32 Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Vol. 13, No.

1, 2011

Family firm research: sketching a research field

Sascha Kraus*
University of Liechtenstein,
Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse,
FL-9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein
E-mail: sascha.kraus@hochschule.li
*Corresponding author

Rainer Harms
Dutch Institute for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship (NIKOS),
University of Twente,
Postbus 217, 7500 AE Enschede,
The Netherlands
E-mail: r.harms@utwente.nl

Matthias Fink
RiCC,
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration,
Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
E-mail: matthias.fink@wu-wien.ac.at

Abstract: Due to the importance of family firms for the economy, researchers
have begun to embrace family firms as a research object. This article seeks to
summarise and to structure family firm research based on an extensive
survey of the literature. Important research foundations such as the definition of
family firms, a theoretical foundation in the resource based view and in
entrepreneurship and research topics such as performance differences of family
firms, their goal structure, psychological ownership and business succession are
outlined and discussed.

Keywords: entrepreneurship; familiness; family firms; ownership;

resource-based view; RBV; SME; succession.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kraus, S., Harms, R. and
Fink, M. (2011) ‘Family firm research: sketching a research field’, Int. J.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.32–47.

Biographical notes: Sascha Kraus is Assistant Professor (Research) for

Entrepreneurship at the University of Liechtenstein. Also, he is Extraordinary
Professor for Entrepreneurship at Utrecht University, The Netherlands,
Associate Senior Researcher at the Vienna University of Economics and
Business Administration, Austria and Associate Member at the Newcastle
University’s Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise,
UK. Before his current positions, he was Evald and Hilda Nissi Foundation
International Fellow at the University of Vaasa, Finland and Substitute
Professor at the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria.

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Family firm research 33

Rainer Harms is an Assistant Professor at NIKOS, University of Twente, The

Netherlands. Prior to this, he was an Assistant Professor at Klagenfurt
University, Austria, and Researcher at WWU Münster, Germany. Moreover, he
lectured on entrepreneurship and innovation management at the TU Berlin and
the TU Dortmund. He studied economics, politics and sociology at the
University of Münster, Germany, where he received his Doctorate in Business
Administration with a thesis on entrepreneurial management. His current
research interests revolve around a critical analysis of new venture
development and organisational aspects of innovation management.

Matthias Fink is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Small Business

Management and Entrepreneurship at the Vienna University of Economics and
Business Administration where he received his PhD. He received his Triannual
Scholarship Austrian Program for Advanced Research and Technology
(APART) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. His main fields of research
includes: interorganisational cooperation, trust in the economic context,
internationalisation of SMEs, communal entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
marketing.

1 Introduction

Family firms are often said to be the originating form of business activity
(Wakefield, 1995) that dominate the economic landscape of most major economies in the
world (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; Heck and Stafford, 2001; Klein, 2000; Morck and
Yeung, 2003; Shanker and Astrachan, 1996). Poutziouris et al. (2006, p.1) call family
firms, irrespective of scale, size, legal form, or industry, ‘the backbone of corporate life,
across nations, remaining a cornerstone of socioeconomic development’. Two thirds of
all enterprises worldwide are family-owned and/or managed (Gersick et al., 1997). In
Germany, between 60% and 90% of all firms can be considered as family firms
(Terberger, 1998).
Family firm researchers believe that family involvement makes a family firm distinct
from a non-family firm (Chua et al., 2003). According to Dyer (2003), in the past,
management studies have paid insufficient attention to family firms’ unique theoretical
and practical problems. However, academia has recently begun to recognise family firms
as a research object (Chrisman et al., 2006). The interest in family firm research has
grown significantly in recent years, leading to a fresh and emerging field of study in
business research. The underlying assumption of this research field is that family firms
have particular characteristics that distinguish them from non-family firms. Despite the
progress made in the identification of these differences, especially in the last decade,
research on family firms remains a new field which is trying to gain legitimacy within
management studies (Hoy, 2003). As Chrisman et al. (2003b) state, much remains to be
done.
A key reason why family firm research has been neglected for so long as an own field
of research is, according to Dyer (2003), that many academics think that family firms are
the antithesis of ‘professionally’ managed firms; that family relationships fall outside
rational models of organisation; that there is a lack of analysable empirical information
on family firms; or that institutional and professional rewards only apply to the study of
34 S. Kraus et al.

large publicly traded firms. There is also still a lack of attention towards family firms in
management education, as Hoy (2003) remarks.
This article attempts to summarise and structure current research on family firms by
seeking out the findings and themes from literature that are of likely interest to business
scholars. It is based on a thorough review of 104 research articles (82 journal and 22
other articles, e.g., books, book chapters, conference papers, etc.) on family firms and
family firm research. The overview of relevant issues in family business research
provided here may serve as a guide map when future research sets out to identify issues
that need to be considered in a holistic approach to family business research.
The article proceeds as follows: after this introduction (Section 1), Section 2 deals
with the theoretical foundations of family firm research, beginning with definitions of the
terms ‘family’ and ‘family firms’ (Section 2.1), followed by a brief overview about the
resource-based view (RBV) as a relevant theoretical foundation of the research field
(Section 2.2), ending with a short description of the overlap between family firm research
and entrepreneurship, which happen to be very closely tied to each other (Section 2.3).
Section 3 gives an overview of some of the most important areas of family firm research
as an academic discipline, such as the performance of family firms compared to their
non-family counterparts (Section 3.1), the specific goals of family firms (Section 3.2), the
issue of psychological ownership (Section 3.3), and the issue of business succession
(Section 3.4) as some of the most promising areas for future research. The article closes
with our concluding remarks in Section 4.

