Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2015
Article
Abstract
Competent research methods and data analysis are essential components for the progression of family business
research. To identify and evaluate empirical trends, and make suggestions for future research, we examine 319
empirical articles published in Family Business Review since 1988. These studies are compared with 146 family business
research articles published in top-tier journals not dedicated to family business research over the same timeframe.
While we substantiate growth in rigor and sophistication, we address specific family business research challenges
regarding construct validity, generalizability, causality, temporality, and multilevel issues. Suggestions are provided
for future empirical research across six major topical areas.
Keywords
empirics, family business, research methods, statistics
Introduction
Family business has undergone significant changes over
the past several decades that now point to its legitimacy
as an independent academic field of study. Specifically,
increases in terms of total number of studies published,
the impact of these studies on the broader academic
community, and the number of conferences and journals
dedicated to family business demonstrate its growing
prestige and acceptance as an established field (Sharma,
Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012; Stewart & Miner, 2011; S.
R. Wilson etal., 2014). Also, Family Business Review
(FBR), the premier outlet for family business research,
has repeatedly ranked in the top 20 journals in the field
of businessas measured by impact factorand ranked
fourth of 110 business journals in 2014 (Sharma, 2015).
Such indicators suggest that family business has been
generally successful in addressing the three ingredients
that Hambrick and Chen (2008) argue enhance an aspiring academic communitys chances of ascensiondifferentiation, mobilization, and legitimacy building.
While differentiation (i.e., the distinctiveness of the
research domain) and mobilization (i.e., procurement of
necessary structures, relationships, and resources for collective action) are important considerations in our efforts
to further specify the boundaries and direction of research
in the field, the focus of this review article is on legitimacy building, particularly the legitimacy gained through
conforming to the methodological or paradigmatic conventions of more well-established fields (Hambrick &
Chen, 2008, p. 38). More specifically, given the extensive growth of family business research in general
(Sharma etal., 2012), this studys purpose is to assess the
state of empirical research to account for the past as well
as guide future research efforts. Empiricsthe practice
of basing ideas, conclusions, or theories on testing,
observation, or experienceprovide a common language and legitimizing indicator for scholars across
1
Corresponding Author:
G. Tyge Payne, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
703 Flint Avenue, Box 42101, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Email: tyge.payne@ttu.edu
18
fields and, therefore, play an influential role in the development of knowledge and establishing relevance for a
field (Cole, 1983; Pfeffer, 1993). As such, empirics,
including methodological (i.e., the process of collecting
data and information) and analytical (i.e., systematic
examination of data or statistical approach) practices,
play a key role in the forging of a fields distinct position
among established academic areas of interest (Harrison
& Leitch, 1996; Sharma etal., 2012).
Family business scholars have previously asserted an
improvement in methods and analytic techniques (e.g.,
Bird, Welsch, Astrachan, & Pistrui, 2002; Debicki,
Matherne, Kellermanns, & Chrisman, 2009; Litz, Pearson,
& Litchfield, 2012). However, the overall current state
and historical trends of empirics in family business
research lacks detail and clarity, particularly in terms of
how research has advanced relative to more legitimated
domains. In other words, uncertainty remains regarding
how empirical improvements have been realized within
the broader evolution of the literature, leaving a gap in
what we currently know and ought to know about the state
of empirical family business research. Hence, rooted in the
argument that an explicit understanding of previous work
is required for a field to progress (Dyer & Sanchez, 1998),
this article thoroughly examines 465 published articles
(319 published in FBR and 146 from prominent nonfamily
business-specific journals), focusing on the research methods and analytical techniques used.
This review makes three key contributions. First, we
provide a comprehensive review of the methodologies
and analytics used in family business research by analyzing all empirical studies in FBR since its inception (i.e.,
1988); this timeframe allows us to gain a comprehensive
view of the fields progression over an extended length
of time. For while new family businessspecific journals
have recently emerged (e.g., Journal of Family Business
Management, Journal of Family Business Strategy), they
derive short-term benefit from the long-term legitimizing
efforts of FBR. Second, we help clarify and legitimize
progress by juxtaposing articles published in FBR to
those family business studies published in other highquality journals that are not dedicated to family business.
With intent, we build on similar reviews of empirics in
family business research (e.g., Bird etal., 2002; S. R.
Wilson etal., 2014) to examine trends over multiple
decades, but do so across a more comprehensive set of
methods and analytical techniques and in a comparative
fashion. Third, we identify distinct empirical challenges
in family business research and provide suggestions to
19
Evert et al.
Figure 1. Growth of empirical articles in Family Business Review (FBR), 1988-2014 (N = 855).
20
Figure 2. Growth of family business empirical articles in other journals, 1988-2014 (N = 13,101).
FBR and 146 from other high-quality journals that composed our comparative sample.1 Relative to the articles
sampled from FBR, this collection of studies showed a
similar upward trend in terms of the number of empirical family business articles published, although the
absolute numbers and resulting percentages are much
lower (as would be expected). These results are displayed in Figure 2.
