family. While the business provides financially for the family, the

family provides human resources which could be paid or unpaid for the business. This is

why Aldrich and Cliff (2003) argued in their widely referenced article that families and

businesses are inextricably intertwined. Micro, small, medium or large, family businesses

are represented in all business sectors and their pervasiveness is non-rivalled in the world.

This is to the extent that today, the scope of family-involved businesses has expanded to

include some of the world largest companies with massive economic impact on economic

weight remains massive. In all markets, family owned businesses form the bedrock of

advancing economics. Throughout they have played an important role in employment,

income generation and wealth accumulation

Family business has been crucial to the business and historical landscape of traditional

Western societies such as the United States of America (USA) and Europe. A significant

percentage of these countries‟ economies were and are still controlled by family dynasties

such as the Rothschild, Barings, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Waltons, Walt Disney, Johnson

and Johnson, Bill Gates Foundation and many more. In the United Kingdom, a family

business is a common sight, most of the local newsagents, corner-shops, and many

independent retailers. Similarly Japan, one of the triad that conducts and controls most of

the World‟s trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), is home to some of the oldest

recorded family controlled businesses in history. Notable examples and their founding dates

are Hoshi Ryokan (718), Toraya (1600), Enshu Sado School (1602), Takenaka Corporation

(1610), Kikkoman Corporation (1630) and Sumitomo (1630). It is important to note in this

course guide on family business that Japan is very important and significant to the
evolution of family business as a research field. This is because asides being home to the

oldest recorded family businesses in the world, most of their family businesses place high

importance on the retention of family ownership and preservation of the business and its

traditions for the next generation. For example, a recent survey carried out in Japan showed

that 80 percent of family firms had a family member CEO, three out of five firms were 100

percent family owned and the remaining companies were more than 50 percent family

owned, thus making Japan significant radar in Family Business Research.

Overall, family businesses tend to lay more emphasis on a firm‟s longevity and

sustainability rather than realising short-term profit which is typified in Japan‟s Family

Business Model. The family is always at the centre of the of a family business and this

course manual will provide insights into the dynamics of how a family can run a successful

business.
Unit 2: Historical Review of Family Business Dynasties

Historically, family businesses came into prominence during the early stages of

industrialisation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Western Europe (Colli,

Fernandez-Perez, & Rose, 2003). Record high market failures were experienced in most

European countries and the recognition of businesses with family involvement were notable

due to their significant intervention role during this period (Bertrand and Schoar, 2006;

Colli, et al., 2003). Wealthy families in Western Europe played significant roles in rescuing

some major economies within this region before the twentieth century. Most industrialised

countries saw the emergence of family businesses especially during this period as timely.

Their dominance and prominence were so strong that they practically controlled the

economies of these nations during the period referred to above.

Over a century ago, traditional Asian, African, Western European and North American

communities would refer to any trading establishment by the name of the family behind it

(Aldrich and Cliff, 2003). This was the common practise; founding families behind a

venture are usually perceived as the business itself. Impliedly, when referring to businesses

over a century ago, what comes to the mind of majority of people is a business owned,

managed and controlled by a family (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Bertrand and Schoar, 2006).

This might be the platform that brought into existence the name „family business‟.

History provides many examples wherein dynastic families play prominent roles in new

venture creation within their communities (Steier et al., 2004). Few among the examples

given in the literature are:

The Rothschilds of Jewish descent, was a dynastic family with a wide spread of businesses

in Europe. They were also one of the most prominent merchant bankers in the mid-

eighteenth century, who developed the technique of absolute discretion to perfection. The

family was a valid case study in tenacity, a dynasty in which the traits of persistence and

intense focus was passed down from one generation to the other. The Rothschild family

was said to have started from the most humble beginnings and worked their way into a

mighty multinational. Their first venture into business was as omnibus traders and dealers.

However, with their tenacity and determination to keep all their business interest in the

family, the Rothschild accumulated so much wealth that they were considered to be the

richest in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During the 19th century,

the Rothschild family were recorded to possess the largest private fortune in the world.

History records that the Rothschilds built a business based on a close knit family circle to

the extent that marriages were restricted to within the family only. Due to this tight family

control of the Rothschild‟s business empire, it was easier for the family to spread their

business across Europe. Family members were sent out based on trust to establish branches

in different locations, hence the ease of operation at minimal agency cost (Bertrand and

Schoar, 2006:73). In this example, the Rothschild‟s family exhibited the following strong

family orientation such as trust, loyalty and interdependency. The family also fulfilled the

following functions: at individual member level – obligation; trust and procreation; for the

whole family, they perform their role of economic support for their community; training in

family values; culture and other important areas for its members.
Kongỡ Gumi Co. Ltd: Kongỡ Gumi was recorded to be the oldest firm before it was sold

to Takamatsu Corporation in January 2006. The company - Kongỡ Gumi, located in Japan

was founded in 578 was reported to have been owned by the same family for approximately

1,400 years (Malhotra, 2010). What would keep a company in the same family for

approximately 1,400 years? Japan‟s economy was also recorded to have been significantly

impacted by two other powerful families namely the Keiretsu group and Zaibatsu family.

A family controlled shipping and railroad business created by Cornelius Vanderbilt during

the 1800s was one of America‟s historical wealthiest families. Though this „family

business‟ was destroyed fifty years after Cornelius‟ death, the family was said to have

significantly influenced the US economy and regarded as the seventh richest family in

history ( Karp, 1982). Other examples of businesses with strong family involvement that

survived different generations recorded in the US history were the Kemners (1870), the

Moodys (1852), (Marcus, 1980). The businesses owned and controlled by these families

were instrumental to meeting the immediate needs of their various families as well as

contributing to the economic growth of their states within the US (Marcus, 1980). Also

worthy of mention is the Rockefeller family which has its patriarch John D. Rockefeller

(1839–1937) as strong and central force instrumental to its climb to wealth and colossal

success. John D‟s (as he always preferred to called) insatiable appetite for success and faith

in God led him into the business world with a loan of a thousand dollars, which his father

lent him at 10percent above the then prevailing rate. The family rose to become one of the

world‟s richest with vast investments in manufacturing and banking. The Rockefellers were

also forces to be reckoned with in American politics. Another family that controlled a
significant portion of America‟s wealth in the nineteenth century were the Guggenheims.

Though family became wealthy from their involvement in mining, it is important to note

theirs was a wealth rooted in sound and good judgement. Notable among the historical

American business families that is still in existence today is the Ford Family. Henry Ford

(1863-1947), the founder of Ford Motor Company was an enigma, who maintained

significant control over his business empire even after his death. The Fords migrated from

Ireland to the United States in 1832 in the heat of the potato famine. Henry Ford as a

youngster was said to have been fascinated with clocks and after several years of changing

jobs ended up as a mechanic engineer with Edison Illuminating Company in 1891. That

was his venture into the automobile business. He started by building light but tough

vehicles which contrasted the more common heavy cars built in his days. His cars gain

prominence because they were like motorised tricycles and four-wheelers and his

motivation was basically to find a way to help farmers, being from a family of farmers

himself.

In the United Kingdom, the Baring Bank was first of its kind in the country. The bank was

a modern all-round merchant bank that traded commodities and lent money to other traders.

It was owned by the Baring family whose history can be traced to the late fifteenth century

in Groningen in what is today the Netherlands. Although, the family started as cloth

merchants, their venture into Banking was part of what brought them into public-eye. The

Baring family rose quickly to wealth and prominence, exerted financial and social power

for several generations.

In Italy, the Benettons, Rivas and Lucchinis were recorded as dynamic family businesses

that still play prominent roles in the economic landscape of the country (Colli et al., 2003).

In Germany, records showed that family-owned firms exhibited stable characteristic pattern

through both first and second world worlds (Ehrhardt et al., 2005). Several other examples

of different families who influenced the economies of their nations are recorded in the

literature in countries like India, Sweden, France, Spain, Poland, some other parts of

Europe and many nations in Asia- China, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The foregoing instances establish the dominance role of family businesses in history.

Families have always occupied important positions in the economic history of many

nations. Furthermore, evidence abound that family businesses might still have assumed

continued roles in the development of major economies well after the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries even up till this present moment. This might be true even though

substantial support for the significant influence of family involved firms is lacking in the

literature, this is the perception of many researchers. Moreover, examples from Germany in

Central Europe, revealed that family firms continued to have major impact on the country‟s

economic development beyond the twentieth century and must have be responsible for

some stability recorded in the country even during some periods of global recession

(Schumann, 1999). Therefore, some historical views that the relevance of family-influenced

businesses became obsolete after the nineteenth century might be questionable. This is

especially when there are renewed interests in the relevance of family businesses globally

and some recent studies have reported significant positive influence on the global economy

(Wang, 2005). A good example is the Walton‟s family; they are the owners of the world‟s
largest retailers, Wal-Mart. They have consistently remained in the top ten Forbes 400 since

2001. There are also families accomplishing phenomenal landmarks across Europe;

examples are the makers of Volkswagen, a leading car brand owned by the Piëch-Porsche

Family of Germany; Roche, a leading pharmaceutical company, owned by the Hoffmann-

Oeri‟s families; and Novartis, another world leading pharmaceuticals, has the Sandoz‟s

family as the single largest shareholder.

The above historical report on some of the world‟s richest family dynasties provides

significant support to the assertion that family owned and/or controlled enterprises played

important roles in the development of wealthy nations across the world. Consequently, the

family is a collection of individuals who has significant influence on the governance and

management of most businesses around the world.

Unit 3: Evolution of Family Business Research

Family business was not accepted as an independent field of research until approximately

two decades ago, mid 1970s despite its long existence and contribution to the economies

of western countries. This makes it a relatively young field of enquiry with most research

articles written over the last two decades. The breakthrough experienced in the field of

family business, especially with its inclusion in mainstream academic can be attributed to

the persistence and strong efforts of family business practitioners during the early stages

of publications on the subject. The following names were attributed to the early work done

on family business in literature: Richard Beckhard, Leon Danco, Gibb Dyer, Barbara

Hollander, Ivan Lansberg, Harry Levinson and John Ward.

Also noteworthy is a renowned historian, David S. Landes, who provides useful

information on family businesses in the early days. Early days publications were also

written by professionals consulting for firms who had specific issues with their businesses.

Most studies then were based on individual cases, with the researchers employing non-

scientific methods to address problems associated with these firms. Recurrent issues

associated with family businesses then were mostly linked with ownership, succession,

performance and governance. It is also important to note the efforts of management

professionals consulting for firms with issues within their businesses; they were

instrumental to the inception of fact-finding studies conducted on family businesses

(Brockhaus, 1994). Back then, due to conflicts, succession, sibling rivalry, unprofessional

management, and other relationship management related issues, businesses sometimes

invite outsiders mainly management consultants to help with the resolution of some

peculiar challenges. The observations of some of those consultants gave rise to specific

studies which uncovered the presence of dominant family interests in most of the

businesses in question. They were also able to establish a behavioural pattern in the firms

with majority family interest which differs from those without.

Hence, the foundational conceptualisation of family business was embedded in studies

involving the behavioural patterns of small business owners (Brockhaus, 1994:25). These

researches were based on observing the personal attributes and behaviours exhibited by an

entrepreneur whose small business accommodates the involvement of family members.

The behaviour of this type of entrepreneur (1) was thought to be different from the

entrepreneur (2) „who separate family‟ from their business. The entrepreneur (1) is

believed to thrive on goals which are clearly different from entrepreneur (2). The two

overarching goals suggested in the literature for entrepreneur (1) are: the drive to keep the

business alive and relevant and the desire to pass it on to the next generation within his

family. These observations and others sparked up research on this form of business

enterprise. Due to the efforts of practitioners behind these early researches, family

business research began to gain recognition within the academic community, among

prominent business journals professional associations and conferences. Consequently,

scholars from different disciplines started showing interest in the field, more scientific

approaches were introduced but these were mainly descriptive. Gradually, the field

gained due recognition in the academia, to the extent that newspaper reports were

gradually replaced with publications on families with successful businesses; furthermore,

leading finance, economics and management journals started welcoming articles on

family-owned and controlled enterprises and so on until Family Business Research

became a major topic of discourse at academic conferences in most advanced countries.

Thereafter was the emergence of family business centres and professional organisations,

whose sole aim mostly was to form a forum for researchers and practitioners to meet,

network, and jointly address overarching issues in the field. Most of these centres till date

are concentrated in the U.S. Example of such are Centre for Family - began in 1962;

Family Firm Institute (FFI)-began in 1986; Family Business Network-International (FBN-

I) started in 1990; International Family Business Research Academy (IFERA)-established

in 2001. Institute for Family Business (IFB), established in the United Kingdom in 2001.

Similarly, some academic higher institutions of learning that played early intervention roles

in family business research are: Harvard, Indiana, Loyola, Baylor, Kennesaw State,

Alberta and Calgary Universities. It is also noteworthy to mention these two

organisations: 1) GEEF, a pan-European group established in 1997 to represent the

interest of family-owned small, medium and large enterprises operating in the EU; and

2) The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), a UK based organisation that

has funded various family business researches and centres across the country. The names

of some ESRC funded research centres in the UK are: Centre for Business Research,

University of Cambridge; Small Business Research Centre, Kingston Business School;

Centre for Small and Medium- Sized Enterprises „CSME‟, Warwick Business School;

Centre for Employment,

The first specialist journal wholly dedicated Competitiveness and Growth, University of

Kent.to family businesses was „Family Business Review‟; it was first published in

1988. However, there are many other prominent academic journals which are used

frequently to publish researches in family business, „see table 1 below‟ for the list. In a

recent survey carried out by Chrisman, Kellermanns, Chan and Liano (2010) to

investigate the most cited articles on family business, four journals were identified as

major outlets for family business research, they are: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

(ET&P); Family Business Review (FBR); Journal of Business Venturing; Journal of Small

Business Management.