2 Definitions and theoretical foundations

2.1 Defining family firms

The term ‘family’, narrowly defined, consists of the nuclear family (mother, father and
possibly children). In a broader definition, ‘family’ can also signify the extended family,
which consists of a group of people that are related to the family e.g., by marriage, and
often consists of multiple generations. Extending the biological definition of family,
‘non-biological families’ (Carsrud, 2006) or ‘quasi-family’ (Karra et al., 2006) consist of
a group of people with a shared history, experience, emotional bonding and sets of
common future goals. A look at the sociological literature on families might help to better
understand what family really is (e.g., Bengtson et al., 2005).
Given the various definitions of ‘family’, it is not surprising that the term ‘family
firms’ also exhibits many interpretations. Westhead and Cowling (1998) have reviewed
and analysed definitions of family firms that have been used in previous research. It
seems that the problem is less differentiated between a firm that is clearly a family firm
and one that is clearly not – the problem is rather the ‘grey area’ in between. The authors
found that the ratio of family firms varies dramatically depending on the definition used
in the study. When different definitions are applied, the percentage of family business in
one sample can vary from 15%–80% (Westhead et al., 1997).
For instance, researchers define a family firm by the degree of family involvement in
a number of firm-related aspects such as ownership, management, or business succession
(Chrisman et al., 2003b). Definitions span from 100% ownership, to the majority of
shares, all the way to majority control. Or they deal with the question of whether
governance or, moreover, even management involvement by the family would be
 Family firm research 35

necessary (Chua et al., 1999). Some studies even consider a company a family firm when
the firm considers itself to be one (Westhead and Cowling, 1998).1 Moores and Barrett
(2003) talk of family firms when

• more than 50% of the shares are controlled by one single family

• one single family effectively controls the firm, or when

• a significant part of the firm’s top management is from the same family.
Similarly, Chua et al. (1999, p.28) define a family firm 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. ”
Shanker and Astrachan (1996) differentiate between a ‘narrow’ and a ‘broad definition’
of family firms – where in the former, the family is involved in the daily business, and in
the latter, the family only sets the strategic direction for the firm.
Due to their dissatisfaction with existing definitions, several authors have shifted their
approach to identify the ‘essence’ of a family firm, e.g., through the question of the
family’s influence in strategic decision-making (Davis and Tagiuri, 1989; Handler, 1989;
Shanker and Astrachan, 1996). The idea behind this is that the family could be the critical
variable in family firm research (Astrachan, 2003; Dyer, 2003; Habbershon et al., 2003b;
Rogoff and Heck, 2003; Zahra, 2003). Litz (1995) for instance advocates that the essence
of a family firm is the family’s purpose of retaining control over the company for more
than the present generation. Aldrich and Cliff (2003) apply a so-called ‘family
embeddedness perspective’ by including the characteristics of family systems in their
research approach. Also Habbershon et al. (2003b) introduced a new perspective called
‘familiness’, standing for unique, inseparable and synergistic resources and capabilities,
emerging from family involvement and interactions, with the potential to create
competitive advantages for the firm. Chrisman et al. (2005) even suggest that families
found firms with the aim of institutionalising their unique resources and capabilities.
The influence of the family on various aspects of the firm has been represented in
various operationalisations. For instance, Astrachan et al. (2002) have developed a scale
for assessing the extent of family influence on a business organisation, using the
dimensions of power, experience and culture. The authors regard enterprises as a
continuous development with a flexible boundary between family and non-family firms.
They therefore argue that it is necessary to analyse the family firms within their single
constituents. The resulting ‘F-PEC scale’ measures the family influence on power,
experience and culture within a firm (Astrachan et al., 2002; Klein et al., 2005). The
F-PEC scale has some important advantages over most other methods of operationalising
the family firm construct, especially since it allows the measurement of family influence
on a continuous scale rather than via a simple dichotomy of family versus non-family
business. It furthermore appears to be particularly well-suited for studies of familiness
(Chrisman et al., 2005).
Because of the wide range of different definitions, it is unlikely that one commonly
agreed-on definition will emerge in the near future. Accordingly, it is of high importance
that family firm researchers describe the subset of family firms that they investigate in
detail (Brockhaus, 1994).
36 S. Kraus et al.