Coding Procedure
As an organizing structure for our review, we generally
followed the coding process used by Hiller, DeChurch,
Murase, and Doty (2011). Each of the 465 articles in our
overall sample was read and rated by at least two authors;
a third rater was commonly used to ensure reliability
and to settle differences. Following the establishment of
our common coding scheme, the raters individually
coded a random sample of 35 articles and met to discuss
discrepancies. These deliberations led to further refinement and specification of coding criteria. Throughout
the coding process, raters regularly discussed coding
protocol and results to maintain process consistency
while resolving discrepancies. In sum, two authors
jointly resolved 100 articles, which was more than 20%
of the overall sample. With ample experience at this
point of the coding and resolution process, the remaining sample was divided for completion. Any additional
coding conflicts were adjudicated using the previously
described process.
For the quantitative techniques, we initially used categories suggested by Shook, Ketchen, Cycyota, and
21
Evert et al.
Rather, we included the method/technique if it was used
to test one or more hypotheses/questions, or explicitly
used to develop propositions.
Finally, to classify articles according to topic, which
we later use in the Discussion section, we used Dyer
and Sanchezs (1998) categorization scheme. However,
during the course of our assessment we iteratively added
the topic characteristics and attributes to the coding
scheme. This additional categorization follows previous
work by Bird etal. (2002), De Massis, Chua, and
Chrisman (2008), and Sharma (2004) to account for
characteristics and attributes at multiple levels (i.e.,
individual, family, firm) and subsumes the gender and
ethnicity categorization that was part of Dyer and
Sanchezs (1998) original scheme. Specifically, studies
classified in this way are those that focus on the distinguishing features or qualities of a person, group, or organization (Koiranen, 2002). One study, for example, that
fell into this category was Fahed-Sreih and Djoundourian
(2006), which examines firm age and number of employees in a sample of Lebanese family businesses.
The most prominent topics that appeared throughout
our overall sample included management of the firm
(40%), business performance and growth (39%), characteristics and attributes (32%), interpersonal family
dynamics (29%), governance (28%), and succession
(24%). As accomplished by Dyer and Sanchez (1998, p.
291), the categories were not exclusive because articles
often contain more than one topic; this resulted in percentages totaling greater than 100%. Other categories
included topics such as interpersonal business dynamics, wealth management, philanthropy, and estate issues.
Analyses
For each method or technique, we calculated percentage
use indices (PUIs; Dean etal., 2007; Shook etal., 2003;
Stone-Romero etal., 1995). PUIs were calculated by
dividing the frequency of a method or techniques use
by the total number of sampled articles that appeared in
a given period. For example, a PUI of .23 would indicate
that 23% of the sampled studies during a specified time
period relied on a particular method to test at least one
hypothesis. Our coding protocol also included a range of
research design dimensions such as level of analysis
(e.g., individual, group, subunit, organization, interorganizational, industry, environment, or country/national),
industry sample (e.g., single, multi, or nonindustry),
geographic characteristics of samples (e.g., single or
multiple country), and temporal scope (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, or both). To best assess trends over
time, we followed similar studies by computing correlations between annual PUIs and publication years for
each coded empirical dimension (e.g., Dean etal., 2007;
Shook etal., 2003; Stone-Romero etal., 1995). By correlating PUIs (vs. absolute counts) with year of publication, we account for changes in overall journal output
over time as an alternative explanation of trends related
to a given empirical method or technique. In search of a
more segmented perspective of these year-over-year
data, we also partitioned select study characteristics into
three 9-year intervals (1988-1996, 1997-2005, and
2006-2014). These aggregations, integrated into the
results and discussion, help further clarify and compare
certain trends over time.
Results
Over the 27-year time span of our review, there has been
a notable increase in the number of published empirical
articles. For articles published in FBR, PUIs for the overall presence of empirical studies has increased significantly since the journals inception (r = .73; p < .001).
This change suggests the increasing importance of
empirical research to FBR, not simply in terms of relative
numbers of articles published but the overall analytical
sophistication in a given article. Furthermore, because
paper submissions have increased substantially over time
(Sharma etal., 2012), along with the number of outlets
publishing family business research, the field is becoming increasingly competitive, which should indicate and
give way to improvements in overall quality. Considering
these general trends, we now report more specific results
along two key areas: (1) research design and methods
and (2) statistical techniques. Tables 1 and 2 summarize
these results as well as provide basic comparative information between FBR and non-FBR journals.
22
Table 1. Methodological Design Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.
Family Business Review (n = 319)
Overall PUI
General information
Total no. of empirical articles
Quantitative
Qualitative
Mixed methods
Data source
Archival
Interview
Case study
Survey
Content analysis
Simulation
Expert panel
Published journals
Narratives
Multiple sources
Temporal design
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Both
Level of analysis
Single-level
Individual
Group
Subunit
Organizational
Interorganizational
Industry
Country/national
Environment
Cross-level
Multilevel
N/A
.66
.24
.10
.73***
.29
.17
.26
N/A
.88
.10
.02
.82***
.47**
.22
.12
.40
.31
.21
.59
.07
.00
.03
.02
.02
.31
.74***
.28
.13
.39*
.32*
.00
.27
.40*
.27
.31
.62
.10
.10
.52
.03
.00
.01
.03
.01
.50
.25
.21
.26
.09
.13
.00
.27
.05
.31
.10
.74
.26
.01
.45*
.55**
.44*
.55
.44
.01
.15
.19
.27
.85
.16
.07
.00
.77
.00
.00
.00
.00
.13
.01
.15
.37*
.23
.33
.45**
.00
.00
.00
.00
.29
.38*
.80
.07
.05
.00
.84
.01
.00
.01
.01
.15
.06
.18
.15
.07
.00
.45*
.02
.00
.00
.33
.11
.58**
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
23
Evert et al.