In Nigeria, the focus of this thesis, there are no specific centres disseminating information

on family business research in the country. However, in 2003, a government funded

agency, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) was

established in Nigeria. SMEDAN was founded to boost the development of small and

medium-scale enterprises in Nigeria. There are also few private organisations and

centres promoting entrepreneurial development in the country, however, none is linked to

family business research as at the time of writing this thesis.

Some notable contributions to the theory of family business research in the last one

decade include the development of specific theories and concepts which are tailored to the

field. Examples are familiness; family influence on power, experience and culture;

family embeddedness; family orientation; family entrepreneurship; family centred non-

economic goals. All these concepts and theories points toward shifting the focus of
investigations in family business research from „firm level‟ to „family level‟ which

would then provide more insights on the dynamics of family involvement in a

business.

Other successes recorded in family business research are development of key research

areas such as succession; ownership; control or governance; performances of family

business; kinship and family networks; organisational culture; entrepreneurial; orientation;

corporate governance; finance and theories for family business research.

Table 1: List of Journals for Family Business Research

S/N JOURNAL DOMICILE DATE OF
D COMMENCEME
COUNTRY NT
1 Journal of Applied Psychology US 1917
2 Harvard Business Review US 1922
3 Management Science US 1954
4 Academy of Management Journal US 1958
5 Journal of Small Business Management US 1963
6 Journal of Business Research US 1973
7 Organisational Dynamics US 1973
8 Journal of Financial Economics US 1974
9 Academy of Management Review US 1976
10 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice US 1976
11 Strategic Management Journal US 1980
12 International Small Business Journal UK 1982
13 Journal of Business Venturing US 1986
14 Family Business Review US 1988
15 Entrepreneurship and Regional UK 1989
16 Organisation Science US 1990
17 Journal of Family Business Strategy
Development US 2010
(Adapted from Wale-Oshinowo, 2015)

In the last few decades, family business research has witnessed substantial interest from

management and organisational sciences‟ scholars who have started to transfer models

from organisational behaviour, strategy, human resource management, and finance, to

smaller-sized or privately owned businesses. Furthermore, the field has also garnered
interests from historians, finance experts, accountants, sociologists, economists,

psychologists, who also use conceptual models from their various fields to interpret their

observations from studies carried out on family firms thus creating a knowledgebase for

emerging researches to consolidate on.

MODULE 2: DEFINING THE FAMILY BUSINESS

Unit 1: Introducing the Family

A family is referred to as a permanent body consisting of individuals who are bound

together by „obligation‟ rather than by contract as it exist in corporate organisations

(Lumpkin, Cogliser, & Schneider, 2008). Historically, the family was traditionally made up

of father, mother and children. In some rural and typical ethnic societies, extended family

members made up of brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunties, grandparents are important

when defining family. Membership of the family unit is mainly by biology/blood and

marriage. However, modern science and the legal system have introduced other means

through which individuals are admitted into the family unit. An example of such is if a

couple have tried without much success to conceive naturally, then help is sought from a

Surrogate Mother (this is a woman who bears a child for a couple where the wife is unable

to do so). The legal system has also made it possible to become a member of a family

through adoption. Adoption means to take into one‟s family a person „mostly children and

sometimes teenagers‟ through legal means and raise the person as one‟s own child. Based

on the afore-mentioned illustrations, family for this review is defined according to U.S.

Bureau of the Census‟ definition - a family was defined as a group of persons (two or more)
related by birth, marriage or adoption and residing together (U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1998c).

The above illustration gives a brief view of how individual family members are related to

each other. A thorough understanding of this relational tie and the dynamics of the family is

fundamental to our study of family business. It is appropriate at this point to discuss the

duties of individual family members within the family and functions of the family to its

members and the society (See table 2 below). The explanations of these two areas might

provide a clear picture of the dynamics of the family.

Responsibilities of Individual Family Members

Table 2 below summarises the responsibilities of each individual member of the family to

the family but the list is not exhaustive.

Obligation

Family members are expected to maintain a sense of duty through being obligated to the

family, mostly placing the interest of the family above their individual interests.

Obligations tie each individual to the family, its beliefs, values, ethics, and other demands.

Culture

This is the way of life built into individual family members. Family culture represents

beliefs within the family system which dictates their attitude, influences their perception
about issues and programs individual behaviour. Individual family members are expected to

live their lives and approach issues based on the family culture.

Values

Family values are usually viewed as positive attributes within the family system. Family

values teach unity, love, tolerance, honesty, giving to less privileged people and

entrepreneurial behaviour. These are planted into individuals within the family system and

are expected to be upheld by each member of the family. Family businesses are known not

to be interested in transferring the ownership/management/control of the business only but

values distinct to the founding family to subsequent generations.

Ethics

Ethics creates a moral sense of right doing (Lumpkin et al., 2008). Individual family

members are expected to maintain a sense of loyalty to the family name hence behave

appropriately both within and outside the family circle.

Trust

Individual family members are expected to make sincere efforts in maintaining their

commitments to the family especially along the following areas discussed above: duty;

family beliefs; family values and ethics (Sundaramurthy, 2008). Trust is crucial to the

survival of every family unit. Trust is viewed as one of the competitive advantages present

within the family (Lumpkin et al., 2008).

Table 2: Functions of Individual Family Members for the Family

 Functions of Individual Family ‘Family’ as the Recipient
Members
Obligation Possess a sense of duty to the family to preserve and
obey its rules and regulations
Culture Culture is important within the family system. Culture
dictates the beliefs and way of life of a particular
family (Dyer, 1986). Individual family members are
expected to protect the family culture and live
according to same.
Values There are certain values embedded within each family
which must be upheld by all individual members of
that family.
Ethics Maintain a conduct of right doing both within and
outside the family circle. This is particularly important
in protecting the family reputation
Trust Trust demands loyalty and honesty on the part of
individual family members
Procreation Individual family members are also expected to assure
the continuation of the family unit
Summary based on review of various articles on family and family business. Two
journals, ‘Family Business Review’ and ‘Journal of Marriage and Family’ were
particularly useful.

Procreation

The demand to carry on the family name leads to procreation. There is a natural

responsibility on each individual member of the family to ensure that the family name does

not go into extinction (Bertrand and Schoar, 2006). The survivability of the family is

crucial to the family and of the means of achieving this is to ensure that the family carry on

its existence. This function of procreation also influences the desire to keep assets (whether

physical or businesses) of the family among its members only. Longevity of family

businesses and trans-generational successions in the ownership, management, control of

same are predicated upon this factor.

The six functions of individuals within the family illustrated above were identified from an

extensive review of the literature. These functions were conceptualised to further provide

clarity on the attributes of families.

Functions of the Family

Overtime, especially since the birth of family business as an independent field, researchers

in the fields of economics, finance, and entrepreneurship and „of recent‟ family business,

have come up with various theories/concepts that seeks to differentiate family business

from other types of business. Some of the constructs developed have added unquantifiable

value to the progress made in the field of family business till date. Notable among the

constructs is „familiness‟ introduced by Habbershon and Williams, (1999), which refers to

the inimitable resources and capabilities that might be available within the family system.

The family as a unit also has a moral obligation to its members and the community it

resides in. Table 3 below presents the functions of the family based on a summary done by

Patterson (2002).

The family system in an ideal situation will provide membership; economic support;

training and protection or security for its members. Similarly, in another ideal environment,

the fulfilment of these functions by the family will generate reciprocal behaviour from its

individual members as illustrated in table 3 below. The demand placed on each individual

members of the family in certain areas and the expectations from the family by its members

and the community have shed some more light on how some characters and/or behaviours
are peculiar to the family system. These behaviours will particularly affect the management

and governance of any firm owned by a family.

Table 3: Functions of the Family to its Members and the Community

Family ‘Individual Family Members’ as ‘Community’ as Recipient
Function Recipient
Membership Provides a sense of belonging, personal Controls the reproductive
and social identity function within the
community
Economic Provides basic needs of food, shelter and Provides breeding ground for
Support clothing; healthy family members who
Provide financial assistance to its have little or no need for
members when needed public support
Training Provides adequate nurturing in family Prevents antisocial behaviour
values; culture; and traditions which in its members through
usually promote wholeness in its proper training in family
members. values and culture;
Provides training in basic skills and also Provides productive family
appropriate education for its members; members into the
Provides physical, psychological, social community;
and spiritual development of its members Prepares family members for
proper integration into the
community
Security Provide protection and support for its Prepares well-behaved
members individuals who are willing
to believe in the community
and also serve the
community accordingly
Summary based on Joan Patterson’s work on Family Resilience and Family Stress
Theory; Journal of Marriage and Family, 2002

Family Orientation

Lumpkin, Martin and Vaughn (2008) to explain the dynamics of the family through a

construct called Family Orientation „FO‟. The „FO‟ construct was developed to provide a

clearer picture on how individual family members relate to the family. This might help in
the understanding of how individuals within a family business behave. In answering the

question of the distinctiveness of family businesses, it is important to have a good

understanding of the dynamics within the family. Family Orientation provides a detailed

explanation of how individual family members relate to the family.

The „FO‟ construct was conceptualised along two theories namely: Bowen‟s Family

Systems Theory and Contextual Family Therapy. The five dimensions that explain family

orientation are: tradition, stability, loyalty, trust and interdependency.

Tradition

Tradition refers to the recognition of a shared history and practices that connects individual

family members to each other. Under, family orientation construct, tradition is a

fundamental element.

There are five main characteristics identified under tradition as operationalised by Lumpkin

et al., (2008). They are:

1) Identification of roles by individuals within the family; this is based on expectations

placed on children by their parents and vice versa;

2) Rituals and Routines: Rituals are used to communicate the practices of the family. It is

connected with emotions and attitudes and tends to have a transgenerational impact.

Examples of rituals are familial celebrations like birthdays and holidays. Routine on the

other hand is less connected to emotions and attitudes. Routines are used to accomplish

perfunctory roles; things that needed to be done on a day-to-day basis;

3) Sharing the same family history;

4) Having similar approach to issues; and

5) Legacy: maintaining the superiority of the family at all times.

In every culture, there are traditions which promote the beliefs and values of the people.

Within the family system, traditions are developed to provide identity and maintain

stability.

Stability

Stability refers to the sense of permanence in any system. In a family, stability represents

those aspects of the family that ensures that its legacy is preserved and continued. The five

main characteristics identified under stability are:

1) Homeostasis: maintaining a similar posture or balance;

2) Maintaining predictable interaction patterns such as routines and rituals discussed above;

3) Governed by rules achievable through set boundaries;

4) Change is usually resisted and continuity or permanence is desired; and

5) There are penalties for unacceptable behaviour. Stability usually gives birth to a sense of

security and safety within a system. Most times, individuals enjoying peace in a

relationship will be develop a sense of loyalty to it.

Loyalty
Loyalty is central to the other dimensions. It is the force that binds a family together.

Without loyalty on the part of individual family members, the willingness to follow set

traditions; maintain stability within the family; trust people, earn other people‟s trust; and

ensure dependency on each other, cannot be achieved. Loyalty refers to a strong sense of

commitment and duty that individuals with a strong family orientation are likely to

experience irrespective of their environment (Lumpkin et al., 2008: 132). In other words, an

individual with a strong family orientation will be loyal to any organisation, whether it is a

family business or not. Therefore loyalty is proposed as an underlying and advantageous

resource embedded in family businesses. Within a family, individual members are expected

to be loyal to the family and all its concerns, to the extent that loyalty is sometimes

demanded. A good example of a family dynasty whose members were tightly bound

together to the extent that all members were strictly guided by the family motto of Unity

(Concordia), Integrity (Integritas), and Industry (Industria). Any behaviour, vision or goal

out of this motto was forbidden. The patriarch, Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836) kept his five

sons on a tight leash and their loyalty to the family was unquestionable. The Rothschilds

family under the leadership of Mayer, ran a successful banking empire from five major

cities in Europe, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples. The five sons were bound

by trust and strong loyalty to the family and were not allowed to divulge any information

relating to their business operations or the size of their fortunes to third parties. The four

characteristics identified under loyalty are as follows:

1) Sense of duty and obligation;

2) Sense of commitment;
3) Priority on togetherness;

4) Sense of indebtedness: this is guided by feelings of guilt. Being loyal to a union or

relationship naturally breeds trust, the next dimension.

Trust

Trust is defined as a psychological state comprising of the intention to accept a vulnerable

position by a party based on a positive expectation of the intention or behaviour of the

another party (Rousseau et al., 1998: 395). Trust within the family system is built on

familial connection, shared belief, shared history, similar approach to issues and common

characteristics (Sundaramurthy, 2008). Individual family members over time develop a

strong sense of trust in the family system in addition to depending on each other for

support. This is because trust promotes agreement and cohesion among a group of people.

The literature views trust as very to the success of any relationship. Hence the proposition

that individuals with high family orientation must have a very strong sense of trust. The

four characteristics identified by Lumpkin et al., under trust are:

1) Safety;

2) Protection;

3) Fairness and reciprocity; and

4) Trustworthiness. Trust in a relationship usually leads to dependency, the last dimension.

Interdependency
Within the family, it is a common practice that people depend on each other for various

reasons and different things. Members of the same family look up to one another for

support physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually. There is a natural confidence

(mostly based on emotional ties) that if a need arises within the family or among any of its

members, other members will be willing to bridge the gap without much solicitation.

Lumpkin et al., identified four characteristics under the interdependency dimension:

1) Reliance on one another;

2) Cohesion;

3) Emotional ties and closeness; and

4) Support of family members.

Family Orientation and Functions of the Family System: Linkages

How does the family orientation construct connect with the functions of the family system?