Nevertheless, summarising the above-mentioned approaches, an integrated

contemporary working definition of a ‘family firm’ could e.g., include
1 familiness as described before
2 control over the business for current and
3 next generations (Chrisman et al., 2003a; Habbershon et al., 2003a).
This definition shall be the basis of this contribution.
Furthermore, family firms are said to exhibit certain ‘characteristics’. For example,
they tend towards sustaining a strategy over a longer period of time (Ensley, 2006).
Mainly due to long CEO tenures (typically more than 15 years) and due to concern for
subsequent generations of the family, family firms are more likely to take a long-term
orientation when making strategic investments (Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006).
Family firms are furthermore often said to be more hesitant to invest in risky projects
(Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2001; Gersick et al., 1997), and thus could miss opportunities for
highly profitable projects. They are also said to be resistant to change, becoming fixated
on maintaining the status quo (Kellermanns and Eddleston, 2006). As a result of these
constraints mentioned, non-family firms are often regarded as being more innovative than
family firms (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2003).

2.2 The RBV as theoretical foundation for family firm research

The RBV of the firm argues that firms are able to outperform others if they can develop
valuable resources or capabilities which cannot be easily imitated or substituted by their
competitors (Teece et al., 1997). The RBV accordingly might have the potential to help
to identify the resources and capabilities that distinguish family from non-family firms
(Chua et al., 2003). In this respect, one of the major considerations in family firm
research is the question whether family involvement can lead to a competitive advantage.
Several scholars suggest that the connection between family and business may lead to
unique advantages in the acquisition of resources (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Haynes et al.,
1999; Stewart, 2003).
For example, Barney et al. (2002) suggest that family ties may provide an advantage
in opportunity identification because family members might be very likely to share
information with each other. Sirmon and Hitt (2003) apply the RBV to family firms, and
distinguish between five sources of so-called ‘family firm capital’: human capital, social
capital, survivability, or governance structures. The authors argue that family firms
acquire, bundle and leverage their resources differently than non-family firms. An
important future topic in family firm research that is based on the RBV is the analysis of
the transfer of unique capabilities in the case of a business succession from one
generation to another (Habbershon and Williams, 1999). The main question here is which
specific resources and capabilities a family firm should have regarding successful
business succession in a way that entails the vision of the firm from one generation to
another (Wortman, 1994).
Using the RBV as a foundation, the creation of ‘familiness’ (see previous section) as
proposed by Habbershon and Williams (1999) and Habbershon et al. (2003b) might be a
further driver for a family firm’s goals. In short, the authors argue that the intersection of
family and business lead to hard-to-duplicate capabilities that make family firms
particularly suited for survival and growth. If this familiness can be transferred from one
 Family firm research 37

generation to another as a legacy, this might be the core of the family firm concept
(Baker and Wiseman, 1998; Kelly et al., 2000; Poza and Messer, 2001). However, not all
firms have unique resources, and it is possible to survive without them. It can thus also be
argued that not all family firms have such a ‘familiness’ capability which is unique and
inseparable and leads to a competitive advantage (Nordqvist, 2005). At times,
‘familiness’ might even be a burden to business development.

2.3 Entrepreneurship and family firm research

As Aldrich and Cliff (2003, p.574) state, ‘very little attention has been paid to how family
dynamics affect entrepreneurial processes’. This is deplorable, since there are many
obvious links between family firm research and entrepreneurship research (Fletcher,
2005): Firstly, most family firms are SMEs, which are frequently the object of
entrepreneurship research analysis. Secondly, founders of family firms are obviously
entrepreneurs, having perceived an opportunity through the creation of a new firm
(Aldrich and Cliff, 2003). In fact, many new ventures are founded with family
involvement and through the allocation of a family’s financial and human resources
(Chrisman et al., 2003a).
Family firm entrepreneurs are unique in that they seek to build businesses that are
also family institutions (Chrisman et al., 2003c). Nevertheless, the extent of
entrepreneurial behaviour within the organisation tends to change over time (Kellermanns
and Eddleston, 2006). The founders often become more conservative and risk-averse
decision-makers because they fear losing family wealth (Sharma et al., 1997). The
entrepreneurial impetus may become diluted over time, with entrepreneurial practices
becoming subsumed by other concerns (Fletcher, 2005). Such an entrepreneurial culture
may be restored by hiring external managers that can introduce a fresh perspective on
business (Kellermanns and Eddleston, 2006). In this regard, Tan and Fock (2001)
demonstrate that the appointment of an entrepreneurial leader might be a key to success
in family firm succession.

3 Important areas of family firm research

3.1 Performance of family firms

A key justification for the emergence of the academic field of ‘family firm research’ lays
in the assumption that family and non-family firms may exhibit different performance
levels. So far, however, empirical results have been contradictory.
On the one hand, some recent empirical studies, such as one done on S&P 500 firms
(Anderson and Reeb, 2003), show that firms that are under the influence of the founding
families often outperform their non-family counterparts. Especially in terms of corporate
performance, significant differences between family and non-family firms could often be
identified (Gallo, 1995; McConaughy and Phillips, 1999; Westhead and Cowling, 1998).
The authors see family firms ahead in terms of corporate performance, claiming that
families are better stewards of firm resources due to less managerial opportunism within
the company (Anderson and Reeb, 2003; Lester et al., 2006).
On the other hand, not all academics come to the same conclusion. Some researchers
even find that family firms often experience slower growth as well as slower
38 S. Kraus et al.

decision-making processes (Meyer and Zucker, 1989). One reason for this might be that
family firms have to deal with additional – namely family – issues (Lester et al., 2006;
Paisner, 1999), which might be resource-consuming. Other empirical studies such as the
one by Morck and Yeung (2003) therefore conclude that overall corporate performance
of family firms is worse than in non-family firms due to reasons such as the family’s
desire for capital preservation, stability, and risk aversion. Authors like Schulze et al.
(2003) see potential for inefficiencies that will have a negative impact on profit when
ownership is concentrated in the hands of a single family. They argue that the
owner-managers’ desire for family harmony and a tendency for altruistic behaviour
towards family members, coupled with ineffective control authorities, create
inefficiencies that outweigh the positive effects of alignment of interests that comes with
the concentration of ownership and management.