Table 2. Sample and Scope Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.
Family Business Review (n = 319)
Overall PUI
Overall PUI
.35
.46
.06
.69***
.67***
.41*
.35
.50
.04
.22
.71***
.15
.12
.10
.04
.64***
.49**
.35
.21
.14
.09
.10
.44*
.30
.76
.07
.11
.03
.76
.10
.26
.55**
.44
.31
.09
.02
.03
.05
.56**
.60***
.45*
.35
.54**
.42*
.44
.32
.21
.05
.04
.04
.11
.47*
.51**
.53**
.27
.32
.14
.58
.09
.41*
.50**
.19
.11
.73
.06
.08
.48**
.28
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
to 35% (1997-2005), and 37% (2006-2014); this is comparable to the non-FBR sample showing growth from
13%, to 30%, to 34% in the same time periods.
Analytical Techniques
Given the importance and distinct presence of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in the study of family businesses, we discuss these separately. Table 3
provides a summary of findings for the quantitative
techniques, while Table 4 provides information regarding qualitative techniques.
With respect to quantitative empirical studies in
FBR, there was a distinct decrease in the use of simple
descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations) to test hypotheses and research questions over
time (r = .65; p < .001). As expected, increases were
observed in more advanced techniques over time, with
hierarchical regression (r = .66; p < .001), panel data
analysis (r = .51; p < .01), multinomial logistic regression (r = .48; p < .01), and structural equation modeling
24
Table 3. Quantitative Data Analytic Technique Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.
FBR (n = 319)
Basic techniques
Descriptive statistics
Correlations
Nonparametric tests
Tests of mean differences
General linear models
Simple regression
Multiple regression
Hierarchical regression
Stepwise regression
Canonical correlation
ANOVA
ANCOVA
MANOVA
MANCOVA
Discrete events methods
Logistic regression
Multinomial logistic regression
Methods for analysis of interdependence
Network analysis
Multidimensional scaling
Methods accounting for heterogeneity
Cluster analysis
Random coefficient modeling
Hierarchical linear modeling
Longitudinal data methods
Panel data analysis
Causal structure methods
Path analysis
Structural equation modeling
Methods for imperfect measurements
Exploratory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis
Reliability analysis
Non-FBR (n = 146)
Overall PUI
Overall PUI
.20
.09
.12
.19
.65***
.41*
.26
.08
.02
.07
.04
.06
.00
.10
.11
.21
.01
.13
.09
.01
.00
.09
.01
.03
.01
.11
.22
.66***
.09
.10
.04
.06
.28
.24
.01
.40
.19
.02
.00
.02
.01
.00
.02
.25
.05
.09
.02
.00
.21
.17
.00
.13
.08
.01
.39*
.48**
.06
.03
.29
.39*
.00
.02
.20
.32
.00
.01
.00
.23
.05
.00
.00
.27
.33
.25
.01
.00
.01
.02
.00
.31
.06
.51**
.26
.80***
.00
.04
.25
.55**
.01
.05
.18
.00
.08
.04
.01
.38*
.46*
.08
.01
.02
.00
.14
.23
.00
Note. FBR = Family Business Review; ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of
variance; MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
25
Evert et al.
Table 4. Qualitative Data Analytic Technique Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.
FBR (n = 319)
Case
Cross case
Within case
General case
Theory
Deductive
Inductive
Interview type
Open-ended
Semistructured
Standardized
Other
Ethnography
Participant observation
Observation
Interpretive approach
Thematic/emergent themes
Non-FBR (n = 146)
Overall PUI
Overall PUI
.11
.04
.04
.02
.17
.16
.04
.03
.03
.16
.31
.23
.01
.08
.38*
.20
.00
.06
.00
.03
.09
.10
.03
.05
.10
.48**
.03
.04
.00
.21
.18
.00
.01
.02
.03
.03
.17
.07
.13
.22
.10
.03
.01
.01
.02
.01
.06
.03
.08
.29
.23
.27
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
FBRalong with family business research in general
has made great progress over time in terms of notoriety
and influence (Litz etal., 2012). What began as a conduit for the documentation and dissemination of ideas
related to family businesses is now widely recognized as
the journal of choice for family business scholars
(e.g., Sharma, 2009, p. 8). As evidenced by our results,
the mounting sophistication and complexity of the
empirics used in family business research is an important element that contributes to the overall growth and
legitimacy of the field (Sharma etal., 2012). Indeed,
since empirics influence knowledge accumulation over
time (e.g., Sackett & Larson, 1990; Schriesheim,
Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), we
expect that family business research will become
increasingly more sophisticated and complex in the
future, drawing ever closer to older and more established domains. So, in light of past efforts, we now discuss our results with an eye to the future. We do so in
two ways. First, we discuss some key challenges, along
with some solutions and exemplary articles, which seem
to generally beleaguer the field; these are summarized in
Table 5. Then, we more specifically discuss empirical
efforts within key topical areas, while also making note
of some opportunities for future research; Table 6 contains a summary of the more refined suggestions
arranged according to the six most commonly researched
26
Table 5. Key Challenges and Suggestions for Family Business Empirical Research.
Challenges
Increase reliability and
validity of variables and
constructs
Improve generalizability of
relationships
Improve understanding
of causality among key
constructs
Suggestions
Exemplary articles
27
Evert et al.
Table 6. Selected Empirical Research Opportunities Involving Family Business.