As expected, the FO construct and functions of the family (at different levels) connect

easily. Individuals with strong family orientation are expected to be strong in the following

areas: tradition, stability, loyalty, trust and interdependency. Similarly, family members are

under strong obligation to maintain the family tradition by adopting its values and

practising its culture. Loyalty, which is central to all attributes of the family as a whole is

based on strong ethics. Trust is based on strong emotional ties among family members and

promotes interdependency or cohesion.

Each family has an identity physically and socially. Protecting this identity is very

important to individual families. Most rules and values introduced into families are usually

connected with promoting its reputation and identity. This might be the process through

which independent culture, traditions and values are developed to maintain stability and

some form of collaboration.

A strong family orientation is therefore deeply embedded in the natural demands placed on

the family system at different levels. Having established the characteristics of the family, it

is important to now attempt to define a family business.

Unit 2: Who are the Family Firms?

A family firm draws its specialness from shared history, identity, and common language of

the family. For example, the job a Chief Executive Officer is carried out differently when
the Executive Director occupying the office next door is his younger brother. Similarly, the

Chairman of a board acts differently when the company is founded by his father; his

siblings and mother are directors and also shareholders in the firm.

In the last three decades scholars have grown the body of literature on families and their

businesses, although, there are still more disparity of views than consensus on what

constitute a family involvement in a business. In the broadest sense, a family business is a

distinct form of business separate from other types of enterprises termed as „non-family

businesses‟ in their behaviour, values, culture, long-term orientation, performance,

operations, institutional requirements, decision-making, composition, strategic orientation;

and most importantly, their contributions to the economy and society at large. Although,

Family business as a field of research may overlap with entrepreneurship and Small

Businesses, but they have been established in the literature as a separate line of research

enquiry due to their distinctiveness (Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua 1997).

Unit 3: Identifying the Distinctiveness of Family Businesses

Two and Three Circle Models

The process of differentiating family business from other forms of business organisation

was one of the approaches used by early family business researchers to define family

business. One of the models used by early family business scholars is the dual circle

model as shown in figure 1 below.

The dual circle model describes the involvement of a family in the business system.

T his model was used over the years to provide a useful platform for early researchers,
academics and practitioners to analyse complex organisational behaviour, strategy, family

dynamics, organisational decisions and attitudes that occur within family businesses.

The underlying conceptual model then held that the family firm is made up of two

overlapping subsystems: the family and the business, with each system having norms,

rules, values and structures peculiar to it. The business sub-system is expected to operate

and be guided by sound business practices and principles while simultaneously meeting

family needs for employment, identity, and income. The dual circle model clearly shows

the challenges facing all family enterprises which is trying to harness any conflicting goal

of the two subsystems and also finding the right strategies that satisfies both.

G ersick, Davis, Hampton and Lansberg (1997) introduced the three-circle model by

incorporating family ownership of the business into the equation. This concept was

borne out of their work with many different companies of varied sizes which show that

there was more need to differentiate between the ownership and management subsystems

within the business circle than between the family and the business as a whole. Gersick et

al.‟s work was developed based on the original arguments presented by Taguiri and Davis

(1980).

The three-circle model sheds more light on the relevant attributes, peculiarities,

distinctiveness as well as possible conflicts that may exist between these two systems. The

model describes the family business system as three independent but overlapping

subsystems: business, ownership and family. The underlying idea behind the concept

suggests that any individual in the family firm can be placed in one of the seven sectors

formed by the overlapping circles of the subsystems. In the event that an individual has
more than one connection to the firm, he/she will be in one of the overlapping sectors

which fall in two or three of the circles at the same time. Supported widely in the family

business literature, the three-circle model shown in figure 2 below delineates accurately

the roles of different individuals within the two overlapping systems.

Figure 1: Two-Circle Model

a. Family Business

1 2

Figure 2: Three-Circle Model (adapted from Gersick et al., 1997).

Family
Business
b.
1
6 3

Ownership

(Adapted from Wale-Oshinowo, 2015)

 Family members: All individual family members occupy anywhere within the
top right circle – sector1;
  Owners: All owners (and owners only) occupy anywhere within the bottom
circle – sector 2;

 Employees: All employees (employees only) occupy anywhere within top right
circle – sector 3;

 All individuals who have only one connection to the enterprise are in any one of
the outside –sectors 1, 2, or 3;

 Family members who are also owners of the business (but not employees)
occupy – sector 4;

 Family members who are also employees within the business (this could be at
any level – managerial role or Chief Executive Officer, but not owners or
shareholders) occupy – sector 6;

 Owners who are also employees within the business (but not family members)
occupy sector 5;

 Finally, individuals who have an interest in all three areas, that is, they are
owners or shareholders in the business; a member of the family; and an
employee within the enterprise occupy – sector 7. (Gersick et al., 1997).

Following the above explanation, the three-circle model indeed provides a clear

descriptive picture of the degree of overlap between the family and the business.

These two complex social systems on interaction, differentiates family businesses from

non-family businesses. Although, the three-circle model provides a good description of a

family business, it does not explain the distinct resources that accompany a family‟s
involvement with a firm.

The Sustainable Family Business Model – SFB (1999)

The sustainable family business model is another early theoretical model that was used to

differentiate family businesses from other types of business. The premise of this construct

is on family systems theory that highlights the key characteristics of family system and

business system respectively. These characteristics were used to develop a model by

Stafford, Duncan, Dane and Winter (1999). They propose that the two systems (family

and business) exist independently but with an underlying assumption that they could

interplay to achieve a mutual sustainability of family businesses. The authors also use

their model to show that both family and business systems are affected by environmental

and structural changes, and they both react to those changes differently.

In summary, the Sustainable Family Business Model was created to guide empirical

research in identifying those unique characteristics that exist in the interaction of family

and business systems which may lead to the sustainability of family firms. It is

important to note that this model built on Gersick, Davis, Hampton and Lansberg‟s (1997)

three circle model to highlight the various advantages and also likely disruptions that

arise from the interaction of the family and business.

Familiness (1999)

The familiness concept is one of the few constructs developed within the field of

family business which focuses on identifying the distinctiveness of family firms. This

construct is first introduced by Habbershon and Williams (1999). The theory of

familiness is built on the familial relationship that exists among individual family

members involved in the business and its subsequent effect on the performance of the

firm. Familiness, according to Habbershon and Williams (1999), is defined as “the

idiosyncratic firm level bundle of resources and capabilities resulting from the interactions

among three systems – the family, family members, and the business.” Similarly,

Chrisman et al., (2003) define the construct as resources and capabilities related to family

involvement and interactions,” while Pearson, Carr and Shaw (2008) describe familiness

as the resources and capabilities that are unique to family involvement and interactions

with the firm. This systematic interaction of the family, business and individual family

members is responsible for creating the unique resources and capabilities for family firms.

The concept of familiness has further contributed to the literature on family business by

promoting the understanding of the collaboration that exists among three independent

systems. The conceptual paper by Pearson, Carr and Shaw (2008) attempt to bridge the

theoretical gaps identified in the familiness concept. These researchers suggest that

subsumed in the concept of familiness are inseparable and synergetic set of elements that

create competitive advantage for the firm. They further used social capital theory to build

on previous studies on familiness by Habbershon and Williams, (1999); and Habbershon

et al., (2003). Pearson et al., (2008) via the social capital theory, investigated the unique

behavioural and social resources found in the family vis-à-vis the capabilities of the firm.

Their research summarises four conditions that may precede the occurrence of familiness

within a family firm. These are summarised in table 4 below. The researchers also suggest

in their study that part of the competitive advantages which a family firm has over a non-
family firm might have its foundation in these four conditions.

Table 4: Antecedents of Familiness Construct Pearson, Carr and Shaw (2008)

Time Closure Interdependence Interaction
Family firms‟ Family firms in Family members
Family structure
exhibit closure nature, provides a within the firm
promotes
through early higher level of continue to interact
longevity in
involvement of interdependence even after business
terms of value, children in the within their social hours. This is
culture, vision.
business; continued structure than required for
Relationships active involvement non-family firms. maintenance of
within the family of the founding This contributes social capital.
system are not
generation in the to organisational Effective interaction
temporal Summarised
but firm;based on an article written by Pearson et al., 2008 (adapted from
and keeping ownership
capabilities of within an
longstanding Wale-Oshinowo, 2015)
and management of collective action. organisation reflects
hence all the business the quantity, quality,
structures related among
blood and strength of the
to the family relatives relationship in it.
might be treated
in this manner.
Familiness: Approach by Zellweger, Eddleston and Kellermanns (2010)

Another set of authors took a different approach in explaining the familiness construct.

Zellweger, Eddleston and Kellermanns (2010) expanded on the familiness construct by

investigating the type of families that are likely to build familiness. They introduce the

“organisational identity dimension” into the literature on familiness. Organisational

identity dimension seeks to assess the degree to which family and non-family members see

the firm as a family business. It addresses the „who‟ question of the familiness construct

by focusing on the family itself. Their view is that the way a family firm is viewed by its

founders, managers and non-family employees may affect how each party leverages on

the bundles of resources and capabilities available both internally and externally in the

firm. Figure 3 below is the three- circle model proposed by Zellweger, Eddleston, and

Kellermanns.
Figure 3: Dimensions of Familiness

Figure 3: Dimensions of Familiness, adapted from Zellweger et al., 2010(adapted from

Wale-Oshinowo, 2015)

Familiness is summarised to be about behavioural and social resources. In essence family

businesses under the lenses of familiness can be described as one without stringent control,

less monitoring and structure, therefore would be more flexible and efficient in decision

making when compared with non-family businesses.

The Bull’s Eye Model (1996)

Shanker and Astrachan (1996) proposed the Bull‟s Eye Model for a clearer identification

of the components of family involvement in a business. The Bull Eye‟s model was a

employed a quantitative approach to assess the contributions of family businesses to the

United States of America and its economy. Furthermore, the model engaged a multi-

dimensional approach to provide a continuum definition for family business, a n d t h i s

differentiates the Bull Eye from most other earliest approaches that focused mainly on

separating family business from non-family businesses.

The Bull‟s Eye Model categorises family business into three groups (broad, middle and

narrow), based on the degree of family involvement in them. The broad definition captures

direct family involvement as very minimal. Under the broad definition, the family is

involved to strategically control the business to facilitate generational transfer. The

middle definition depicts a business that has the direct involvement of the founder or a

descendant in management. The narrow definition, which occupies the central point in the

concentric circles, shows a firm that has of multiple generations of a family directly

involved in ownership, management, and control.

Figure 3 below is a diagram representation of the Bull Eye‟s Model (adapted from

Shanker and Astrachan (1996).

Figure 4: The Bull’s Eye

 Figure 4: The Bull’s Eye by Shanker and Astrachan, 1996 (adapted from Wale-
Oshinowo, 2015)

Four Elements of Family Business Definition by Westhead and Cowling (1998)

The study by Westhead and Cowling, (1998) used the component approach in

determining what constitute a family involvement in a business. The authors

carried out an extensive review of the literature and identified four key elements

which they considered fundamental in defining a family business within the

context of businesses not quoted in the stock exchange. These include:

 Perception: How does the chief executive office perceive the company,
family business or otherwise?
 Ownership: Is the majority ordinary voting shares owned by members of
the largest family group?
 Management: Is the management team primarily drawn from the single
dominant family group that owns the business?
 Intergenerational Transfer: Has the company experienced a generational
transfer to a second or later generation of family members drawn from a
single dominant family?

Table 5 below shows the seven definitions proposed by the authors as a guide in

defining family involvement in an unquoted company. Please note that these

definitions were further put in different categories by Wale-Oshinowo (2015).

Table 5: Classification of Westhead and Cowling’s Definitions of Family

Business
DEFINITION FB DEFINITIONAL
The company is perceived by the Chief Executive, Perception
ELEMENT
(Organisational Identity)
Managing Director or Chairman to be a family business

More than fifty percent of ordinary voting shares are Ownership

owned by members of the largest single family group
related by blood or marriage
More than fifty percent of ordinary voting shares are Ownership; Perception
(Organisational Identity)
owned by members of the largest single family group
related by blood or marriage and the company is perceived
by the Chief Executive, Managing Director or Chairman to
be a family business
 More than fifty percent of ordinary voting shares are owned Ownership; Perception
by the members of the largest single family group related (Organisational
by blood or marriage, the company is perceived by the Identity); Management
Chief Executive, Managing Director or Chairman to be a
More
familythan fifty percent
business; and oneoforordinary
more of voting shares are team
the management owned is Ownership; Perception
by
drawn from the largest family group who own the company (Organisational
the members of the largest single family group related
by blood or marriage, the company is perceived by the Identity); Management
Chief Executive, Managing Director or Chairman to be a
More
familythan fifty percent
business; of ordinarypercent
and fifty-one voting shares
or more are of
owned
the Ownership; Perception
by the members
management teamofare
thedrawn
largestfrom
single
the family
largest group
familyrelated
group (Organisational
by
whoblood or company
own the marriage, the company is perceived by the Identity); Management;
Chief Executive, Managing Director or Chairman to be a Intergenerational
family business; and one or more of the management team is transfer (Succession)
More
drawnthan
fromfifty
the percent of ordinary
largest family groupvoting
who ownshares
the are owned Ownership; Perception
company;
by
andthethemembers
companyof istheowned
largestbysingle family group related
the second-generation or (Organisational
by
moreblood ormembers
family marriage, the company is perceived by the Identity); Management;
Chief Executive, Managing Director or Chairman to be a Intergenerational
family business; and fifty-one percent or more of the transfer (Succession)
Classification of Westhead and Cowling’s Seven Family B usiness Definitions
management team are drawn from the largest family group
(adapted from Wale-Oshinowo, 2015).
who own the company

Family Influence-Power, Experience and Culture Scale (F-PEC Scale)

Another approach widely used in the literature to measure family involvement in a firm in

the continuum is the F-PEC scale. This scale developed by Astrachan, Klein, and

Smyrnios (2002) further expands our understanding of how to measure the quantum of

family influence in a firm. The F-PEC scale builds on previous studies that introduced

the use of continuous scale measure such as: Shanker and Astrachan, (1996); Westhead

and Cowling, (1998); and Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma The F-PEC scale is considered

unique because of its combination of two approaches to define family business. They

are familiness (discussed previously) and the components of family involvement which are

mainly reflected in ownership, management, governance and succession.