3.2 Goals of family firms

Mainstream theories in business research consider ‘wealth creation’ as the major goal for
businesses. In family firms, the situation could be different. Non-economic goals may
also play a major role in the goal structure of family firms (Olson et al., 2003; Stafford et
al., 1999; Ward, 1988). The success of a family firm would depend on effective
management of the intersection between the family and the business (Sharma, 2004).
When the business performs in a way that creates value for the family, and the family is
able to add value to the firm at the same time, higher overall corporate success can be
expected (Chua et al., 2003). Accordingly, the goals of family firms and their family
members within have become a major area of family firm research so far.
Since family firms may pursue non-economic goals in addition to economic goals, the
measurement of the overall performance may be particularly difficult (Hienerth and
Kessler, 2006). The conceptualisation of ‘performance’ in the context of family firms is
exacerbated by the fact that family firms are a heterogeneous group that encompasses
micro- and large enterprises, privately owned firms, and those that are listed on the stock
market.
Results of previous empirical studies indicate that family goals are often more
important to the owners of family firms than to the owners of non-family firms. In other
words: economic goals might be traded off for (non-economic) family goals (Lee and
Rogoff, 1996). Although there have been studies on the goals of family firms (Tagiuri
and Davis, 1996), the understanding of the driving forces behind these goals is still in its
infancy. Altruism, fairness, justice and generosity have been investigated as some of
these drivers for non-economic goals (Eaton et al., 2002; Lubatkin et al., 2002; Schulze et
al., 2001). To make the analysis of non-economic goals even more complicated, goals of
the individual family members may be different and vary over time. Following a family
member’s life cycle, the individual goal structure may change, as might the power and
status of family members. As a consequence, the impact on an individual’s goals on the
composition of the firm’s goal structure could also change over time (Hoy, 2006).
Recognising that family firm management includes family and business dimensions at
the same time, performance of family firms will also most likely include both family and
business dimensions (Mitchell et al., 2003). Understanding how the influence of a family
might affect a business and its performance could open up interesting new avenues of
research, as Chrisman et al. (2006) state. The so-called ‘three-circle model’ for example
describes a family firm as a complex system consisting of three intersecting components:
 Family firm research 39

the business, the family and the owners (Gersick et al., 1997). Individuals within this
system take over different roles, perspectives and responsibilities, depending on the circle
they are in at the moment (Gersick et al., 1999).

3.3 (Psychological) ownership

Psychological ownership has developed into one of the most promising avenues for
future family firm research. The basic model of ‘ownership’ can be broken down into the
following elements (Ikävalko et al., 2006): the owner (subject), the ownable object
(object) and the relationship between them (ownership). In family firms, the owner is the
connector between the social systems of family and firm (Terberger, 1998).
Ownership is not only an economic, but also always a psychological phenomenon
(Etzioni, 1991). ‘Psychological ownership’ deals with the relation between individual
persons and ownable objects, but does not necessarily also include legal ownership
(Pierce et al., 2005). According to Pierce et al. (2001, p.229), ‘the core of psychological
ownership is the feeling of possessiveness and of being psychologically tied to an object’.
The authors furthermore summarise previous research on psychological ownership and
conclude that it emerges because it satisfies both generic and socially generated motives
of individual persons. Existing SME research is filled with notions of owner-managers
mentally connecting themselves to the firm, which constitutes a central part of the
owner’s life and self-identity. In this context, the firm is both the ends and the means,
being partly the result of action, partly a target of actions, and also an instrument to reach
other targets. The owner-manager’s mental connection to the firm is very unique – each
owner-manager has his own way of looking at his firm.
Psychological ownership has been predominantly studied with regard to employee
ownership (e.g., Bartkus, 1997; Buchko, 1992; Gample et al., 2002), e.g., by comparing
employee- and conventionally-owned firms (Frohlich et al., 1998). The concept of
psychological ownership was originally developed for larger organisations. In this part of
entrepreneurship research which is about new venture creation, the entrepreneur creates
the organisation. The object of ownership here is, accordingly, the direct result of the
owner’s actions. The owner-manager is at the same time the lawful owner and may feel
psychological ownership to the company that he owns. Churchill (1983) suggested that
the entrepreneur’s and the company’s goals need to be differentiated in order to allow
firm growth.
Recent entrepreneurship and family firm research regards psychological ownership as
a complex multidimensional construct (Mattila and Ikävalko, 2003). Four different
dimensions of ownership can be summarised:
1 social
2 legal

3 ‘real’
4 psychological ownership.
Accordingly, the significance of psychological ownership has been pointed out also in the
context of family firms (e.g., Brundin et al., 2005).
40 S. Kraus et al.