Topic
Business performance
and growth
Characteristics and
attributes
Interpersonal family
dynamics
Governance
Succession
Within-and-between-entity
analysis
Structural equations modeling
Moderated regression
Qualitative methods
Structural equations modeling
Longitudinal techniques
Multivariate analysis of archival
data
28
& Steier, 2003), the field does appear to be building consensus around some key theories (e.g., agency theory,
socioemotional wealth, stakeholder theory) and topics
(e.g., succession, governance) that serve as a foundation
for the field (Litz etal., 2012). While we did not find any
significant change in qualitative studies over time in
FBR, we do wish to note that qualitative studies represent
a key method for researchers to not only answer important research questions but also to develop new questions
(Reay & Zhang, 2014). Hence, we wish to encourage
family business researchers to continue to conduct qualitative research studies, particularly those, such as ethnographies, that help us better understand the nuances of
the family (e.g., kinship) and associated relationships
within the business (Stewart, 2014).
In her editorial, Reay (2014) notes that qualitative
articles can vary widely, and offers several suggestions
for publishing high-quality qualitative research. Her
suggestions include (1) ensuring access to sufficient,
high-quality data, (2) setting up an appropriate research
question to guide the article, (3) grounding the study in
the relevant literature, (4) explaining the methods and
showing your work, (5) telling an intriguing empirical
story, (6) telling a convincing theoretical story, and (7)
showing a clear contribution to the family business literature. We support these suggestions, and also note that
these same considerations should be applied to quantitative research as well. Furthermore, we also encourage
more mixed methods approaches as they help provide
the triangulation basis for convergence (McGrath &
Brindberg, 1984, p. 116). For example, Bjrnberg and
Nicholson (2012) use strong qualitative methods, along
with a subsequent quantitative analysis, to establish an
intriguing story regarding the role of emotional ownership in the relationship between the next generation and
the family firm.
Archival data, which include information obtained
from documents such as 10K reports, analyst reports,
directories, and memos, have increasingly been used in
family business research. While archival sources are
often inexpensive, provide oft-needed power, offer more
generalizability, and allow for temporal application,
these sources present key challenges as well. The most
notable problems are associated with reliability, because
of missing or inaccurate data, and internal validity,
where available information does not exactly match up
to the desired construct. For instance, family business
scholars often lament the common and ongoing
there are numerous ways to operationalize the definition. Indeed, the real difficulty lies in measuring the
various intangible attributes that are associated with a
given definitionincluding intention, dominant coalition, and visionand serve as important distinguishing
factors that separate family businesses from nonfamily
businesses.
There is a growing recognition that family businesses
are heterogeneous (Naldi, Nordqvist, Sjberg, &
Wiklund, 2007) and that variance within family firms
merits more refined examination (Astrachan & Shanker,
2003). Indeed, Chua, Chrisman, Steier, and Rau (2012)
note that a greater focus on within-group differences of
family businesses and away from simply comparing
family businesses and nonfamily businesses is a logical
and necessary step for the advancement for the field.
The use of continuous variables instead of binomial
variables will aid studies that focus on within-group differences of family businesses. For example, development of the Family Influence on Power, Experience and
Culture Scale takes a strong step in the right direction
(S. B. Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). Furthermore,
Holt, Rutherford, and Kuratkos (2010) efforts to
develop the Family Influence on Power, Experience and
Culture Scale through replication and extension, including tests of convergent validity, exemplifies the type of
scale development that is much needed in family business research. Therefore, following Pearson, Holt, and
Carrs (2014) arguments, we encourage more efforts to
attend to issues of construct validity and reliability in
family business research, but particularly in terms of
how the family and its influences are accounted for
across a highly heterogeneous group of firms.
The positive trend of archival data use is partially
driven by the difficulties associated with gathering primary data about family businesses, which are often
29
Evert et al.
privately held and resistant to providing confidential
information about the business (Neubauer & Lank,
1998). As a field, since we want to avoid overreliance on
any one type of sample (e.g., large, publicly traded companies), it seems that more creative approaches to data
gathering and methods are needed. As an example of
innovative ways to assess information, we acknowledge
McKenny, Short, Zachary, and Paynes (2011) utilization of content analysis of organizational narratives to
examine privately held family firms; specifically, they
gathered and analyzed 77 about us website texts and
163 press releases from 93 companies to assess company goals. As another creative example, Herrero (2011,
p. 893) combined individual-/family-, firm- (i.e., fishing
vessel), and census-level data to examine the effects of
agency costs on efficiency in a sample of fishing firms
over a 9-year period. Overall, in an effort to reduce the
possibility of inappropriate or inaccurate implications
becoming generally accepted by the field, a variety of
data sources and methodologies are ideal.
FBR studies using longitudinal designs have increased,
which is encouraging since longitudinal approaches aid in
the testing of causal relationships between constructs and
variables (Litz etal., 2012). For instance, Craig and Moores
(2006) used surveys, delivered at 10-year intervals, to
investigate the relationship between shifting leadership and
innovation in family firms; they noted that more protracted
time periods between initial and follow-up surveys are
required to examine changes in innovation. Despite
increases in longitudinal approaches, cross-sectional
designs remain an important and useful aspect in family
business research. Brockhaus (2004) asserted that crosssectional studies continue to dominate the field because of
three key reasons. First, it is already difficult to get family
businesses to participate in any study, letalone studies that
require responses over multiple time periods. Second, family businesses often fail, making it difficult to obtain metrics that are not subject to severe survival bias. Third, the
publish or perish environment encourages researchers to
conduct studies that can be published quickly (i.e., crosssectional) in lieu of studies that are more complex and take
a longer period to conduct (i.e., longitudinal). Given these
understandable concerns, we remain adamant that efforts
converging on more longitudinal studies are necessary for
the field to continue to progress toward a more thorough
understanding of family business. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail below, we advocate for inquiries that
account for time explicitly (Sharma, Salvato, & Reay,
2014).