The three important dimensions associated with the F-PEC scale are discussed below.
Power

Power refers to dominance. It measures the family‟s influence in the firm through

ownership, management and governance of the firm. Figure 5 below shows how the Power

subscale measures family influence.

Figure 5: Power Subscale of F-PEC Scale

Figure 5: F-PEC Power Subscale ‘Adapted from Wale-Oshinowo (2015)

Experience

The total experience in knowledge, skills and number of years is what this subscale

measures. The items being measured by the experience subscale are shown in figure 6

below.

Figure 6: Experience Subscale of F-PEC Scale

 Figure 6: F-PEC Experience Subscale (adapted from Wale-Oshinowo, 2015).

Culture

In the context of an organisation, culture is subsumed in the shared values, experiences and

basic assumptions of its founders. In the broadest sense organisational culture refers to

shared values that guide the members of an organisation on how to behave (O‟Reilly &

Chatman, 1996). It is a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as its solved

its problem of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough

to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 2010:18). The above

definitions underscore a cognitive process that takes place in individual members of an

organisation to adapt to „the organisation‟s ways of doing things‟. The F-PEC culture

subscale measures the extent to which family values and business values overlap in a

family firm; it attempts to capture the degree of family values that have been integrated

into the character of the firm and are being reflected in the company‟s behaviour and

strategic orientation.

Family Business Definition in this Course Guide

Having established various approaches used to measure family business in the literature,

this unit provides a more concise presentation of how scholars define a family business. It

is important to mention that a family firm comes in any business ownership form: sole

proprietorship, partnership, Limited Liability Company, or Publicly-traded Company (but

with majority family ownership). Some definitions found in the literature for family

business are as follows:

 the largest percentage of shares in a business is owned by a family

 when the family is actively involved in firm management and the intention of the

family members is to retain ownership of the firm

 as an enterprise in which two or more family members hold 15 percent ownership,

family members are employed in the business, and the family intend to retain control

of the firm in the future

 a firm that has the owning family in executive and other key positions

 the extent to which the family intends to maintain significant involvement in the

future

 the number of owning family‟s generations involved in the business

 the number of family members involved in ownership and/or management

 the influence of a family on ownership, governance, management of a firm and their

direct participation in the strategic direction, involvement in day-to-day running of

the business and their intention to retain voting control

 Family firm was defined as those in which ownership lies within the family and at

least two family members are employed by the business

 a firm controlled and managed by one individual who employs only immediate

family members and has some degree of his or her family identity connected with

the business.

 as one controlled and managed by a collection of relatives who represents multiple

generations of one family but has a significant number of non-family employees

 a firm in which the direct descendants of the founder has ownership and/or

management control

 as one with multiple members of the same family involved as major owners or

managers either contemporaneously or over time

 a business partly owned by one or more family members who together control at

least 20% of the total assets outstanding

 as those with evidence of family ownership and succession with two or more

individuals are related by blood or marriage and are directors and/or shareholders

A quick review of the above definitions and others that contained in the family business

literature will convince you that the key elements of defining a family business is

contained in Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma‟s (1999) prominent work in this area. The

authors carried out a comprehensive study of 2 different definitions of family business

in their review of 250 articles; their findings produced two central themes:

 dominant control in the hands of the family

 trans-generational perspective: long-term value creation and emphasises the

relevance of succession
Chua, Chrisman and Sharma (1999) defined family business as a business governed and/or

managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business 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.

Based on the comprehensive review provided above,

A family business is defined as a firm that is dominantly owned, managed,

governed/controlled by a family, with the intention to retain the ownership and control of

the business within the family across generations.

We also suggest that a broader definition to guide our peculiar environment should include

“the presence of family as employees and a dominant family culture guiding the behaviour

of members of the organisation”.

The above definitions will guide the other discussions in the rest of this course guide. The

next unit gives a brief discussion on the components of family involvement highlighted in

the above definitions.

Unit 4: Components of Family Involvement

The following are the main components of family involvement identified from the previous

units: ownership, management, governance/control, succession (generational involvement),

family employees, and family culture.

Ownership

The ownership of a firm belongs to the person/person or group that holds the controlling

shares. Ownership is represented through either of these two definitions: the number of

shares an individual or a family owns in a firm; or the percentage of shareholding or voting

rights held by a group in a firm (Wale-Oshinowo, 2015). A group that has an overall

significant ownership interest in a firm is believed to h o l d a strategic position in shaping

its performance outcome across different generations (Anderson and Reeb 2003a). This

right of ownership also guides commitment, decision making and other strategic behaviour

in the firm. The ownership dimension may be the most fundamental element required to

define a family business.

Management

The management team is hired either internally or externally to organise and co-

ordinate all the affairs of a firm, in accordance with the objectives and policies given

by its owners (Drucker, 1974). Therefore if the family has significant presence in the

management team, that firm may be considered as dominantly family.

Governance and Control

Governance is another important and key element of family involvement in a business. It

is a role that is reflected in family member‟s involvement in directing the relationships

and occurrences within the firm. Governance role involves control and decision making.

Other governance roles as identified in the literature in family SMEs include: monitoring,

providing advice, creating external legitimacy for the company, disciplining, networking,

providing access to capital.

Succession

The succession plan of a family firm shows its long-term goals. The position of key

researchers is that the exclusion of trans-generational involvement from defining

family business makes it incomplete. This is because multiple generation involvement

in family firms has been linked with continuity, sustainability and a firm‟s focus on

innovation. Succession is defined as the process through which a firm is transferred

from one generation to another.

Family Employees
Family members represent important sources of human and social capitals for both old

and new enterprises. Empirical studies have established that families depend on the easy

access to a pool of human capital from among family members to work within their firms,

especially during the early days of such businesses. Family employees, based on their

emotional tie to the firm, would be more committed to long hours of work, less pay and

provision of external networks, which may eventually translate to competitive advantages

for family firms. Family employees therefore represent family members (both nuclear and

extended), who are employed into different positions within the firm (Wale-Oshinowo,

2015).

Family Culture

Culture refers to a cumulative set of assumptions that guides the belief systems of a

group of people. Culture is referred to as the phenomena beneath the surface that constrain

and guide behaviour (Gill, 2009). It is cultivated, learnt and mostly enhanced by its clarity

and acceptance so it can be managed. Culture is not genetically created but on the

contrary, it is learnt either from the society in which an individual was nurtured or an

organisation in which he/she works (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). In the context of a

family system, the family shapes and guide the behaviour of its members and those values

and behaviours are most often transfer to the business system to serve are its strong

organisational culture. The underlying assumption guiding this suggestion is that when a

family gets involved with a firm, there is a possibility that the business would be guided

by the same principles, and values embedded in the family.

Distinctiveness of a Family Business

In summary, the distinctiveness of a family business from other forms of businesses is

defined by the following characteristics: the presence of a family in the firm; the overlap of

family roles in ownership, management and governance which may prompt its decision to

transfer the firm to the next generation; tacit knowledge transferred from one generation to

the other; long-term orientation; and strong family values.

MODULE 3: THEORIES GUIDING FAMILY BUSINESS RESEARCH

In this module, five theories that are frequently used in family business research to connote

the distinctiveness of family businesses among different forms of organisations would be

discussed briefly.

The Systems Theory

The systems theory is a theoretical approach that was used in the scholarly study of family

business. It presents the family firm as a model with three overlapping, interacting and

independent subsystems of family, management and ownership. It suggests that each

system maintains its boundaries which separate it from the other subsystems and the

general external environment in which the family business operates in. Other assumptions

guiding the systems theory are:

 one subsystem cannot be understood separately from the entire system within which

it exists

 understanding comes when all the three subsystems with their interactions and

interdependence are studied as one system

The Resource-based View (RBV)

The Resource-based view theory of the firm seeks to answer the question of why some

firms perform better than the others. It is an economic tool used to determine the strategic

resources available to a firm” (Barney, 1991). The RBV has been and still remains the

most widely used theory to guide family business research. The framework developed by

Barney (1991) has two underlying assumptions. First is that, a firm‟s resources can be
referred to as a bundle of productive resources, if they are heterogeneous. This implies

that the firm‟s resources must be diverse in nature for them to lead to any form of

competitive advantage; and second, a firm‟s resources must not be perfectly mobile, which

suggests that they must be inelastic in supply and not easily copied.

Under the discussion on RBV, a firm‟s resources that have the potential to impact

positively on organisational outcome and create competitive advantages for that

organisation must have four characteristics:

 it must be valuable- this implies that the resource must be able to influence the firms

effectiveness and efficiency in a positive way

 it must be unique and only available to the firm

 it must be inimitable – this means that for the resource to create a sustainable

competitive advantage, competitors must not be able to copy it; and lastly,

 it must be non-substitutable- this implies that the resource cannot be substituted by a

competitor. It is only then that it can secure the strategy of the firm

Social Capital Theory

This is another popular theory used in family business research. The social capital theory

addresses the interaction and exchange between individuals in a social network. It describes

the relationship between the individuals or between organisations. In terms of resources, it

is clearer to define social capital theory as those resources embedded in social relations
which facilitate collective action. It is also generally referred to as trust, concerns for one‟s

associates and a willingness to live by the norms of one‟s community and to punish those

who do not (Bowles & Gintis, 2002:F419). Woolcock and Narayan, (2000:226) defines it

as the norms and networks that enable people act collectively. These resources include

trust, norms and networks of a group with common purpose. The theory guides the

assessment of family‟s role in providing knowledge, information, skills, access to markets

and other network resources.

Agency Theory

The agency theory basically presents the argument that the natural alignment of owners and

managers (the agents) decreases the need for formal supervision of agents. In a typical

organisation, the principal may have divergent views, interests, behaviour, and information

from the agent. This could lead to conflict of interest between the principal and agent.

However, in a situation where the principal and agents share similar interest, there would be

no conflict of interest and no need for agency costs. Agency cost could increase or decrease

in a family firm depending on the structure of the firm.

 In a firm with family ownership and external manager: concentrated ownership by a

family means a strong interest of that family (principal) in the success of the firm;

this would lead to close monitoring of the external manager (agent) which may help

align information flow between the principal and agents; reduces the possibilities of

the agent using the firm‟s resources for their personal use and also ensure that the

family‟s interest is well protected. This will lead to reduced agency cost or it could
 increase if the family loses control of the agent (external manager) and more funds

has to be invested in monitoring the activities of the agent.

 However in a firm with family ownership and family manager, agency cost will

further decrease in this situation because there is no real separation between

ownership and control. Here the family manager represents the interest of the family

and would act as both principal and agent.

Agency theory is guided by the following perspectives: control-oriented agent, self-serving,

economic factors, extrinsic motivation, and low-value commitment. Please note that in your

review of the external literature, you may find that this theory may have undertaken other

perspectives in explaining agency cost in family firms other than what you find in this

manual.

Stewardship Theory

This theory explains how the founding family view the firm as an extension of themselves

and therefore see the good health and continuity of the firm as connected to their personal

well-being. Stewardship theory is viewed in contrast to agency theory. This is because,

under the stewardship theory, people are argued to be self-motivated to accomplish tasks

and responsibilities which have been entrusted into their hands. While in agency theory,

people have to be extrinsically motivated, in stewardship theory, people are intrinsically

motivated. Factors such as self-actualisation, growth, achievement, commitment, trust,

long-term view are known to guide the interpretation of stewardship perspective in family

business research.
MODULE 4:
PREVALENCE AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY FIRMS

Family businesses are the primary source of wealth and economic growth of free

economies all over the world. This is phenomenal feat is embedded in their pervasiveness

of most of these economies, to the extent that the literature has recorded family businesses

as the most prevalent form of business enterprise in the world. They are found in almost

every sector of the world‟s economies. The contribution of family firms to the economies

of this country dates back centuries and they continue to serve as growth engines for these

countries. For example, there are interesting records of family businesses that has been in

existence for over a century in in three leading economies: Japan has 25,321, the United

States of America has 11,273 and Germany has 7,632 (Yiu, 2017). Below are summaries

of statistics on family businesses from around the world.

World Statistics

 Family firms accounts for 80-90% of all businesses in the world; Global Data
Points from Family Firm Institute (2016) puts it as two-thirds of all businesses in
the world
 Family firms creates an estimate of between 75 to 90% of the world‟s Gross
Domestic Product
 Family firms employ between 50 to 80% of the world working population
 85% of start-ups from around the world were created with family money
 In most countries around the world, family businesses are between 70 to 95% of all
business entities
Source: Global Data Points, Family Firm Institute (2016)

In the United States of America (USA)

 Family business generates approximately 60% of the country‟s GDP

 Family business employ an estimate of 80% of the company‟s working population

 Family business creates 85% of all new jobs in the United States

 Family-owned and family-controlled businesses account for approximately 90% of

all incorporated businesses in the country.