However, current ownership is not the only important issue in family business
research. The transfer of ownership and control from one generation to another within a
family has become a major topic in this field.

3.4 Business succession

Since the inception of academic research in family firms in the early 1980s, the leading
topic has most likely been ‘business succession’ (Dyer and Sanchez, 1998). This issue
will not lose its appeal, as in the next decade, about one third of all SMEs in the European
Union are expected to be engaged in a business transfer. For Germany, it is estimated that
around 700,000 enterprises, providing 2.8 million jobs, will have to be transferred to new
owners every year (European Commission, 2006; Schröer and Freund, 1999). These
business transfers may result in a major restructuring of many industries, and they could
lead to substantial destruction of (tangible and intangible) capital should successors and
acquirers not be found in sufficient numbers (van Teeffelen et al., 2005).
Within this context, the European Commission (2006) tends to see business
succession as a threat to the survival of small and medium-sized firms and as a threat to
overall employment and economic growth. The life span of family firms is often
relatively short, as only a limited number survives the transition to the second generation,
and hardly one-third into the third (Beckhard and Dyer, 1983; Neubauer and Lank, 1998;
Paisner, 1999; Shanker and Astrachan, 1996). Due to the importance of a successful
transfer of management within family firms, succession issues have probably been the
most popular topic for researchers and practitioners in the field of family firms (Harvey
and Evans, 1995).
The transfer of top management from one generation to the next represents a crucial
strategic issue of the firm (Barach and Gantisky, 1995). Business succession can be
considered as a part of entrepreneurship, since the latter does not necessarily require
persons to found new ventures; they can also encompass the takeover of an existing
organisation by a new entrepreneur.
Brockhaus’ recent review of family firm research summarises the key issues
concerning business succession with the requirements for analysis ‘[…] from the
perspectives of family, management, and ownership system in order to understand
adequately the perspectives of the different stakeholders’ [Brockhaus, (2004), p.165].
According to Sharma et al. (2001), the business owner’s inability of ‘letting go’ is the
most cited obstacle to effective succession. Emotional aspects lead to indecisiveness and
delays of transfer (Landsberg, 1999). Kommers and van Engelenburg (2003) also
mention the psychological aspect as the most decisive, but fail to offer a suggestion or
solution to this issue.
As Steier (2001) notes, there has been little attention devoted to the transfer of social
capital within family firms. A source of social capital is the business contacts or networks
of the family members (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998). Although general interest in
social relationships has been rising within the field of entrepreneurship research
(Jarillo, 1989), a recent literature review from Anderson and Jack (2002) suggests that
there is still a vast research gap with regard to transfer of social capital in the context of
business succession within family firms.
 Family firm research 41

4 Concluding remarks

In this article, we attempted to give an overview of the current discussion on the

definition of family firms, and on the state-of-the-art of research on family firms. On the
basis of an extensive literature review on 104 research articles, this contribution attempts
to map and interlink the diverse research issues in the field of family firm research. In
doing so, the missing pieces of the puzzle that represent future challenges in family
business research such as the increasingly important topics of ‘familiness’ or
‘psychological ownership’ were identified.
Pertaining to the theoretical foundation, we pointed at the RBV as a particularly
relevant theoretical approach to family business research, because family involvement is
said to create capabilities that are difficult to duplicate and substitute. In this regard,
numerous research questions emerge. First, if family firms all had these capabilities, they
would, according to the RBV, be equally successful. Reality indicates that this in not the
case, and hence the question arises if there may be particular types of family firms that
are more able to raise these capabilities than others. Related to this is the question of what
exactly constitutes these capabilities and by which processes they can be activated.
We also pointed at the interrelationship between entrepreneurship research and family
firm research. In this regard, future research could tap into how a family (or, under a
more individualistic perspective, the family member’s) proclivity to act entrepreneurially
is transferred in entrepreneurial actions of the family firm itself. The issue in particular of
sustaining entrepreneurship in the event of a business succession (Chrisman et al.,
2003b), and under consideration of a changing entrepreneurial proclivity over the family
member’s individual life cycle could also be relevant for practitioners.
In terms of the areas of family firm research, we argue that future research on the
issue of ‘familiness’ could result in a consensual view which no longer regards firms as
simply family firms or non-family firms. This would allow researchers to
a develop a more fine-tuned approach to the analysis of family firms
b may be an inroad into the heterogeneous definitions of family firms that can be
found in the literature.
Not all family firms are alike, and not all family firms will therefore perform in a similar
way (Lester et al., 2006). Family firms are a heterogeneous group of firms – e.g., in terms
of family involvement, legal form, size and industry – and future research should thus
concentrate more on the inherent differences within the large population of family firms
(Nordqvist, 2005). The resulting advantage of a consensual definition may be that
contradictory results (e.g., on performance differences, see Section 3.1) may be traced
back to different definitions of family firms and hence prove to be statistical artefacts.
Future research on ‘psychological ownership’ could provide valuable information on
how to make business succession become less disruptive to the firm, thus contributing to
valuable information for practitioners.
To be sure, the list of valuable research opportunities in the context of family firms is
by no means complete, and our literature analysis cannot capture new, emerging issues
that have not yet been published. However, with our approach we are confident that we
have given a general overview of the state-of-the-art in family business research. We look
forward to future contributions in this field of research.
42 S. Kraus et al.