One noteworthy finding involves the lack of FBR studies examining multiple levels of analysis in ways that partition the effects of each level. In FBR, while we observe a
significant increase in these studies over time (r = .38;
p < .05), we also observe this same trend in the comparative
sample (r = .58; p < .01). Given the inherent nested nature
of organizationsindividuals within groups (i.e., the family), groups within organizations, and so forth (Aguinis,
Dalton, Bosco, Pierce, & Dalton, 2011; Hitt, Beamish,
Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007) multilevel theory development and testing is a particularly fruitful area to explore
(McKenny etal., 2014). Furthermore, scholars have called
for more multilevel testing for some time (e.g., Chrisman
etal., 2007; K. J. Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999). We did
note, however, some cross-level research (which may be
considered a type of multilevel approach), where variables
or constructs at one level are examined in relation to variables or constructs at a different level (Kozlowski & Klein,
2000). For instance, Huybrechts, Voordeckers, and Lybaert
(2012) studied the influence of CEO tenure (individual
level) on the family versus nonfamily levels of entrepreneurial risk taking (organizational level). While such
research may contribute greatly to our understanding of
family businesses, such studies must be approached
carefully, both theoretically and methodologically. In particular, misspecificationmisalignment between conceptualization and measurementis a key problematic issue
in mixed-level studies where measurement at one level is
used to represent a construct conceptualized at a different
level (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
In both FBR and non-FBR articles reviewed here, a
positive sampling trend is the significant increase in
studies using non-U.S.-only (i.e., international) samples; increased sampling diversity is essential to developing generalizability and establishing global
applicability. For example, we advocate more studies
like Micelotta and Raynard (2011), which examined
corporate brand identity strategies using websites of 92
of the worlds oldest family firms covering 16 nations.
However, the sampling trends described in our results
suggest that scholars tend to sample from single countries, as opposed to multiple countries. In fact, we
noted just 22 FBR studies (only 7% of the sampled
articles) used samples from more than one nation.
Additionally, research efforts need to extend to less
developed economies. Currently, the large majority of
research is based on highly developed and modernized
economies (e.g., Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, the
United States). For an exception, see Fahed-Sreih and
30
Djoundourians (2006) exploratory study of the determinants of longevity and success in Lebanese family
businesses.
Whereas advancements are being made in terms of
international samples, more attention to cross-border
and internationally comparative issues would be preferred. Specifically, we argue that more critical consideration must be given to how studies contribute to
our overall understanding of family business in
generalapart from basic contextual differences. We
are encouraged, though, by large-scale research efforts
such as the STEP (Successful Transgenerational
Entrepreneurship Practices) project, which is a collaboration of affiliated researchers to explore the
entrepreneurial process in family businesses on a
global basis. Likewise, Gupta and Levenburg (2010),
through employment of nine cross-cultural dimensions of family business from the CASE (Culturally
Sensitive Assessment Systems and Education) project,
provided an exemplary study in their exploration of
cross-cultural variations in family businesses. Through
such efforts, we can not only better understand family
businesses in general but also more fully address the
contingencies associated with the various family business phenomena in question.
Analytical Techniques
Language ambiguity was a problematic issue with the
reporting of statistical techniques; it was often difficult
to determine the exact nature of the analysis procedure.
As a basic example, several studies made explicit claims
that regression was used to test hypotheses but on closer
examination of the results, more specific types of regression were actually used (e.g., hierarchical, stepwise).
Though this example is a seemingly minor concern, it
exemplifies the overall lack of precision for many of the
studies, particularly with regard to statistical procedures.
Accordingly, as a simple suggestion for future research,
more effort in terms of clarity and completeness is
needed in the presentation of information. Indeed, as
statistical sophistication and complexity increases, the
fundamental need for clarity is all the more important
because the ability to fully understand, and even replicate, empirics is necessary for the field to progress.
While FBR has made substantial strides in its application of more advanced statistical techniques, such as hierarchical regression, SEM, and panel analysis, there were
important techniques that, while underrepresented, are
31
Evert et al.
more readily available and more easily used than ever
before. Hence, we encourage scholars to consider what
research questions might now be asked that up until
recently could not be answered because appropriate
techniques were not available. Indeed, random coefficient modeling, also referred to as mixed-effects modeling or hierarchical linear modeling, is a particularly
useful technique because it allows researchers to understand how relationships might differ across groupings,
but does not rely on the same assumptions as traditional
linear approaches (Bliese, 2002). One exemplar of multilevel modeling applied to the family firm context is
Dawson (2011), which analyzed private equity investment decisions, controlling for the nested nature of data
decisions within private equity professionals, who in
turn are nested in private equity firms.