 Consistent over one-third of the Fortune 500 companies are family controlled

 60% of all publicly traded companies are under family influence

Source: Family Business by Poza, E.J (2007)

United Kingdom (UK) – Statistics for 2014

 In 2014, family firms account for an estimated figure of 4.6 million businesses in

the UK. This translates to 87% of all private sector firms

  99.6% were small businesses; 0.3% were medium-sized businesses and 10.9

percent were large firms

 Family firms employed 11.9 million people in 2014, This is 47% of all private

sector employment and 36% of total employment in the UK

 Family business generated £1.3 trillion in turnover in 2014

 Family firms was estimated to have added a gross value of £418 billion to the

country‟s GDP

 Family firms paid an estimated figure of £125 billion in tax in 2014

Source: Institute for Family Business Report (2015)

China

In China (adapted from Global Data Points, Family Firm Institute, 2016)

 85.4% of private enterprises in China are family owned

India

In India (adapted from Global Data Points, Family Firm Institute, 2016)

 Two-thirds of the country‟s GDP is provided by family firms

 Family firms account for 90% of the country‟s gross industry output

 79% of the country‟s organised private sector employment is generated by family

firms

General Statistics from other Countries across Europe

Family firms account for the following share of private-sector ownership in Europe:
Austria (80%); Belgium (70%); Finland (86%); France (95%); Germany (95%); Italy
(93%); Netherlands (69%); Spain (75%); Sweden (80%) and Switzerland (88%). Source:
Flören, Uhlaner & Berent-Braun (2010); Zellweger, (2017).
General Statistics from Asia-Pacific

85% of the companies in Asia-Pacific are family owned; they employ 57% of the

workforce in listed companies in South Asia and 32% of the workforce in North Asia;

family firms generate 32% of the total market capitalisation and 34% of the nominal Asia

GDP (Family Business Yearbook, 2014).

Although, China is relatively new to family business research, a study carried out by Sun

Yatsen and Zhejiang Universities report that approximately 85.4% of the country‟s

private enterprises are family-owned; in Singapore, 80-90% of industrial companies are

family firms (Lee, 2006 as referenced in Zellweger, 2017).

General Statistics from Latin America

65 to 98% of businesses in this region are family firms (Flören, 2002 as referenced in

Zellweger, 2017).

Family Businesses Operating From Across the World

The following are examples of family businesses from around the world: Nike, USA (the

Knights); Wal-Mart, USA (the Walton‟s Family); McKesson, USA (McKesson Family);

News Corporation, USA (the Murdochs); Phillips 66, USA (the Phillips Family);

Sainsbury U K (Sainsbury was a family- owned family-managed firm for 129 years up

until 1998 when David Sainsbury, the last family Chairman of the organisation retired);

Peugeot in France; SoftBank, Japan (the Son‟ Family); Hoshi Ryokan, Japan (the
Houshi‟s Family); Tata Group, India (Tata Family); Dabur Group, India (the Burman

Family); Reliance Industries, India (the Ambani Family); Sing Holdings in Singapore (the

Huang Family); Archer Family Farm, Australia (the Archer Family); Agnelli (major

investor in Fiat); Benetton Group; Luxottica Group; Zegna Group in Italy; The Salvat

company in Spain (founded in 1869, developed from a small family-owned Catalonian

publishing house into a world-rated large publisher in Spanish language in the 1970s); and

Lum Chang Holdings in Singapore; Richemont, Switzerland (the Rupert Family); Sun

Hung Kai Properties, Hong Kong (the Kwok Family); Foxconn, Taiwan (the Gou Family).

Family Businesses in Nigeria

Although there are relatively little to no formal records of family business research in terms

of size, prevalence or economic significance in Nigeria, a compilation of a few known

businesses with family involvement by Wale-Oshinowo, (2017- in press) are as follows:

 The Mike Adenuga Group of Companies- comprising of Conoil Producing Nigeria

Limited and Globacom Limited (Adenuga Family)

 Ekene Dili Chukwu Group of Companies (Ilodibe‟s Family)

 Honeywell Group Nigeria (Otudeko Family)

 Sani Brothers Group of Companies/Azman Oil & Gas Ltd (Abdulmunafi‟s Family)

 Isyaku Rabiu and Sons (Isyaku Rabiu‟s Family)

 Kabo Holdings (Adamu Dankabo‟s Family)

 Mai Deribe‟s Venture (Mai Deribe‟s Family)

 Nigerian Tribune (late Obafemi Awolowo Family)

 Henry Stephen‟s Group ( Fajemirokun Family)

  First City Group (the Baloguns)

 Adebola Adegunwa Group (the Adegunwas)

 The Punch Newspaper (the Aboderins)

 Folawiyo Group of Companies (the Folawiyos)

 Eleganza Group (Okoya Family)

 Elizade Group (The Ade Ojo Family)

 Orange Drugs Group (The Ezenna Family)

 BUA Group; AIT Group of Companies

• Ibeto Group (the Ibeto Family)

• Fagbohun Tailors (The Fagbohun Family)

• The Tejuosho Group (the Tejuosho Family)

• Ibru Business Dynasty (The Ibru Family)

• Dominos Stores/ Silverbird Cinemas (the Bruce Family)

• Diamond Bank (The Dozie Family)

MODULE 5: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FAMILY BUSINESSES

Strengths of Family Firms

 Conflict of interest between owners and managers are fewer: The alignment of

interest between owners and managers from the same family is a major strength of

family firms. Fewer agency conflict is recorded due when family members are

present at both ownership and management levels of the business

The RBV, unlike most other theories commonly used in family business research, focuses

on the internal stimulus of firms (Penrose, 1959) by describing the inherent resources and

capabilities in such firms. The fundamental principles of the RBV are especially

relevant to family business studies because the focus of family business research is

centred on understanding the sources of competitive advantage embedded in a family

when it interacts with the firm (Habbershon et al., 2003; Habbershon and Williams, 1999).

The resources used in the context of the RBV are not only limited to the attributes that

enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of a firm, but they also include those that

create competitive
advantages that would impact positively on performance (Habbershon and Williams,

1999).

Resources that create competitive advantages in firms must be valuable, rare, inimitable

and not substitutable (Barney, 1986). Resources can also be tangible or intangible in

nature (Habbershon and Williams, 1999; Barney et al., 2001). Tangible resources in

this case refer to physical beneficial characteristics, such as capital, networks,

geographical location, and assets; while intangible resources include family values

and culture, tacit knowledge, family name, family reputation, relationships, family

orientation, loyalty, trust, traditions. Therefore, the theory of RBV argues that the

factors or stimulus responsible for growth and positive performances of firms are

capabilities which can be found inside those firms (Barney, 1991; 1986). While the

source of a firm‟s capabilities is its resources, capabilities are derived when a firm

is able to develop its resources into competence and invisible assets (Sirmon and Hitt,

2003).

On family business research, several studies have argued that family-involved firms

acquire, anchor and leverage on their resources in ways that clearly separates them

from non-family businesses (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Habbershon et al., 2003;

Habbershon and Williams, 1999). Some major examples in literature are: long-term

orientation and goals of family businesses (Sharma et al., 1997); sustainability of

family businesses even in periods of recession (Forbes 2011 report; Stafford et al.,

1999); tacit knowledge (Miller et al., 2007); resilience; family culture leading to an
invaluable organisational culture (Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2007; Zahra et al.,

2004); trust (Sundaramurthy, 2008); and socio-cultural and economic stability

(Sharma, 2004). Therefore, the Resource-Based View explains the competitive

advantages of family businesses through their resources and capabilities (Habbershon et

al., 2003; Habbershon and Williams, 1999).

In Though, family businesses pervade the universal business landscape, they face

numerous challenges which would be discussed in this course guide. There are three key

challenges facing family businesses: first is generational involvement and leadership;

second is ensuring that family commitment to the business transcends into competitive

advantage for them; and third is aligning family‟s investment in financial and human
capital with the business strategy to create value in an intensely competitive global

economy. Other issues are: conflict management, succession planning, managing

nepotism, professionalism, and a few others.

(Zahra, 2005); and their contributions to the growth and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
of these countries are evident in the literature (Astrachan& Shaker, 2003; Colli, 2003).
Among other motivators, lifestyle and wealth accumulation goals play an important role
in whether a particular family member or members choose to start a business in
conjunction with their family. At the same time that the business provides income to the
family,the family may serve as a critical supply of paid and unpaid labour, as well as
contribute additional resources such as money, space, equipment and other factors of
production in the business . Family business range in size from small owner-managed
firms to large multinational corporations and are spread out across a variety of industries;
a testament to the successful possibilities that emerge when families engage in
business.Fortunately,sustainability and long long-term perspectives are embedded
objectives within most family firms (Donnelley 1964; Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2005;
Ward 1987). The desire and intention to sustain the longevity of the family business
(Davis 1968; Gersick et al. 1997; Sirmon and Hitt 2003)

As they grow, family-owned businesses face the same challenges and pressures as any
major corporation. To thrive, they must remain ahead of the competition through
innovation, build strong relations with suppliers,develop aprofound understanding of
their customers and skilfully navigate through market changes.

Family business should be able to come up with a variety of general `success factors`
such as shared power, a balanced life between work and play, and the planning of
succession. Though interesting, this approach is likely to provide limited insights given
the abundance of types of family businesses that co-exist. Different businesses may have
different motivations and ways of doing business, which will have consequences for the
critical factors that will make them flourish. For example, if the long-term motivation for
a family-run business is to keep the family tradition alive, child succession will be a
critical concern. If, on the other hand, the goal is to create a sound financial business –
with or without family input-the critical factors may shift to other issues like strategic
planning and developing a strong board of directors.

In family business, the family‟s involvement adds complexity when family dynamics mix
with business dynamics. The family business is often represented as an intersecting set of
complex subsystems (Gersicks et al.1997; Tagiuri and Davis 1996). Earlier literature
suggested that family and business dynamics are different to the extent that they cannot
possibly co-exist (e.g. Cohn and Lindberg (1974), Levinson (1974), as cited in Sharma et
al.1997). Literature now concur that family dynamics and business dynamics are highly
interrelated (Aldrich and Cliff 2003) and balancing the synergies between the two
dynamics presents a recipe for deriving advantages for the family business(Chua et al.
2003).The family dynamics, via family influence, is that which differentiates family
businesses from other forms of business(Klein et al.2005).These differences exist on a
number of dimensions including ownership, management structures, strategies,
performance, ethics, and succession planning.

The basis for these differences is largely a result of the idiosyncratic resources and

capabilities that are generated when the family and the business interact and co-exist in

unison. This idiosyncrasy has been referred to as`familiness` and is that which gives

family firms their distinction (Habbershon and Williams 1999). The familiness concept is

drawn from the Resource-based view (hereafter RBV) theory of the firm which states that

the performance of firms can best be analysed through the heterogeneous nature of its

internal resources (Peteraf 1993).

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Definition of key concepts:family, family business, succession, familiness,

Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO).

Family; family has been defined as “people who have a shared history and shared future,

bound by blood, legal and/or historical ties”(Carter and McGoldrick, 1999, p.1). In the

context of family business research, however, one can more clearly define family as the
group of people related either by blood or marriage to the founder or founders of the

business.

Family business; family business is defined as a business regardless of company size,

sector, or legal structure (though most typically privately held)- in which the majority of

the ownership resides in the hands of one family and in which at least two members of

the same family either own and/or managed the business together.

Succession;

Familiness; familiness refers to the resources and capabilities that emerge when the

family and the business co-exist within the family business. The term was first coined by

Habbershon and Williams (1999) and whose definition is adopted here,

“…the unique bundle of resources a particular firm has because of the systems

interaction between the family, its individuals members, and the business” (1999, p.11)

Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO); EO is a concept used to reflect a firm‟s commitment

and capability to pursue entrepreneurial activity. As a business level concept it is ideal for

analysis of the EO of the family business. The measure of a business EO is based on three

elements; risk-taking, innovation, and proactiveness (Miller 1983). It is the most widely

usedbusiness level measure of EO.

WHAT IS FAMILY BUSINESS?

In economies large and small, family-owned businesses createa significant amount of
wealth and value. Whether its entrepreneurs pushing their small companies forward or
dynasties controlling diverse multi-billion dollarinterests, these business families are
found in every corner of the world, innovating, creating and producing.

But what is a family-owned business? Definitions among various institutes and agencies
vary in the details. The even greater challenge in quantifying family businesses‟
collective impact is that there is no concise, measurable, agreed upon definition of a
family business. Experts in the field use many different criteria to distinguish these
businesses, such as percentage of ownership, strategic control, involvement of multiple
generations, and the intention for the business to remain in the family but at the core they
are similar. In general ,a family business can be seen as any company in which a single
family owns a significant block of voting shares, about 25% or more for a listed
company, has at least one seat on the board and can influence or control important
decisions. Family owned businesses can be publicly traded companies or private entities
but the vast majority are private .Family members influence the family business through
their participation, their ownership control, their strategic preferences, and the culture and
values they impart to the business.

Participation refers to the nature of the involvement of family members in the business,
whether as part of the management team, as board members, as shareholders, or as
supportive members of the family foundation.

Control refers to the rights and responsibilities family members derive from significant
voting ownership and the governance of the agency relationship.

Strategic preferences refers to the direction family members set for the business through
their participation in top management, consulting,the board of directors, shareholder
meetings, or even family councils.

Culture is the collection of values, defined by behaviours that become embedded in a

business as a result of the leadership provided by family members, past and present.

ECONOMIC AND POLICY OF FAMILY BUSINESS

Finances are remarkable factor of any business. Financial analysis of the business reveals
the state of sales and profits, truth about market share and sufficiency of reinvestment.
Additionally, it will expose efficiency or inefficiency in use of cash and productivity of
the firm. If the business is successful, it requires reinvestment to grow, in addition to
knowledge of management of finances, knowledge about markets and competitors is
essential in managing successful family business. (Ward 1997, 75-97.)