References
Aldrich, H. and Cliff, J. (2003) ‘The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a
family embeddedness perspective’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp.573–597.
Anderson, A.R. and Jack, S.L. (2002) ‘The articulation of social capital in entrepreneurial
networks: a glue or a lubricant?’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.193–210.
Anderson, R. and Reeb, D. (2003) ‘Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence
from S&P 500’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.1301–1327.
Astrachan, J.H. (2003) ‘The emergence of a field. Commentary on the special issue ‘The evolving
family/entrepreneurship relationship’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp.567–572.
Astrachan, J.H. and Shanker, M. (2003) ‘‘Family businesses’ contribution to the US economy:
a closer look’, Family Business Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.211–219.
Astrachan, J.H., Klein, S.B. and Smyrnios, K.X. (2002) ‘The F-PEC scale of family influence: a
proposal for solving the family business definition problem’, Family Business Review,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.45–58.
Baker, K. and Wiseman, K. (1998) ‘Leadership, legacy and emotional process in family business’,
Family Business Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.207–213.
Barach, J.A. and Gantisky, J. (1995) ‘Successful succession in family business’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.131–155.
Barney, J.B., Clark, C. and Alvarez, S. (2002) ‘Where does entrepreneurship come from: network
models of opportunity recognition and resource acquisition with application to the family
firm’, Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Theories of the Family Enterprise,
Philadelphia.
Bartkus, B.R. (1997) ‘Employee ownership as catalyst of organizational change’, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.331–344.
Beckhard, R. and Dyer, W., Jr. (1983) ‘Managing change in the family firms – issues and
strategies’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 24, pp.59–65.
Bengtson, V.L., Acock, A.C., Allen, K.C., Dilworth-Anderson, P. and Klein, D.M. (2005)
Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1994) ‘Entrepreneurship and family business research: comparisons, critique and
lessons’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.25–38.
Brockhaus, R.H. (2004) ‘Family business succession: suggestions for future research’, Family
Business Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.165–177.
Brüderl, J. and Preisendörfer, P. (1998) ‘Network support and the success of newly founded
businesses’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.213–225.
Brundin, E., Melin, L. and Florin Samuelsson, E. (2005) ‘Family ownership logic – core
characteristics of family controlled businesses’, Family Business Network 16th World
Conference, Brussels.
Buchko, A.A. (1992) ‘Effects of employee ownership on employee attitudes’, Work and
Occupations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.59–79.
Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saá-Pérez, P. and Garcia-Almeida, D. (2001) ‘The succession process from
a resource- and knowledge-based view of the family firm’, Family Business Review, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp.37–46.
Carsrud, A.L. (2006) ‘Commentary: ‘Are we family and are we treated as family? Nonfamily
employees’ perceptions of justice in the family firm’: it all depends on perceptions of family,
fairness, equity and justice’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6,
pp.855–860.
 Family firm research 43

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J. and Litz, R. (2003a) ‘A unified perspective of family firm performance:
an extension and integration’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.467–472.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Sharma, P. (2003b) Current Trends and Future Directions in Family
Business Management Studies: Toward a Theory of the Family Business, Coleman White
paper series.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Steier, L.P. (2003c) ‘An introduction to theories of family business’,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.441–448.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Steier, L.P. (2005) ‘Sources and consequences of distinctive
familiness: an introduction’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp.237–247.
Chrisman, J.J., Steier, L.P. and Chua, J.H. (2006) ‘Personalism, particularism and the competitive
behaviors and advantages of family firms: an introduction’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.719–730.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J. and Sharma, P. (1999) ‘Defining family business by behavior’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.19–39.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J. and Steier, L.P. (2003) ‘Extending the theoretical horizons of family
business research’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.331–338.
Churchill, N.C. (1983) ‘Entrepreneurs and their enterprises: a stage model’, in Hornaday, J.A.,
Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College, Wellesley, MA.
Davis, J. and Tagiuri, R. (1989) ‘The influence of life-stage on father-son work relationships in
family companies’, Family Business Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.47–74.
Dyer, W., Jr. (2003) ‘The family: the missing variable in organizational research’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.401–416.
Dyer, W., Jr. and Sanchez, M. (1998) ‘Current state of family business theory and practice as
reflected in family business review 1988–1997’, Family Business Review, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp.287–296.
Eaton, C., Yuan, L. and Wu, Z. (2002) ‘Reciprocal altruism and the theory of the family firm’,
Paper presented at Second Annual Conference on Theories of the Family Enterprise,
Philadelphia.
Ensley, M. (2006) ‘Family businesses can out-compete: as long as they are willing to question the
chosen path’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.747–754.
Etzioni, A. (1991) ‘The socio-economics of property’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
Vol. 6, pp.465–468.
European Commission (2006) Markets for Business Transfers Fostering Transparent Marketplaces
for the Transfer of Businesses in Europe, European Commission Enterprise and Industry
Directorate-General, Brussels.
Fletcher, D. (2005) ‘A family-embeddedness view of entrepreneurship’, in Raffa, M. and
Iandoli, L. (Eds.): Entrepreneurship Competitiveness and Local Development – RENT XIX
Proceedings, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Rome.
Frohlich, N., Godard, J., Oppenheimer, J.A. and Starke, F.A. (1998) ‘Employee versus
conventionally owned and controlled firms: an experimental analysis’, Managerial and
Decision Economics, Vol. 19, pp.311–326.
Gallo, M.A. (1995) ‘The role of family business and its distinctive characteristic behavior in
industrial activity’, Family Business Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.83–97.
Gample, J.E., Culpepper, R. and Blubaugh, M.G. (2002) ‘ESOPs and employee attitudes. The
importance of empowerment and financial value’, Personnel Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.9–26.
Gersick, K.E, Davis, J.A., Hampton, M.M. and Lansberg, I. (1997) Generation to Generation: Life
Cycles of the Family Business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gersick, K.E., Lansberg, I., Desjardins, M. and Dunn, B. (1999) ‘Stages and transitions: managing
change in the family business’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.287–297.
44 S. Kraus et al.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Larraza-Kintana, M. and Makri, M. (2003) ‘The determinants of executive