Finally, while time-related variables such as longterm orientation (Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, & Zachary,
2014) have been introduced to the literature, we identified few studies that explicitly accounted for time. As
stated by Sharma etal. (2014, p. 10), such studies are
exceptions rather than the norm. Hence, time, as a level
of analysis, is a key component in numerous family business phenomena and should be included in more empirical analysis (e.g., Sharma etal., 2014). Indeed, the
complex nature of time and its effects on organizations
has led to the development of a variety of empirical
approaches including hazard modeling (Bronnenberg &
Mela, 2004), growth modeling (Bliese & Ployhart,
2002), and discontinuous change modeling (Singer &
Willett, 2003). Taken together, time represents part of a
new empirical frontier, which has great potential to
inform the field of family business, enabling researchers
to address novel and more complex research questions.
32
33
Evert et al.
can manifest as a source of strategic competence (distinctive) or encumbrance (constrictive) in the management of family firms (Sharma, 2004, p. 21). Given this,
and the innate multilevel nature of individual perspectives and group social processes through which family
influence is imposed on organizational strategy decisions (e.g., McKenny etal., 2014), we think studies
related to family business management could benefit
from more robust use of appropriate techniques to test
multilevel models. Throughout this review and despite
research designs advanced by scholars that commonly
measured variables of interest across multiple levels,
multilevel effects were seldom addressed conceptually
or empirically. Indeed, this trend has emerged in the face
of increased numbers of techniques that allow for the
application of multilevel principles and data (Bliese,
Chan, & Ployhart, 2007; Payne, Moore, Griffis, & Autry,
2011). One notable exception that has used these more
rigorous analysis tools is Dawsons (2011) use of hierarchical linear modeling to analyze the nested nature of
private equity decisions in family firms.
Business Performance and Growth. Generally viewed as
how organizations perform from financial and nonfinancial perspectives, business performance and growth was
the second most prevalent topic in our sample, appearing 180 times. Within this category, studies relied primarily on agency (27%), family (e.g., lifecycle and
systems theories; 13%), and resource-based perspectives (11%). General linear modeling techniques dominated our sample as the most common method of data
analysis (53%). Somewhat expected, our review indicates that early performance literature was characterized
by a desire to establish if family firms do, in fact, perform differently than their nonfamily counterparts (e.g.,
Donckels & Frohlich, 1991; McCollom, 1988). More
nuanced investigations of family firm performance and
growth appeared as our review progressed. Generally,
research on family firm performance has been mixed
with some studies finding that family firms outperform
(e.g., Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Villalonga & Amit,
2006), underperform (e.g., Claessens, Djankov, Fan, &
Lang, 2002; Morck & Yeung, 2004), or do not differ
from the performance of their nonfamily equivalents
(Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Lester, & Cannella, 2007).
Indeed, OBoyle etal. (2012) advanced the field toward
a potential resolution of the debate focused on family
versus nonfamily financial performance. Their metaanalysis of 78 articles found that family involvement did
34
35
Evert et al.
based on data from multiple respondents, to study family business job satisfaction and turnover intentions. In
this article, the authors viewed embeddedness as interorganizational connectedness, measuring it with three
single-item measures of value congruence. We encourage more of these types of research efforts that account
for the latent, difficult to measure variables involved
with the dynamics of family businesses.
Our review also points to a potential direction for
future research by exposing limitations in use of interdependence techniques (e.g., network analysis, diffusion
models, multidimensional scaling [MDS]). Although we
found a practical and compelling example of the use of
network analysis (Debicki etal., 2009), this study was
not geared toward family business, but rather family
business research. Hence, there appears to be the need for
broader application of network techniques within the
family dynamics literature. Also, the use of MDS was
limited. A recent exemplar by Morris, Allen, Kuratko,
and Brannon (2010) introduced family business creation
as a lived through experience composed of interdependent events. Although the overall study partitioned perceptions of experiences across more traditional groupings
(i.e., founders, nonfamily managers, and founders of
nonfamily businesses), the use of MDS offered deep
insights by visually approximating patterns of similar
structures among test subjects affective experiences.
On its own, the Morris etal. (2010) study also provides an ample guide for future research, especially as
scholars seek to investigate the extended influence of
interpersonal family dynamics. Prevailing research has
widely studied the outcomes of relationships between
immediate family members, but these interpersonal
dynamics may play a larger role than originally thought.
Perhaps, as Sharma (2004) suggests, individual family
members and the relationships within one generation
may act to bridge a family business with the next generation. In the same work, she calls for more systematic
study of family business dynasties and transgenerational
sustainability; the overarching point is that family
dynamics transcend traditionally studied relationships
between father and son, or mother and daughter. As
such, and as outlined in Table 6, we cannot think of a
more important topic in which to use qualitative techniques leading to a deeper analysis of interdependence
in and among family businesses. Since techniques that
account for interdependence will ultimately lead to a
greater understanding of family dynamics, they should
also serve as a springboard to interesting opportunities
for future quantitative research, perhaps even across levels and time, that hopefully result in more predictive,
functional conclusions within the topic.
Governance.Although Mustakallio, Autio, and Zahra
(2002, p. 219) once cautioned that empirical research
into the governance systems of family firms is scarce,
our review indicates substantial progress on the topic. In
fact, governance was a key topic in 132 articles, with 77
of those (58%) appearing in the last 9-year period (20062014). For all governance articles, more than half used
some version of general linear modeling and 27%
reported the use of longitudinal data. And while several
articles use mean differences (e.g., t tests) and descriptive statistics (21% and 14%, respectively), there is a
substantial portion (13%) of studies that applied discrete
event methods (e.g., logistic regression, discriminant
analysis). Finally, methodological techniques that
account for heterogeneity and grouping (e.g., cluster
analysis, hierarchical linear modeling) were found in
5% of the articles that addressed governance issues.