LIQUIDITY NEEDS OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS AND HOW TO SATISFY

THEM

The capital needs of a family business can be satisfied in a number of ways:

 Through internally generated cash flows

 Through additional capital injections by current shareholders.
 By broadening the circle of shareholders (without floating shares on the stock
exchange), for instance, by inviting employees, directors or investment institutions
to buy shares.
 Through loans from insiders and/or third parties.
 By selling parts of the business that that do not belong to the core activities of the
business
FINANCIAL ISSUES OF FAMILY BUSINESS
Family businesses face the same financial constraints as any other type of business
and to the choice of financing method (equity vs. debt financing, reinvestment of
profits). In all cases, the issue of taxation plays a major role.
a) Fiscal bias on equity finance rather than debt finance
As set out in the study, the transfer of a family business triggers a series of
financial constraints which may endanger the viability of the business. The
payment of inheritance and/or gift tax represents the biggest challenge. Tax
systems are typically set up to counteract wealth accumulation and as a result
 may put financial pressure on the family business, which can destabilise its
capital base.
Moreover, the intergenerational transfer process may require funds to, for
example, buy the shares of heirs not willing to be involved in the business.
The situation varies enormously between the countries surveyed.
b) Financial disadvantages of equity financing (compared to debt financing)
One of the characteristics of family businesses is their long-term sustainability,
often associated with cautious risk-taking behaviour. This has an impact on the
financial decisions they take.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND FAMILY-BUSINESS
SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT TRAINING
Entrepreneurship is hugely relevant to family businesses. Most start-ups begin
as a family business and are faced with the question as to whether they want to
continue the business beyond the founders. Therefore, promoting
entrepreneurship is directly linked to promoting family businesses.
As most start-ups begin as a family business, education should also include
specific family business issues such as ownership, succession and family
governance to better prepare future entrepreneurs to successfully run their
businesses.
Management training should not be confined to business schools. It should be
somehow included in the curricula of all professions to promote the
entrepreneurial spirit in all fields. The concept pf „ownership education‟ should
be further developed.
Entrepreneurship education should aim to foster new family entrepreneurs, but
also to promote entrepreneurial behaviour (including innovation) in existing
family business. This knowledge should enable heirs to re-invent the business,
which is proved to be what keeps the company going from each generation.
National governments could plan to makes changes to their education systems
and work closely or in partnership with private-sector organisations and
 educational institutions (e.g. business schools and universities) to develop
family-business-specific course as part of existing curricula or as new
curricula.
DISTINCTIVENESS OF FAMILY BUSINESS
In his new publication, Poza (2004, 6) reveals the characteristics that bring forth
the distinctiveness of family firms:
1. The presence of the family
2. The overlap of family, management and ownership, with its zero-sum (win-
loss) propensities, which render family business particularly vulnerable during
succession.
3. The owner‟s dream of keeping the business in the family
4. The unique source of competitive advantage derived from the interaction of
family, management, and ownership, especially when family units is high.
(Poza 2004, 6.)
Strengths of family businesses stem from relationships and commitment to
generation perspectives such as inherent values defined by the family. Often,
over a long term, business values and family values will correspond producing
desirable outcomes. That means effective diversified performance of family
businesses in our society. (Aronoff & Ward 1995.)
Some distinctive assets of family businesses such as commitment, trust,
reputation and know-how can lead to competitive success based on the tacit
knowledge embedded in these resources (Cabrera-Suarez, De Saa-Perez &
Garcia-Almeida 2001). David Bork (in Syms 1992, 8-9) explores some
specific qualities that are critical in ensuring success, profitability, longevity
and happiness in family business:
 Shared values
 Shared power
 Shared traditions
 Willingness to learn and grow
  Fun activities together
 Genuine caring
 Mutual respect
 Mutual assistance and support
 Privacy
 Well-defined interpersonal boundaries.

VALUES IN FAMILY BUSINESS

When family values are extended into the business, they provide a powerful source of
strength and continuity to meditate financial priorities and shape more humanistic plans
and actions. Values can act as a kind of glue for business and family success. Crucially,
family values are a source of competitive advantage to many successful businesses, they
serve many different purpose in family business. In some families they express a code of
family conduct; in others they reinforce the organization‟s culture or underpin the firm‟s
business strategy. In some families they frame social responsibility, while in others they
support philanthropy or spell out next-generation leadership behaviours.

A family business‟ beliefs and values start with the founder, reflecting his or her
behaviours as the family leader and entrepreneur. Over time, these values are shared by a
wider group of family members-passed from one generation to the next and renewed each
time. Although family values are not always explicit they have a big impact on company
culture and the way a business operates. Without shared values, family business success
is unlikely because disagreements over priorities and decisions become a source of
struggle and conflict.

Family values are inmany ways the family‟s attempt to express who they are, to make
meaning for themselves- and a guiding star for the business. Values are unique to each
family, representing a narrative business. Values are unique to each family, representing
a narrative about how their behaviours make them successful. Success is always socially
constructed, which means that it is expressed or interpreted in the context of each
family‟s experience and relationships. One family may interpret success by financial
performance, where another measures it terms of family reputation or services to others.
Values also form the basis of performance standards or expectation within the family.
Again, one family may see higher education as an important measure of accomplishment
while another would see work experience as the real indicator of achievement.

The family‟s values set the internal standards of behaviour so that members will know
what to expect from each other. There is a classic line that many parents repeat when a
child acts inappropriately: “That is not how we behave in the family.”When families act
in accordance with shared values, trust develops. Shared assumptions, norms, beliefs, and
experiences also help family members understand each other‟s motivation. Common
values can frame decisions and planning by encouraging cooperation, promoting
relationships, reducing harmful conflict, and enabling effective responses to crisis.

Values also act as the glue for building and sustaining long-term family and interpersonal
relationships across generations and branches. Agreed values are important to the next
generation in supporting how they will work together. Family values shape thinking
about issues such as careers and compensation. Shared values are the bedrock of stability
but they can also be a roadblock to change, especially during generational transitions.
Family business struggle as generations and branches multiply, because the same values
are interpreted differently according to experiences, education, and changes in the
business world. Members of the senior generation, who accepted equal salaries, may have
sent their children to top business schools, where they were taught that compensation is
based on qualification and contribution.

Family business drive their key decisions regarding:

 Strategy
 Structure
 Competitive advantage
 Culture
  Employee recruitment
 Governance
 Succession
 Owners‟ cohesion
 Owners‟ commitment
 Owners‟ constitution or protocol

The family‟s values often define the number of business units and which markets a firm
chooses, and certainly the degree of risk-taking. The family‟s values often define the
organization structure: who works where, for whom. And in what areas. The family‟s
values might make quality differentiation or long-term investing the obvious competitive
advantage. Or, the key to success may be the goodwill created in their community or
country through lifelong relationships and local philanthropy. The family‟s values are the
company‟s culture. That culture is so important to most business owners that it calls for
unique ways to recruit, train and compensate the employees-or members or associates, as
many family business calls their employees.

Values common in family business are;

 Courage
 Dignity
 Reputation
 Fairness
 Open-mindedness
 Authenticity
 Hard work
 Stewardship
 Dependability
 Empathy
 Curiosity
  Humility
 Discipline
 Prudence
 Loyalty
 Sincerity
 Respect
FAMILY AND BUSINESS VISION

Discussion about the shared vision is critical for helping the family articulate their
thinking and develop a consensus about the family and business strategies to pursue.
Family members who see the business primarily as a source of dividends and wealth will
not have the same the same vision as those who interesting in reinvesting the profits in a
high-growth strategy to strengthen the business competitive position.

BUILDING FAMILY BUSINESSES THAT LAST

Without vision and leadership from members of two generations and the use of select
family, management, and governance practices, the future is bleak for family controlled
business. The blurring of boundaries among family membership, family management,
and family ownership subjects family businesses to the potential for confusion, slow
decision making or even corporate paralysis. An inability to adapt to changes in the
competitive marketplace or powerlessness to govern the relationship between the family
and the business will ultimately undermine the business. As a result, a family business
that lacks multigenerational leadership and vision can hardly be positioned to retain the
competitive advantages that made it successful in a previous, often more entrepreneurial,
generation.

Building a family business so that it continues takes ongoing dialogue across generations
of owner-managers about their vision for the company. Family businesses that have been
built to last recognize the tension between preserving and protecting the core of what has
made the business successful on the one hand and promoting growth and adaptation to
changing competitive dynamics on the order. Family businesses that are confident that
each generation will responsibly bring a different but complementary vision to the
business, have a foundation on which to build continuity.

BUSINESS VISION

A family business vision consists of two interrelated parts. The first is the state of the
business in a given future time frame, say ten years. What does the family want the
business to become in terms of impact, size, reputation, markets, financial structure,
number of employees, and profits? This is a very quantifiable discussion that, when it
results in clear agreement, establishes the parameters for the second part of the vision: a
clear understanding of how the family contributes to and benefits from the business‟
success.

FAMILY VISION

The exploration of family vision also has a transformational effect, reframing family
conversation from “what‟s in it for me?” to “how do we contribute?”The idea of the
family‟s contribution to the business‟ continued success is the basis for stewardship-
leaving the next generation and other stakeholders a more valuable asset than you
inherited. The family‟s long-term vision can become a competitive advantage to the
business. Developing a shared vision influences the family behaviour by encouraging a
long-term perspective on plans and decisions.

Many families make their vision the guide to investment and strategic actions. For
example, Roche, the giant Swiss pharmaceutical company, focused its efforts on diseases
that are difficult to treat because the Hoffmann family‟s controlling ownership gave them
the benefit of a very long-term investment horizon. As Andre Hoffmann, non-executive
vice president of Roche Holding Ltd, says,
The goal of our family owners is based on a duty to pass on a stronger business to the

next generation/ this creates incredible glue that focuses on the best interest of the family.

We also have a sense of responsibility to our “compagnons de la route.”

ADVANTAGES OF FAMILY BUSINESS

To many, the main advantages of the family business seem to be related to trust,
control, and employee motivation. In a recent article, Gregg Roth, a second-
generation family business owner states: “To me, the advantage of being in a
family business is that there is a personal relationship with employees and
suppliers that encourages confidence and cooperation”. Family ties and values are
often said to create a strong business identity and a high level of internal
closeness, which may lead to better performance of the firm in terms of internal
trust and control. Therefore firms with a strong family orientation tend to score
higher on trust, control, and motivation than firms with a weak family orientation
Other prominent advantages are:
Strong values .family firms grow around the values of the founder and often focus
on strong relationships with family, employees, business partners and the
community. Family-owned businesses are more likely to sacrifice immediate
profits for other goals, such as preserving jobs or protecting the community, than
broadly held companies. As a result, they create loyalty and shared values among
their various stakeholders.
“Family business take corporate social responsibility more seriously. Family
business may enjoy greater loyalty from staff members, who are motivated to
build up the reputation of the family brand name”.
Long-term orientation.for leaders of family-owned companies, the future is

personal.
“They think in terms of generation because everyone wants to do their best to

leave their grandchildren something special.”

-Ed Nusbaum ,CEO Grant Thornton International Ltd.

Because they are relatively isolated from the demands of the stock market,family-

ownedbusinesses have the headroom to look beyond the next quarterly or annual

results.

Entrepreneurial passion. Almost every family business started as a small

enterprise pushed forward by the passion of an individual. In the best cases, this

passion to create, to innovate and to serve is woven into fabric of the business and

becomes a core element for generations.

DISADVANTAGES OF FAMILY BUSINESS

As the family –owned business prospers however, these advantages can be

countered by a series of disadvantages that can become significant if not

approached skilfully.

Family dynamics. Family involvement in the business is a two-sided coin.

Especially after the founder relinquishes control, quarrels among siblings or

cousins can interfere with the effective stewardship of the company. Bad feelings

unrelated to the business can spill into the boardroom and executive suite. In

addition, pressure to bring family members on to the payroll with little regard for

qualifications can lead to morale and operational problems.

Haphazard succession. Leadership succession based solely on family lineage can

damage the business. Although children and grandchildren may have grown up

with the company, they may not have the right skills or capabilities to run it

successfully. Further, jealousies among various contenders for leadership positions

can cause disruption.

Talent retention. Family-owned businesses may also have difficulty attracting

and retaining the best outside talent for various management roles.

FAMILY BUSINESS LIFE CYCLE

 First stage: The wonder period
 Second stage: The blunder period
 Third stage: The thunder period
 Fourth stage: The sunder or plunder period
FAMILY BUSINESS GOALS
There are four key sets of goals that matter to business families; they are:
 Economic: Wealth creation and preservation is about growing and
sustaining the family‟s wealth.
 Social: Symbolic responsibilities and business reputation are
important for many families. They might see themselves as
representing the interests of their community, the larger business
community, or even their community, the larger business
community, or even their nation. These families place great
significance on using their economic power and prestige to
contribute to society as well.
 Psychological: Individual talent development and emotional
wellbeing represent the family‟s attempt to use its business activities
 as a platform for developing its members‟ skills and creating
opportunities for them to experience professional success.
 Spiritual: The family seeks to create deeper personal or collective
meaning in their lives. Typically these goals are expressed through
religious commitment or service to others with no business
connections.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING FAMILY BUSINESS

We need to study family business because of the important roles it plays in:

1. Employment
2. Income generation
3. Wealth accumulation
4. Commitment show to local communities
5. Early industrialization
6. Economic growth
CHALLENGES OF FAMILY BUSINESS
The challenges family businesses face can be grouped into three different
categories: those common to any type of business (family businesses and non-
family businesses), those that affect all businesses but are of particular concern to
family businesses and challenges that only family business face. The challenges
can be categorised according to their origin:
Challenges that arise from the environment in which companies operate:
. Unawareness of policy makers of the specificities of family businesses,
and their economic and social contribution;
. Financial issues (e.g. gift and inheritance tax, access to finance without
losing control of the firm, favourable tax treatment of reinvested profits).
 Challenges that develop as a consequence of the family firm’s internal
matters:
. Unawareness by family firms of the importance of planning business
transfers early;
. Balance between the family, ownership and business aspects within the
enterprise;
. Difficulties in attracting and retaining a skilled workforce.
Challenges related to educational aspects, which have an impact on both
the business environment and on family business internal matters:
. Lack of entrepreneurship education and family-business-specific
management training and research into family-business-specific topics, plus
effective coordination with education systems to ensure proper follow-up

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCHES ON FAMILY BUSINESS

The field of study of family business goes back only to 1975, when entrepreneur,
family business educator, and consultant Dr. Leon Danco published his pioneering
work, beyond survival: A guide for the business owner and his family. Two
watershed events played key roles in turning the study of family business into a
field:
1. The publication of a special issue of the journal Organizational Dynamics in 1979.
2. The launching of a specialized journal,family Business Review, in 1986
Still, between 1975 and the early 1990s, most of the published work on family
businesses was anecdotal, rooted in the stories of consultants and observers of
these mostly privately held businesses.
Using the social network theory (Bras, 1995), Kelly et al. (2000) have developed
the concept of founder centrality within a family firm and its influence both during
and after the tenure of a founder. They suggest three dimensions of centrality–
betweenness (central to the flow of information), closeness (direct linkages with
top management group), andconnectivity (ability to influence the most connected
members). A variety of hypotheses are proposed, such as that high founder
centrality should lead to (1)an alignment of perceptions between founder and other
family and nonfamily executives,(2)better firm performance along the dimensions
of success that are important to a founder and(3)a stronger influence of the
founder on the firm after his or her tenure ends.
An extensive literature has examined differences in risk-taking behaviour between
family and non-family firms and the implications for performance (see e.g. Hiebi,
2013 for a review). Studies generally find that family firms are more risk averse
than non-family firms.
Altruism encompasses consideration among family members, loyalty and
commitment to the family and firm. Altruism can have a damaging effect on
family firm survival. For example if family firms appoint family members
regardless of their ability, rather than recruiting non-family members who do have
the skills, they expose themselves to costly-to-mitigate adverse selection problems
(Schule et al.20003). Besides reducing performance, such lack of ability may
mean the family firm lacks the human capital resources they need to adapt in order
to survive. Further, the absence of traditional agency costs noted above may be
offset by principal-principal agency problems that lead to managerial
entrenchment and a failure to sanction under-performing family members,
especially in private firms (Gedajlovic et al., 2012). We have noted the potential
benefits of the social capital of family firms above. However, the potential
downside to family firms likely having long-standing trading relationships is that
their social capital is more restricted.
EXAMPLES OF KNOWN FAMILY’S
There are some of course many huge, multinational, family-controlled firms that
are household names including: Ford, Bechtel, Mars, Estee Lauder and Levi
Strauss 9USA0; Tetra Laval, the Wallenberg group and, H&M(Sweden); Hermes,
Michelin, Bic, Marie Brizard and L‟Oréal(France); Tata (India); Kuok
group(Honk Kong); Seagram and Bata(Canada); Fiat, Ferrero, Barillo, Beretta and
Benetton (Italy); Lego(Denmark); Caran d‟Ache, SGS and
Andre(Switzerland);C&A(Netherlands); Bahlsen (Germany); Kikko-man(Japan);
Claroen Pokphhmd(Thailand); and the Rothschild banking family.
OWNERSHIP OF FAMILY BUSINESS
When we talk about ownership of a family business, we are talking about
ownership of the company‟s assets, which are the instruments the company uses to
do business. However, a company is much more than these instruments; it is a
community made up of the people who work in it, the peoplewho contribute
capital to acquire the instruments the company uses in its operations and,
indirectly, the company‟s customers and suppliers. Family businesses exist in a
wide variety of ownership structures and in sizes from micro to very large-scale
operations based on the empirical examination of the nationality representative
1997/2000 NFBSs data. However, business ownership is only one defining aspect
because ownership is merely a legal structure choice that is often arbitrary and
fails to truly represent the involvement and management of the family business
(Heck and Trent, 1999).
The primary venue in which the family exercises its ownership right is the
boardroom.it is here that the practical aspects of the alignment between family and
business strategies are set into motion, that corporate and individual performance
is judged and family values are reaffirmed. The role of the board is prominent in
the governance of the relationship between a family and its business.
The mistake that can be made in ownership of family business is to consider
business ownership as a right rather than as a responsibility, and to believe that
being owners automatically means possessing good governance and management
skills. “it`s necessary to have good ownership skills within the family. Good
owners establish a system of accountability within the organisation and understand
enough to know when they have been hoodwinked.
MANAGEMENT OF FAMILY BUSINESS
Managing family business is about compromises, flexibility in relationships and
expertise about the company. Tagiuri and Davis (1996) suggest that the success of
a business will depend on whether the bivalent characteristics are effectively
managed. The effective management of these attributes should result in a positive
outcome for the business dimension, as well as for the family and ownership
dimensions. The idea that long-term prosperity of the family business system
requires positive outcome in both the business dimension and the family
dimension is widely acknowledged (e.g. Ward, 1987; Litz, 2008; Sharma, 2004).
Family business leaders have been observed to adopt to five leadership styles:
participative, autocratic, laissez-faire, expert, and referent (Sorenson, 2000).
Participative leaders, who value the input from and consistently evaluate family
and nonfamily employees, were found to achieve high performance both on family
and business dimensions.
Family shareholders who are not active in the business and who have little
understanding of management and the time cycles involved in new
strategies or new investments, can hamper effective operation of a family-
controlled business. These family can cause the business to lose the
founding culture, which valued the role of patient capital, or investing in
the family business for the long term

MANAGING CONFLICT IN FAMILY BUSINESS

Conflict, a difference of opinion, is a necessary and natural part of human
relationships. Most common types of family business conflicts are employment
and exit policies, role definition, control issues, salary policies and recognition.
Many conflicts in family businesses or enterprising families are predictable, but
they are not necessarily inevitable. By focusing on helping family members and
other interested parties associated with a family-owned enterprise to recognize
those predictable conflicts, you can more accurately determine which of those
conflicts might be headed off, brought to resolution, or managed over the long
haul. The need to address unspoken issues should also be recognized.
Guildlines for how conflicts can be managed in family business:
1. Create a culture or norm that genuinely invites appropriate one-on-one
discussions when conflict begins to build in family business.
2. Bring in an outside, third-party facilitator when necessary and appropriate.
3. Set a specific time and place for the discussions.
4. Strive to create a communication atmosphere that is safe for all parties- where
open and genuine sharing result in compassionate listening, not defensive
criticism.
5. Avoid attributing blame or responsibility for the conflict
Some of the significant problems that can be addressed in family meetings
include the following:
 Frustration over alienation or lack of inclusion. This source of conflict is
widespread as a result of the emotional distance between family
members of the powerful current generation and those of the
significantly less powerful next generation. Geographic separation and
lack of frequent and consistent communication only heighten this
conflict and often lead to mistrust and a propensity for zero-sum
dynamics.
 Anger over the unfairness of hiring practices, promotions, family
benefits, and other opportunities enjoyed by some but not by others. In
many families “fair”means “equal”. But in multigenerational families,
when being fair means being equal, family leaders soon run out of
options. The family, and often, the company become paralyzed.
 Frustration over divided policies and lack of liquidity. By the time a
family-owned company has begun to hire its third generation of family
members, the financial needs of the various branches and individuals
have become incredibly diverse.
 It is not unusual for change itself to be an underlying source of conflict
in a family because change upsets the status quo and requires a
realignment of relationships, responsibilities, and expectations. An
important part of managing conflict well lies in the commitment to
accept change, to understand that it will have an impact, and to explore
how change in either family or business affects key stakeholders.
TRIANGULATION
Triangulation is a common practice in families that creates dilemmas both in the
present and for the future. Triangulation refers to a situation in which conflict
between family members is managed independently by any or all of them by
talking to a third party. This third party then becomes a sounding board, relieving
some of the tension and dissipating negative emotion in the short term. But when
conflict in a family becomes chronic or recurrent and when triangulation is a
frequent coping tactic, it will simply make some problems worse, creating
dilemmas for everyone involved.
For example, when a triangulated person attempts to resolve a difficult situation
by interceding on behalf of the family member who has been talking with him or
her about a conflict, the triangulated person may then actually become a part of the
conflict that he or she tries to resolve and even make it worse.
Five Unwanted Effects of Triangulating
Triangulated family member have several challenges when stepping in to “help” in
a conflict that can make matters worse and create new dilemmas for the family;
1. They could make decisions that are one-sided due to a biased selection of facts.
2. They may be perceived as “sticking their nose where it doesn‟t belong.
3. They will be viewed as biased and ``playing favourites``.
4. They could take too much of the stress of the conflict upon themselves.
5. They may unintentionally be ``siphoning`` off the impetus for the parties to
talk directly to each other to manage or resolve the conflict
GUILDLINES FOR MANAGING TRIANGULAATION
 o Getting advice from a trusted manager or family member may be a good
practice, but resolving to talk directly to the other person will limit the
dilemmas produced by triangulation alone.
o Separate the need to have a trusted person serve as a sounding board to
help craft difficult conversations with others or to think through an
appropriate response from a knee-jerk complaint to a family member
that may relieve initial tension but also removes the incentive or energy
to resolve the problem.
o The person acting as a sounding board likely hears only one point of
view and may unknowingly support and solidify that one person‟s view
even though there are always at least two sides to every story. Therefore
,it is important to be committed to “fight your own battles” rather than
hoping the person being triangulated will also take up your complaint
and straighten out the person you are in conflict with
o The person acting as a sounding board may well experience stress and
discomfort because of the position that he or she is being put in. this is
particularly true if the person being triangulated is a parent or sibling. If
talking to a third party is necessary, it is best to get help outside of the
business and the family from a trusted advisor or counsellor.

GOVERNANCE OF FAMILY BUSINESS

Governance of family business is an important topic of management theory and
practice. It explains how the company is directed, controlled and reported. Typical
governance structure of family business consists of three elements:1) the family
and its institutions, 2) the board of directors and 3) top management. Commonly
used family institutions are family meeting, family assembly, family council and
family shareholders committee (Neubauer& Lank 1998)
For the family-owned business good and corporate governance makes all the
difference, its critical for decision making. Family businesswith effective
governance practices are more likely to do strategic planning and to do succession
planning. On average, they grow faster and live longer. Moreover, they are more
likely to develop the important formal policies addressing critical family business
issues such as redemption, family employment, dividends etc.
“The main challenge in family business governance relates to the existence of an
additional layer of relationship that the owning/controlling family brings to the
business.” The need for good governance encompasses the family group
THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN A BUSINESS
FAMILY
The word governance comes from the Latin verb gubernare, to steer, to direct.
Tracing the word „governance‟ etymologically makes it easier to understand the
definition of corporate governance as it is now used in everyday management
practice, corporate governance is an umbrella term that includes specific issues
arising from interactions among senior management, shareholders, boards of
directors and other corporate stakeholders.
The by now almost legendary „Cadbury Report‟ stated that „corporate governance
is the system by which companies are directed and controlled.
Corporate governance can also be defined as a system of structures and processes
to direct and control corporations and to account for them.
Two major aspects of corporate governance:
 The key corporate governance tasks, namely
-directing
-controlling
-accounting for/ reporting
 The key elements of a typical corporate governance structure, namely
-the family (and its institutions),
-the board of directors,
-top management
Directing means being involved in decisions that are strategic in nature.
 Controlling means oversight of management performance and monitoring the
progress towards objectives.
Directing an enterprise should not be confused with everyday involvement in
management. Rather, this activity means;
o Shaping the strategic direction of the firm in the long term.
o Involvement in decisions that are far-reaching in nature.
o Involvement in the allocation or reallocation of significant financial
resources (for example large investment decisions) as well as other
resources (for example human resources) such as the appointment of the
CEO.
o Involvement in decisions that are precedent setting and/or are difficult to
reverse

A family, like any other organization, must have a governance structure if it is

to continue to function as an entity. How a family in business is governed will
have a major impact not only on the family‟s own health and ability to survive,
but also on the success and longevity of its enterprise and how it is governed.
Families who wish to continue as managers/or owners of their business
increase the probability of being able to do so if they themselves are strong,
cohesive and appropriately „enmeshed‟. Also the values, ideas and sense of
purpose nurtured by the owning family are potentially a vast source of strength
and energy for a business.

DESCRIPTORS OF A STRONG FAMILY

 Commitment to each other

 Mutual appreciation
 Open communication
 Spending time together
 Spiritual wellness
 Ability to cope (with life‟s challenges)
Commitment „could be considered the foundation on which the other
characteristics are built‟.
THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF A COMMITED FAMILY
BUSINESS
Many experts believe entrepreneurship is a “necessary condition for family
business continuity.” At the earliest stages of a family business, this
entrepreneurial commitment is given. The entrepreneurs who create family
business are first and foremost committed to making their business venture a
success. The founder‟s “global” commitment of his or her creativity, business
talents, and assets shapes all aspects of the new firm‟s culture and strategy.
Unfortunately conflicts between the family and business systems, life cycles,
changes and the separation of management and ownership roles may weaken he
commitment of the subsequent generations over time. As the family business
grows and matures, ownership and management, once concentrated in the hands of
the owner-manager, get distributed and dissipated across a wider array of
individual. As ownership spreads to individuals with different life experiences,
values, and levels of business understanding, there is a danger of the family losing
its coherence, focus, and commitment to owning the business, the larger number
of family members also presents problems for achieving clarity, consensus, and
agreement.
To succeed, business families need to plan to renew commitment with each
succeeding generation, a commitment that is different in form but provides the
same intention to grow and sustain the business as the founder offer. Unless the
family works to ensure a broadly shared commitment to investing both their
financial and human capital in the business, family ownership will lack impact and
focus, families need to align their commitment with the demands of the business.
Family commitment is essential if a business is to survive for multiple
generations.it is a fact that families that have made the commitment to stewardship
 for the business, much like the founder did through his or her personal investment,
stay in control longer. For entrepreneurs and second generation owner-managers,
life is relatively simple: they are totally committed to their businesses socially,
psychologically, and financially. They have a personal engagement with the
business because it gives them financial and psychological rewards. This may not
be the case for other members of the family, particularly in later generations,
where the connections between family and business, and indeed between members
of the family, are weaker.
Secrecy, lack of information, and absence of education threaten continued
commitment by family members to the continuity of a family-controlled business
SOME COMMON RESPONSES THAT SOME BUSINESS FAMILIES
ATTRIBUTE THEIR SUCCESS:
 Introducing excellent management development systems, at least for family and
often for non-family employees also
 Training family members in ownership rights and responsibilities-for example the
norm of stewardship and creating wealth for future generations.
 Treating employees fairly and with loyalty that is usually reciprocated; many non-
family employees may be third and subsequent generation employees of the
business.
 Having a strong sense of responsibility to society-local, regional, national or
transnational-which is often reflected in the contribution of time and money to
worthwhile community projects.
 Emphasising value for money and quality, as the family‟s good name depends on
the product or service.
 Taking decisions quickly as everybody knows where the locus of power is.
 Taking a long-term strategic perspective not bound by next quarter‟s earnings and
working to maximise shareholder wealth even a generation hence.
 Remaining innovative and entrepreneurial, the keys to future success.
WOMEN IN FAMILY BUSINESS
Women working in family business is not an unusual thing nowadays, but
situation is still complex because women often feel invisible as their professional
capabilities are ignored. In addition, there are some relevant differences between
man and women. Women are said to be dependent, to take longer to make
decisions, and to be more concerned about balancing between work and home than
men. Nurturing and peacekeeping are roles expected from women working in
family businesses as are listening and meditating. In spite of this, women are
making more advancements than men in their family companies. Those working in
family businesses should be interested in the individual skills of each female
family member rather than relying on assumptions about women or women in
family business. (Cole 1997.)
Most women with a family business have inherited or married it and thus got
involved with it. However, nowadays more and more women set up or take control
of family businesses on their own. Women can confidently play many roles in
addition to the role of mother in relation to the family: wife, employee in the
company, a business in the future-approximately half of business students and
female. (Connolly& Jay 1996.)
SUCCESSION IN FAMILY BUSINESS
Succession, the generational transition from a founder to a successor, is
challenging issue faced by all family leaders at some point of time. Most business
owners find succession difficult because of its complexity. It involves personal,
family and business issues as well as legal, financial and taxation issues. (Voeller,
Fairburn, Thompson 2000; Doud, Jr. &Hausner 2000)
Ward (1997, 54-74) names four common features to successful succession:
1) A founder of the company needs to be ready and enthusiastic about passing on
the business.
2) A successor is instilled with positive attitudes toward business challenges by a
mentor, is educated for the task and is able to handle responsibility.
3) Trust between founder and successor
4) Commitment to cooperation with the family, for instance, sharing decisions
with them.
As mentioned earlier, succession does not involve the successor and the
founder solely. It is a family matter that involves other family members as
well. Establishing Family Council can be a constructive way to improve
communication between family members when planning succession. In
succession planning, juridical issues and tax planning should be processed
carefully with or without outside specialist. Problems in succession process
may come up if founders expect their children to take over the business on a
future even if successors are not willing to do it.it must be kept in mind that
that there need to be a good fit between the abilities and interests of these
family members with the needs of the business Furthermore, problems will
arise if a family and a firm do not share same values and beliefs. (Garcia
Alvarez& Lopez-Sintas 2001).
Family business are unique in the extent to which succession planning assumes
a key and very strategic role in the life of the going concern. There are
hundreds of reasons why organizations fail, but in family-owned and family-
controlled companies, the most prevalent reason relates to a failure in
succession planning. If a family business is going to survive, it hasto
successfully craft its succession process.Families that successfully find a way
to work together stand to reap huge rewards. The family business can offer
challenging experiences, as well as values, the mentoring, and the feedback
necessary to hone the skills of successors who can really make a difference in
the success of the business, the strength of the family, and the health of the
community in which they live and work.(Foster 2001, 39,)
Three patterns of ineffective succession:
1. Conservative: Although the parent has excited the business, the parental
shadow remains and the firm and its strategies are locked in the past.
2. Rebellious: In what is often an overreaction to the incumbent generation‟s
control of the firm, the next generation launches a clean-slate approach to
the organization. As a result, traditions, legacies, and even the business
model or its “secret to success” are destroyed or discarded.
3. Wavering: The next generation is paralyzed by indecisiveness, unable to
adapt the business to current competitive conditions, it also fails to make its
mark and assume leadership effectively.

THE COMMON MISTAKES OF SUCCESSION IN FAMILY BUSINESS

Mistake 1: failure to understand the differences between ownership,

governance and management; family involved in the company can play three
different roles: they can be owners, directors or managers. In many family
businesses, especially in first and second generation and in small companies,
these roles often overlap because the same people may carry out more than
one. Failing to understand that these roles differ in content, that they require
specific structures and professional skills, and that they are transmitted
according to different rules,can make generational transitions more
complicated.

Mistake 2: Considering succession as an obligation to the past and not as an

opportunity for the future; it is just natural that a parent who has built up a
successful company wishes to pass it on to the next generation. It is only
natural, and even desirable, that for this wish to come true a parent is ready to
show all positive aspects of the entrepreneur‟s job to his/her children. It is quite
legitimate that a parent influences children by leveraging on their aptitudes
and, by this means, leading them to commit themselves to the company.

It is, though absolutely wrong for a parent to force children to embark on

studies or experiences aimed at facilitating their entry into the family business
against their will, only for the purpose of perpetuating the past family history.
Sooner or later, many of these children will look back and regret they could not
pursue their own vocation; for this reason, they will find it difficult to commit
themselves to the family business. The same mistake could be made by a
son/daughter who hesitates to frankly present his or her ambitions, diverging
from commitment within the family business, in order to avoid displeasing
parents and/or grandparents

Mistake 3: Considering succession as an event and not as a process;

Generational transition of family leadership is something that occurs in a
moment-making a simplification, when the new generation formally takes
over-but is actually the end of a long process made up of a traumatic event, the
transition starts with children‟s training , it goes on with them(possibly) being
introduced into the family business, it continues with parents and children
working together over a set period of time, and it ends with children taking
over.

Mistake 4: Failure to transmit entrepreneurial orientation; Research on family

businesses in the third and fourth generation converges on one point: each
generation has added something to the entrepreneurial tradition of the family.
In other words, each successive generation has produced at least one person
with the attitudes of an entrepreneur, who is future-oriented, able to assume the
risk of difficult decisions, able to involve other people in a long-term strategic
plan, with the necessary strength to start again after a partial failure. To
become entrepreneurs, it is necessary to develop the entrepreneurial attitudes
that are latent in many people; thinking of successful entrepreneurs` distinctive
features.

Mistake 5: Lack of a sound dialectic between parents and children; A series of

mistakes relate to the inability of actors involved in the succession process to
check their opinions with evidence coming from reality and with the opinions
of others. This inability to compare can present different shapes entrepreneurs
who fall in love with their children without having the courage to properly
assess them; entrepreneurs who consider the business model and do not allow
for any critique; children who believe that the business model of their father or
mother is “completely wrong” or that the parents collaborators are “old”,
without trying to distinguish what should be retained what should be changed.
The lack of a sound dialectic can thus mean that this dialectic either does not
exist or has fallen into conflicts. Without a dialectic, the children do not
develop their own personality and do not become leading actors within the
business; on the other hand, if the dialectic turns into a permanent conflict, it
both make interpersonal communication extremely difficult (to the extreme of
complete incommunicability) and produces- sooner or later- negative results
for the business

Mistake 6: Considering patrimony of values as the solution; A family able to

transmit positive values such as sobriety, humility, tendency to family unity,
spirit of sacrifice, meritocracy and entrepreneurship has undoubtedly more
chances of successfully coping with succession. Some families, especially
those characterised by a deep religiousness, think that it is enough to maintain
the patrimony of values to secure the continuity and survival of the firm. In
reality every patrimony of values, although made up of deeply-rooted
principles and convictions that keep their validity over time, needs to be re-
interpreted and updated due to the change in the social, cultural and economic
context in which they are embodied. Every generation has thus to recognize
and interiorize the values of the past, and should also re-interpret them to allow
their use in the new context.

Mistake 7: Choosing the wrong „third actor‟; In the history of family

businesses which have been successful in overcoming one or more
generational transitions we always find “third parties”-that is, people or
institutions other than the owning family or family members in trouble-who
have helped overcome some delicate phase. The third party can be a relative, a
manager of the company, an outside director, a professional or a consultant, or
a friend of the entrepreneur.

First, the role of third parties is to bridge any gap of knowledge or resources to
the benefit of the entrepreneur and/or the key decision making team. Secondly,
their role is to reduce the area of emotion, which is typically quite vast in the
case of family businesses, as well as to enlarge the area of technical-economic
evaluations.

HOW TO AVOID MISTAKES OF SUCCESSION IN FAMILY

BUSINESS;

o A proper concept of the ownership; first of all, it is necessary to

consider that the link between the ownership and the business in
family business has a special strength, which tends to confer stability
to the governance and the direction of the firm, or to the group of
controlled business. In family business, indeed, the ownership takes
part intensively in the life of the firm since the economic and
emotional ties are considerable and the exit process is often more
difficult to achieve; the ownership is strongly identified with the
owners, whose values and objectives influence the strategic choices; it
presents dynamics within the owning family(intra-and
intergenerational) which have a strong impact on the business‟s
life(also because one or more family members are usually involved in
governance or management roles). This linkage between the family
and the business has both positive and negative potentials. The former
is revealed in the complete devotion the family has to the business, and
in the subsequent willingness to bear economic and personal sacrifice
 for the sake of the firm itself; the latter show up in possessive attitudes
and in refusing to make the necessary distinction between the needs of
the business and the needs of the owning family, and in the consequent
confusion between the administration of the business and that of the
family
The first recommendation to the owning family is thus to develop and
pass on to the next generations a concept of ownership that considers
the business as a valuable asset which, although ownership is in the
hands of few, must be managed with a deep sense of responsibility
with respect to all the business stakeholders; customers, collaborators,
partners, banks, and other financers, territory and local communities.
o A culture of merit; the second recommendation to adopt without delay
is the culture of merit. Companies must be managed by competent
people and if the children are not, it is fair to look for alternatives, both
for them and for the company itself. It is possible to learn a culture of
merit when people are fairly young; this culture relies on the definition
of targets, the timely assessment of achievements, a variety of
evaluations, the sharing of both evaluation and self-evaluation,
comparison with people of the same age. Without a culture of merit,
nepotismtakes place, engaging a vicious cycle: incompetent or
unsuited people reach the highest offices in the business and are unable
to fulfil their tasks, the best among both family and non-family
members leave the business or becomes unmotivated, the firm`s results
sooner or later worsen, and, finally, the young and incompetent also
unjustly target complaints about the situation at the apex of the
business. A culture of merit does not imply exclusion from their rights
of the incompetent or unsuitable children. It implies, though, that the
children, in their own interest, are supported in understanding their
limits and in finding suitable jobs inside or outside the business.
 A culture of merit involves some pain, even though it is the only
culture that help all the children to find in the long run a professional
dimension suitable to their characteristics- in their interests, and in the
interests of their future families.
o The education of the young; the third recommendation relates to the
need to worry about the education of the upcoming generation.
Education is essentially the transfer of values, as human and
intellectual capital is the most important capital that needs to be
transferred (Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy,1993). But, how can values
be transferred? Also, in entrepreneurial families, values transfer first of
all and mostly by living them, that is, through the coherent and
continuative evidence of behaviours. It must be through clear, joyful
evidence demonstrated by someone who believes in the values they
profess and, although loyalty to those values requires sacrifices,
nevertheless, draws from them intimate satisfaction.
Testimony through actions and behaviours represents a necessary, but
not sufficient condition to transfer the patrimony of values which
characterizes family firms: there is also a need to devote enough time
and commitment to explaining the reasons that led to the family to
practice certain values as fundamental tenets to new generations.
Testimony without explanations and checks, indeed, risks not inducing
proper understanding and the deep assimilation of those values.
Transfer of the patrimony of values may require, then, a codification of
the values themselves and the sharing of written documents in order to
help remembering and securing memory of the past. The same process
through which a code of values or a good family protocol is realized
allows depending the consciousness of those values and facilitates a
persuaded adherence to them.
 It should be very clear, though, that words and written documents are
helpful to transmit the values only if they are communicated mostly
and foremost through actions; that is to say, through decisions and
behaviours coherent to them. Otherwise, both the oral and the written
traditions can even become counterproductive, inducing rejection
reactions in those people, and especially the young, who are usually
very astute in perceiving the incoherence between what is declared and
what is actually done
o Choice of the entrepreneurial development model; family business
represent a highly important reality in developing and spreading an
extremely scarce and crucial productive factor for the development of
a country and this is the “entrepreneurial factor”. This role of being a
reservoir of entrepreneurship is covered by family business in different
ways.
A proper concept of ownership, a culture of merit, education of the
young and the choice of the entrepreneurial development model are
four elements of general validity that can be helpful both for family
business of different kinds and to face other family-related issues
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL SUCCESSORS
 They know the business very well; ideally, they like or even
love the nature of the business.
 They know themselves and their strengths and weaknesses,
having had the necessary outside experience and education.
 They want to lead and serve
 They are guided responsibly by the previous generation. By
advisors, and by a board of outside directors.
 They have good relationships and the ability to accommodate
others, especially if part of a successor team (siblings, in-laws,
or cousins).
 They can count on competent nonfamily managers in the top
management team to complement their own skills.
 They have controlling ownership or can lead, through allies, as
if they did.
 They have earned the respect of nonfamily employees,
suppliers, customers, and other family members.
 Their skills and abilities fit the strategic needs of the business.
 They respect the past, and focus their energies on the future of
the business and the family.