compensation in family-controlled public corporations’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.226–237.
Habbershon, T.G. and Williams, M.L. (1999) ‘A resource-based framework for assessing the
strategic advantages of family firms’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, pp.1–25.
Habbershon, T.G., Williams, M.L. and MacMillan, I.C. (2003a) ‘A unified systems perspective of
family firm performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.451–465.
Habbershon, T.G., Williams, M.L. and MacMillan, I.C. (2003b) ‘Familiness: a unified systems
perspective of family firm performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp.451–465.
Handler, W. (1989) ‘Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses’,
Family Business Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.257–276.
Harvey, M. and Evans, R. (1995) ‘Strategic windows in the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.331–348.
Haynes, G., Walker, R., Rowe, B. and Hong, G. (1999) ‘The intermingling of business and family
finances in family-owned businesses’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.225–239.
Heck, R.K.Z. and Stafford, K. (2001) ‘The vital institution of family business: economic benefits
hidden in plain sight’, in McCann, G.K. and Upton, N. (Eds.): Destroying Myths and Creating
Value in Family Business, Stetson University Press, Deland, FL.
Hienerth, C. and Kessler, A. (2006) ‘Measuring success in family businesses: the concept of
configurational fit’, Family Business Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.115–134.
Hoy, F. (2003) ‘Legitimizing family business scholarship in organizational research and education’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.417–422.
Hoy, F. (2006) ‘The complicating factor of life cycles in corporate venturing’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.831–836.
Ikävalko, M., Pihkala, T. and Jussila, I. (2006) ‘Psychological ownership and family businesses –
identifying the common ground through discriminant analysis’, in Laveren, E. and Crijns, H.
(Eds.): Entrepreneurship: A Driver for Sustainable Growth in a Global and Knowledge-Based
Environment - RENT XX Proceedings, Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford.
Jarillo, J.C. (1989) ‘Entrepreneurship and growth: the strategic use of external resources’, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.133–148.
Karra, N., Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2006) ‘Altruism and agency in the family firm: exploring the
role of family, kinship and ethnicity’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6,
pp.861–878.
Kellermanns, F.W. and Eddleston, K. (2006) ‘Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family
perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.809–830.
Kelly, L., Athanassiou, N. and Crittenden, W. (2000) ‘Founder centrality and strategic behavior in
family-owned firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.27–42.
Klein, S. (2000) ‘Family businesses in Germany: significance and structure’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.157–181.
Klein, S.B., Astrachan, J.H. and Smyrnios, K.X. (2005) ‘The F-PEC scale of family influence:
construction, validation and further implication for theory’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.321–340.
Kommers, J. and van Engelenburg, R. (2003) Ruimte in Bedrijfsoverdrachten in Nederland, RZO,
Den Haag.
Landsberg, I. (1999) Succeeding Generations: Realizing the Dream of Families in Business,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D. (2006) ‘Why do some family businesses out-compete?
Governance, long-term orientations and sustainable capability’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.731–746.
 Family firm research 45

Lee, M. and Rogoff, E. (1996) ‘Comparison of small businesses with family participation versus
small businesses without family participation: an investigation of differences in goals,
attitudes, and family/business conflict’, Family Business Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.423–437.
Lester, R.H., Cannella, A.A. and Miller, D. (2006) ‘Inerorganizational familiness: how family firms
use interlocking directorates to build community-level social capital’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.755–776.
Litz, R.A. (1995) ‘The family business: toward definitional clarity’, Family Business Review,
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.71–81.
Lubatkin, M., Ling, Y. and Schulze, W. (2002) ‘Fairness in family firms: lessons from agency and
justice theory’, Paper presented at Second Annual Conference on Theories of the Family
Enterprise, Philadelphia.
Mattila, J. and Ikävalko, M. (2003) ‘Participative strategy process in a professional organization
and the concept of psychological ownership’, Paper presented at 17th Nordic Conference on
Business Studies, Island, Reykjavik.
McConaughy, D. and Phillips, G. (1999) ‘Founders versus descendants: the profitability,
efficiency, growth characteristics and financing in large, public, founding-family-controlled
firms’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.123–131.
Meyer, M. and Zucker, L. (1989) Permanently Failing Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Mitchell, R.K., Morse, E.A. and Sharma, P. (2003) ‘The transacting cognitions of non-family
employees in the family business setting’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp.533–551.
Moores, K. and Barrett, M. (2003) Learning Family Business: Paradoxes and Pathways, Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Morck, R. and Yeung, B. (2003) ‘Agency problems in large family business groups’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.367–382.
Neubauer, F. and Lank, A. (1998) The Family Business: Its Governance for Sustainability,
McMillan, London.
Nordqvist, M. (2005) ‘Familiness in top management teams: commentary on Ensley and Pearson’s
‘An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family
and nonfamily new ventures: cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus’’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.285–291.
Olson, P., Zuiker, V., Danes, S., Stafford, K., Heck, R. and Duncan, K. (2003) ‘Impact of family
and business on family business sustainability’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp.639–666.
Paisner, M. (1999) Sustaining the Family Business, Perseus, Reading, MA.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001) ‘Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.298–310.
Pierce, J.L., O’Driscoll, M. and Coghlan, A.-M. (2005) ‘Work environmental structure and
psychological ownership – the mediating effects of control’, Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 144, No. 5, pp.507–534.
Poutziouris, P., Smyrnios, K.X. and Klein, S.B. (2006) ‘The business of researching family
enterprises’, Handbook of Research on Family Business, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Poza, E. and Messer, T. (2001) ‘Spousal leadership and continuity in the family firm’, Family
Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.25–36.
Rogoff, E.G. and Heck, R.K.Z. (2003) ‘Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business:
recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.559–566.
Schröer, E. and Freund, W. (1999) Neue Entwicklungen auf dem Markt für die Übertragung
mittelständischer Unternehmen, IfM, Bonn.
46 S. Kraus et al.

Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M. and Dino, R. (2003) ‘Exploring the agency consequences of ownership
dispersion among the directors of private family firms’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.174–194.
Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M., Dino, R. and Buchholtz, A. (2001) ‘Agency relationships in family
firms: theory and evidence’, Organization Science, Vol. 12, pp.99–116.
Shanker, M.C. and Astrachan, J.H. (1996) ‘‘Myths and realities: family businesses’ contribution to
the US economy – a framework for assessing family business statistics’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.107–123.
Sharma, P. (2004) ‘An overview of the field of family business studies: current status and
directions for the future’, Family Business Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1–36.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J. and Chua, J.H. (1997) ‘Strategic management of the family business:
past research and future challenges’, Family Business Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.1–36.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J. and Pablo, A.L. (2001) ‘Determinants of initial satisfaction with the
succession process in family firms: a conceptual model’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.17–35.
Sirmon, D. and Hitt, M. (2003) ‘Managing resources: linking unique resources, management and
wealth creation in family firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp.339–359.
Stafford, K., Duncan, K., Danes, S. and Winter, M. (1999) ‘A research model of sustainable family
businesses’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.197–208.
Steier, L. (2001) ‘Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: an exploratory study of modes and
means of managing social capital’, Family Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.259–276.
Stewart, A. (2003) ‘Help one another, use one another: toward an anthropology of family business’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.383–396.
Tagiuri, R. and Davis, J.A. (1996) ‘Bivalent attributes on the family businesses’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.199–208.
Tan, W.L. and Fock, S.T. (2001) ‘Coping with growth transitions: the case of Chinese family
businesses in Singapore’, Family Business Review, Vol. 14, pp.123–139.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.509–533.
Terberger, D. (1998) Konfliktmanagement in Familienunternehmen - Ein eignerorientiertes
Konzept zur professionellen Konfliktbewältigung in Familienunternehmen, St. Gallen, HSG.
van Teeffelen, L., Meijaard, J. and Geerts, A. (2005) ‘Business succession: economic disaster or a
blessing in disguise?’, ICSB World Conference, Washington, DC.
Wakefield, M.W. (1995) Antecedents of Conflict in Family Firms – An Empirical Study, University
of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Ward, J.L. (1988) ‘The special role of strategic planning for family businesses’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 1, pp.105–118.
Westhead, P. and Cowling, M. (1998) ‘Family business research: the need for a methodological
rethink’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.31–57.
Westhead, P., Cowling, M. and Storey, D. (1997) The management and performance of unquoted
family companies in the United Kingdom, Centre for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises,
Coventry.
Wortman, M.S. (1994) ‘Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: a conceptual and
research based paradigm’, Family Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.3–28.
Zahra, S.A. (2003) ‘International expansion of US manufacturing family businesses: the effect of
ownership and involvement’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.495–512.
 Family firm research 47

Notes
1 This approach may be operationally convenient, but poses the vast disadvantage that firms
might be excluded from this definition which would under other criteria very well be
considered a family firm, or vice versa.