Whereas most articles in our sample seemingly used
appropriate methodologies, the variety of approaches
appears narrow. Although regression can serve as an
effective analysis technique, it seems that family business
scholars should branch out from more basic designs to
capture the complexities of ownership and control exclusively found in family businessesparticularly since
governance structures in these settings must reconcile
shared visions within the family while mitigating harmful
conflicts (e.g., Carney, 2005). Indeed, one of the most
unique aspects of family businesses is the multiple roles
that family members often play within the firm (e.g.,
Tagiuri & Davis, 1996); hence, this distinctiveness could
be leveraged with methods that force scholars to ask and
answer more insightful governance questions. For example, while Lungeanu and Ward (2012) considered grantmaking practices of family and nonfamily foundations,
their analysis used several ANOVA statistical tests
between these entities. However, because foundations
and boards are typically made up of a blend of unique
(and often related) individuals across various levels of
analysis, the inherently nested nature of their influence
leaves techniques such as ANOVA unable to adequately
account for this variance (e.g., McKenny etal., 2014). As
such, a random coefficients modeling technique may be a
better option for future research of this kind.
Though overall research efforts in family business
governance have made significant gains in recent years
36
37
Evert et al.
allows scholars to gain a deeper understanding of the
temporal influences and triggers that are inherent to the
succession process (Murray, 2003, p. 31), but should be
further examined on a larger scale.
Conclusion
Funding
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions of Keith
H. Brigham and four anonymous reviewers on earlier versions
of this article. We are also grateful to the special issue editorial
team, Jeremy Short, Tom Lumpkin, Allison Pearson, and
Pramodita Sharma for their guidance throughout the process.
John Martin extends special thanks to the Department of
Management at the U.S. Air Force Academy, most specifically
Steve Green, who availed significant department resources for
completion of this project.
Notes
1. A complete listing of the reviewed articles is available as
an online appendix (available at http://fbr.sagepub.com/
content/by/supplemental-data).
2. Although not included in our sample of published studies,
we wish to acknowledge the meta-analysis by Carney,
Van Essen, Gedajlovic, and Heugens (2015) that was initially published online in 2013.
References
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., &
Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing,
obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of
Management, 37, 5-38.
Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2014).
Integrating time into family business research: Using random coefficient modeling to examine temporal influences
on family firm ambidexterity. Family Business Review,
27, 20-34.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family
ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P
500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1327.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 209-237.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010).
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086-1120.
Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses
contribution to the US economy: A closer look. Family
Business Review, 16, 211-219.
Barbera, F., & Hasso, T. (2013). Do we need to use an accountant? The sales growth and survival benefits to family
SMEs. Family Business Review, 26, 271-292.
Barnett, T., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2009). The
effects of family versus career role salience on the performance of family and nonfamily firms. Family Business
Review, 22, 39-52.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012).
Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical
38
39
Evert et al.
of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
Corbetta, G., & Montemerlo, D. (1999). Ownership, governance, and management issues in small and medium-size
businesses: A comparison of Italy and the United States.
Family Business Review, 12, 361-374.
Correll, R. W. (1989). Facing up to moving forward: A thirdgeneration successors reflections. Family Business
Review, 2, 17-29.
Craig, J. B. L., & Moores, K. (2006). A 10-year longitudinal
investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on
innovation in family firms. Family Business Review, 19,
1-10.
Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally
managed firms. Family Business Review, 5, 117-136.
Dawson, A. (2011). Private equity investment decisions in
family firms: The role of human resources and agency
costs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 189-199.
Dean, M. A., Shook, C. L., & Payne, G. T. (2007). The past,
present, and future of entrepreneurship research: Data
analytic trends and training. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31, 601-618.
Debicki, B., Matherne, C., Kellermanns, F., & Chrisman, J.
(2009). Family business research in the new millennium.
Family Business Review, 22, 151-166.
Dekker, J. C., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., Depaire, B., &
Mercken, R. (2013). Family firm types based on the professionalization construct: Exploratory research. Family
Business Review, 26, 81-99.
De Massis, A., Chirico, F., Kotlar, J., & Naldi, L. (2014). The
temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The
horizontal s-curve hypothesis. Family Business Review,
27, 35-50.
De Massis, A., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors
preventing intra-family succession. Family Business
Review, 21, 183-199.
Distelberg, B. J., & Blow, A. (2011). Variations in family system boundaries. Family Business Review, 24, 28-46.
Donckels, R., & Frhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses
really different? European experiences from STRATOS.
Family Business Review, 4, 149-160.
Dou, J., Zhang, Z., & Su, E. (2014). Does family involvement
make firms donate more? Empirical evidence from Chinese
private firms. Family Business Review, 27, 259-274.
Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Payne, G. T. (2014). The effects
of perceived control on venture capitalist investment decisions: A configurational perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 38, 833-861.
Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, W. J. (2009). Putting the family into
family business research. Family Business Review, 22,
216-219.
Dyer, W. G., & Sanchez, M. (1998). Current state of family business theory and practice as reflected in Family
Business Review 1988-1997. Family Business Review, 11,
287-295.
Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and
social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P
500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 785-802.
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Crittenden,
V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2013). Planning for growth:
Life stage differences in family firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37, 1177-1202.
Fahed-Sreih, J., & Djoundourian, S. (2006). Determinants
of longevity and success in Lebanese family businesses:
An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 19,
225-234.
Gagne, M., Wrosch, C., Brun de, & Pontet, S. (2011). Retiring
from the family business: The role of goal adjustment
capacities. Family Business Review, 24, 292-304.
Garcia-Alvarez, E., Lopez-Sintas, J., & Gonzalvo, P. S.
(2002). Socialization patterns of successors in first- to
second-generation family businesses. Family Business
Review, 15, 189-203.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of
Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal,
47, 454-462.
Golden, B. (1992). The past is the pastOr is it? The use
of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848-860.
Gudmundson, D., Hartman, E. A., & Tower, C. B. (1999).
Strategic orientation: Differences between family and
nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 12, 27-39.
Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2010). A thematic analysis of
cultural variations in family businesses: The CASE project. Family Business Review, 23, 155-169.
Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resourcebased framework for assessing the strategic advantages of
family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003).
A unified systems perspective of family firm performance.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451-465.
Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2008). New academic fields
as admittance-seeking movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33,
32-54.
Handler, W. C. (1992). The succession experience of the next
generation. Family Business Review, 5, 283-307.
Handler, W. C. (1994). Succession in family business: A
review of the research. Family Business Review, 7,
133-157.
Handler, W. C., & Kram, K. E. (1988). Succession in family firms: The problem of resistance. Family Business
Review, 1, 361-381.
40
41
Evert et al.
stage and governance structure on family philanthropic
activities. Family Business Review, 25, 409-424.
Marques, P., Presas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The heterogeneity of family firms in CSR engagement: The role of values. Family Business Review, 27, 206-227.
Marshall, J. P., Sorenson, R., Brigham, K., Wieling, E.,
Reifman, A., & Wampler, R. S. (2006). The paradox for
the family firm CEO: Owner age relationship to succession-related processes and plans. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21, 348-368.
Maule, A. J., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2002). Heuristics, biases
and strategic decision making. Psychologist, 15, 68-71.
McCollom, M. (1988). Integration in the family firm: When
the family system replaces controls and culture. Family
Business Review, 1, 399-417.
McGrath, J. E., & Brindberg, D. (1984). Alternative paths
for research: Another view of the basic vs. applied distinction. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 5, pp. 109-129). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., & Payne, G.
T. (2011). Assessing espoused goals in private family
firms using content analysis. Family Business Review, 25,
298-317.
McKenny, A. F., Payne, G. T., Zachary, M. A., & Short, J. C.
(2014). Multilevel analysis in family business studies. In
L. Melin, M. Nordqvist & P. Sharma (Eds.), SAGE handbook of family business (pp. 594-608). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McLeod, M. S., Payne, G. T., & Evert, R. E. (2014).
Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of
methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business
Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551014-2436-9
Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., & Sharma, P. (Eds.). (2014). SAGE
handbook of family business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24, 197-216.
Michael-Tsabari, N., Labaki, R., & Zachary, R. K. (2014).
Toward the cluster model: The family firms entrepreneurial behavior over generations. Family Business
Review, 27, 161-185.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A.
A. (2007). Are family firms really superior performers?
Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 829-858.
Miller, D., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. (2013). Is family leadership always beneficial? Strategic Management
Journal, 34, 553-571.
Minichilli, A., Nordqvist, M., Corbetta, G., & Amore, M.
D. (2014). CEO succession mechanisms, organizational
42
43
Evert et al.
Stewart, A., & Miner, A. S. (2011). The prospects for family business in research universities. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 2, 3-14.
Stone-Romero, E. F., Weaver, A. E., & Glenar, J. L. (1995).
Trends in research design and data analytic strategies in
organizational research. Journal of Management, 21, 141157.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9, 199-208.
Vera, C. F., & Dean, M. A. (2005). An examination of the
challenges daughters face in family business succession.
Family Business Review, 18, 321-345.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership,
control and management affect firm value? Journal of
Financial Economics, 80, 385-417.
von Schlippe, A., & Schneewind, K. A. (2014). Theories from
family psychology and family therapy. In P. Sharma, L.
Melin, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), SAGE handbook of family
business (pp. 47-65). London, England: Sage.
Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1998). Family firm research:
The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 23(1), 31-56.
Wiklund, J., Nordqvist, M., Hellerstedt, K., & Bird, M. (2013).
Internal versus external ownership transition in family
firms: An embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37, 1319-1340.
Wilson, N., Wright, M., & Scholes, L. (2013). Family business
survival and the role of boards. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 37, 1369-1389.
Wilson, S. R., Whitmoyer, J. G., Pieper, T. M., Astrachan, J.
H., Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Method trends and
method needs: Examining methods needed for accelerating the field. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 4-14.
Author Biographies
Robert E. Evert is a PhD candidate at Texas Tech University
in the Area of Management, Rawls College of Business, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
John A. Martin, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of strategic
management in the Department of Management and
International Business, Raj Soin College of Business, Wright
State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Michael S. McLeod is a PhD candidate at Texas Tech
University in the Area of Management, Rawls College of
Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
G. Tyge Payne, PhD, is a Professor of strategic management and
Jerry S. Rawls Professor of Management in the Area of
Management, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA.