a well learned trade is better than a large heritage: factors ......(robert n. lussier & matthew...
TRANSCRIPT
A WELL LEARNED TRADE IS BETTER THAN A LARGE
HERITAGE: FACTORS AFFECTING FAMILY BUSINESS
SUCCESSION
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Mémoire
Rukundo Friend Setuza
Maîtrise en sciences de l’administration – Management
Maître ès sciences (M. Sc.) Québec, Canada
© Rukundo Friend Setuza, 2017
A WELL LEARNED TRADE IS BETTER THAN A LARGE
HERITAGE: FACTORS AFFECTING FAMILY BUSINESS
SUCCESSION
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Mémoire
Rukundo Friend Setuza
Sous la direction de:
Norrin Halilem, directeur de recherche
iii
Résumé
Le but de cette étude est d'identifier et d'analyser les facteurs qui affectent la succession des
entreprises familiales. La succession est l'un des problèmes majeurs rencontrés par les entreprises
familiales, avec seulement 30% survivant jusqu'à la deuxième génération et entre 10-15%
survivant jusqu'à la troisième génération. Cet article comprend une revue complète de la littérature
des articles disponibles dans les bases de données Business Source Complete, ABI / INFORMS
Complete, Academic Search Complete relatives à la succession des entreprises familiales et
publiés entre 1986 et 2015. Dans le but de maintenir des normes de qualité, seules des études
empiriques publiées dans des revues évaluées par des pairs ont été utilisées, y compris des articles
basés sur des approches qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes. Le nombre d'études publiées sur le
thème de la succession au sein de la famille a augmenté au cours des dernières années, la majorité
des études empiriques ayant été examinées au niveau organisationnel et les études qualitatives
représentant plus d'un quart de toutes les études empiriques identifiées. Les résultats de cette étude
montrent que les conceptions longitudinales sont moins fréquemment utilisées et pourtant elles
permettent d'identifier avec précision la succession dans l'entreprise familiale. Les recherches
existantes sur la relève des entreprises familiales ont principalement été menées en Amérique du
Nord: aux États-Unis et au Canada. Les résultats de cette étude montrent qu'il n'y a qu'une petite
augmentation du nombre de chercheurs utilisant des échantillons provenant de plus d'un pays. Peu
de chercheurs en succession d'entreprises familiales ont pris note des contrastes entre les pays en
développement et les pays plus développés. De nombreux chercheurs qui traitent des activités de
l'entreprise familiale ne précisent pas leur orientation en termes de secteur d'activité. Les études
examinées dans cet article ont été principalement réalisées avant et pendant la succession, avec les
variables indépendantes examinées: facteurs contextuels, facteurs financiers, facteurs personnels,
plan de succession, préparation du successeur, engagement affectif du successeur, rôle du
prédécesseur, relations intra-familiales, âge, sexe et ordre de naissance. Cette recherche contribue
à l'ensemble des connaissances existantes dans l'entreprise familiale en fournissant une revue
systématique et exhaustive de la littérature sur les facteurs affectant la succession dans les
entreprises familiales. Une autre contribution importante est ses suggestions pour de futures
perspectives de recherche. Cette recherche fournit des connaissances aux praticiens et aux
propriétaires d'entreprises familiales, aux membres de la famille et aux autres parties prenantes qui
cherchent à faire de la succession dans une entreprise familiale un processus réussi.
iv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse factors which affect the succession of family
businesses. Succession is one of the major problems faced by family businesses, with only 30%
surviving until the second generation and between 10-15% surviving until the third generation.
This paper comprises of a comprehensive literature review of articles available from the Business
Source Complete, ABI/INFORMS Complete, Academic Search Complete databases relating to
the topic of family business succession and published between 1986 and 2015. For the sake of
maintaining quality standards, only empirical studies published in peer reviewed journal were
used, including articles based upon qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. The
number of studies published on the topic of succession within family has increased in recent years,
with the majority of empirical studies identified examining the organisational level, and qualitative
studies accounting for more than a quarter of all identified empirical studies. The results of this
study show that longitudinal designs are less frequently used and yet they can accurately identify
the succession in the family business. Existing research on family business succession were mainly
conducted in North America: USA and Canada. The findings of this study show that there is only
a small increase in the number of scholars using samples from more than one nation. Few
researchers of family business succession took note of the contrasts between developing countries
and more developed nations. Many researchers addressing family business activities do not specify
their focus in terms of sector of activity. The studies reviewed in this paper were primarily
conducted before and during succession, with the independent variables examined including
contextual factors, financial factors, personal factors, succession planning, successor’s readiness,
affective commitment of the successor, the role of predecessor, intra-family relations, age, gender
and birth order. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in family business by
providing a detailed and exhaustive systematic literature review of the factors affecting succession
in family businesses. Another important contribution is its suggestions for future research
perspectives. This research provides knowledge to practitioners and family business owners,
family members and other stakeholders looking to make succession in a family business a
successful process.
v
Keywords: Family business/firm or company succession, family firm succession, family
enterprise succession, personal factors, intra-family relationship factors, context factors, financial
factors.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Résumé ........................................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 4
1. A systematic review: Elements of definitions ....................................................................................... 5
1.2 Difference between traditional reviews and systematic reviews .................................................... 5
1.2 A systematic review in Family business ......................................................................................... 6
1.3 The steps of a literature review ....................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Development of a review protocol ...................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Context of the literature review ...................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Research question to which a systematic review should respond ................................................... 9
1.7. Procedure, criteria for selection and research strategy ................................................................. 10
1.8 Strategy of data extraction, important terms, and expected manipulation of information ............ 19
1.9. Estimation of the process timeline ............................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS: EVOLUTION OF THE LITERATURE .......... 23 2.1 General characteristics of the literature review ................................................................................. 23
2.2 Tendency of the level of analysis ...................................................................................................... 25
2.3 Tendency of methodology and methods ........................................................................................... 27
2.4. Tendency of the methods of data collection .................................................................................... 30
2.5.Tendency of the methods of data analysis ........................................................................................ 32
2.6 Tendency of the countries studied .................................................................................................... 34
2.7 Sector of activity focus ..................................................................................................................... 37
2.8 Tendency of research before, during and after succession................................................................ 41
2.9 Conceptual framework ...................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ON FAMILY BUSINESS SUCCESSION ....... 46 3.1 Individual factors ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.1.1 Age ................................................................................................................................................. 52
3.1.2 Gender ............................................................................................................................................ 53
3.2 Relationship factors .................................................................................................................... 56
3.2.1 Successor’s readiness .............................................................................................................. 56
3.2.2 Affective commitment of the successor .................................................................................. 58
vii
3.2.3 Intra-family relationship factors .............................................................................................. 60
3.2.4 Role of the predecessor ........................................................................................................... 63
3.3 Succession process characteristics .............................................................................................. 65
3.3.1 Succession Planning ................................................................................................................ 65
3.4 Financial factors .......................................................................................................................... 67
3.5 Context factors ............................................................................................................................ 69
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 78 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 85
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Identified systematic review research explicit inclusion/ exclusion criteria .................. 14
Table 2: Secondary Research explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria .............................................. 16
Table 3: Data model A for systematic review .............................................................................. 20
Table 4: Data model B for systematic review ............................................................................... 21
Table 5: Planning of the research.................................................................................................. 22
Table 6: Main elements of succession .......................................................................................... 47
Table 7: Variables affecting the process of family business succession and sources ................... 77
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Research process ........................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2 Identification of sources in database .............................................................................. 12
Figure 3 Excluded publications .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4 Journals of publication ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5 General trend of the literature ......................................................................................... 23
Figure 6 Levels of analysis ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 7 Comparison of quantitative, qualitative and mixt articles .............................................. 28
Figure 8 Trends of methods of data collection ............................................................................. 31
Figure 9 Trends of methods of data analysis ................................................................................ 33
Figure 10 Countries where a research was conducted .................................................................. 34
Figure 11 Geographic scope of the sample ................................................................................... 36
Figure 13 Trends of research before, during and after succession ............................................... 42
x
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CEOs: Chief Executive Officers
FBR: Family Business review
FOB: Family Owned Business
FSA: Faculté des sciences de l'administration
SMEs: Small Medium enterprises
UK: United Kingdom
ULaval: Université Laval
USA: United States of America
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express many thanks to various persons who made this project a reality. Now
that it is complete I feel indebted to thank and wish them the Lord’s blessings. I am profoundly
grateful to the following people who made useful suggestions and comments for the improvement
of this work.
In particular, I wish to acknowledge Prof. Norrin Halilem who served as my supervisor, for sparing
his time to read through the entire memoir thoroughly and for making many useful suggestions for
improvement. I am so grateful for his financial support. I have been inspired by your humility,
kindness and scientific rigour. I want also to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Nabil Amara and
Prof. Saliha Ziam for accepting to proof-read and examine this work. Your comments, constructive
critics and suggestions are of great value.
To my lovely wife, Tuyishime Celine and our children Rukundo Lois, Rukundo Loic, and
Rukundo Leslie who willingly accepted to forego the fatherly care during my studies, I cannot
thank you enough. It is not possible to mention the names of all the people who in different ways
contributed to the success of this study.
To all of you I say, “May God repay you a thousand-fold for your kindness towards me’’.
Finally, above all, I glorify my Almighty God, for giving me knowledge and wisdom to accomplish
this degree. He deserves praises and honor
1
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies suggest that family businesses represent not only a significant portion of
sustainable world economic growth but are also among the most important contributors to wealth
and employment creation in virtually every country in the world (Bigliardi & Ivo Dormio, 2009;
S. Farrington, Venter, & Boshoff, 2010; N. Feliu & I. C. Botero, 2015) Family businesses have
been at the forefront of social economic responsibility effort in both developed and developing
countries (Bigliardi & Ivo Dormio, 2009; S. M. Farrington, 2014; Neus Feliu & Isabel C Botero,
2015; Stéphan Van der Merwe, Elmarie Venter, & Suria M Ellis, 2009; Elmarie Venter, Christo
Boshoff, & Gideon Maas, 2005). Moreover, the influence and number of family businesses can be
expected to keep increasing substantially in the future (Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009;
Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
Sharma, P. (2004) estimates that between 3 to 24.2 million family firms in the United States
provide employment to 27–62% of the workforce, and contribute 29–64% of the national GDP
(Robert N. Lussier & Matthew C. Sonfield, 2012). However, the statistics reveal the importance
of family business succession. It was estimated by the European Union that between 2006-2016,
up to 690,000 firms, mainly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), providing 2.8 million
jobs, were to be transferred to new owners every year (Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau’, & Hellerstedt,
2012), while in Sweden 60% of all private firms would need to shift ownership during the next 10
years (Nordqvist et al., 2012). In the USA, in contrast, just 40.3% of family firm owners expected
to retire within the next 10 years (American Family Business Survey 2007). Another survey shows
that 65% of 364 interviewed chief executive officers (CEOs) plan to leave the firm within 10 years
(DeTienne & Cardon, 2012). In one study conducted on family businesses in Lebanon, it was
suggested that in less than 40% of cases a successor has been chosen. Similarly, in this study on
family businesses in the UK, it was found that only 41% of the incumbent owner-managers have
a successor in mind (Tatoglu, Kula, & Glaister, 2008). Some owners who want to retire can decide
to sell their businesses (Nordqvist et al. 2013), or to hand over the firm to family members and/or
relatives (Pramodita Sharma, James J Chrisman, & Jess H Chua, 2003b) or else, they can decide
(or be forced) to close down their firm (Nordqvist et al. 2013).
2
Succession is a process of emotional and financial adaptation, socialization, and transfer of
management and/or ownership in family businesses and it is arguably the most important hurdle
to intergenerational longevity for family businesses (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b;
Laakkonen & Kansikas, 2011; Wang, 2010). The factors influencing the process of succession in
family business succession can be categorized into family harmony, trust, personal needs
alignment, willingness to take over, preparation level of the successor and relations between
generations (Elmarie Venter et al., 2005). On the other hand, personal factors, intra-family
relationship factors, context factors and financial factors have been classified as the key
determinants affecting the process of family business succession (Chaimahawong &
Sakulsriprasert, 2012b). According to previous research, in 2003 nearly 40% of family businesses
would be passed on to the next generation within the next five years, making family succession an
essential area of interest (Robert N. Lussier & Matthew C. Sonfield, 2012). In Germany, it is
estimated that up to 2014 approximately 100,000 family business would face succession issues
and that the majority of them will not be able to find a successor within the family (Nordqvist et
al., 2012). In Japan, about 70,000 small businesses are running the risk of having to close down
each year because of the lack of a successor (Kamei & Dana, 2012; Nordqvist et al., 2012). It is
generally accepted that only 3 out of 10 firms survive to the second generation, with only 15%
persisting to the third generation (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Tatoglu et al., 2008).
While some researchers and practitioners were interested in family business/firm research (Evert
et al. 2016, Neus and Isabel, 2016, Sharma, 2015, Short et al. 2016, Woolridge, 2015), others were
interested in family business succession (Brockhaus 2004, Bruce & Picard 2006, Chaimahawong,
Sakulsriprasert 2013, Kansikas, & Kuhmonen, 2008, Lussier & Sonfield, 2012, Nordqvist et al.
2013, Nordqvist et al. 2013). Numerous researchers have focussed mainly on the succession
process (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Duh, 2015; Fattoum & Fayolle, 2009; Massis, Chua, &
Chrisman, 2008; Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Elmarie Venter et
al., 2005). Nevertheless, despite the importance of family businesses for many national economies,
there is no identified systematic literature review on the factors influencing family business
succession. In light of the above, the purpose of this article is to provide a clear understanding of
the previous literature on the factors affecting the process of family business succession and outline
the agenda for future research in this area (Evert et al. 2016, Brockhaus, 2004). As such, this review
seeks to make the following contributions: firstly, it will provide a comprehensive review of the
3
methodologies and technics used in family business succession research by analysing empirical
studies since the first empirical paper was published in 1986, until 2015. As suggested by Evert,
Martin, McLeod, and Payne (2015) a larger time frame allows the researcher to gain a
comprehensive view of the subject across time. Secondly, with the intent to build a similar review
of empirics in family business research (B. Bird, Welsch, Astrachan, & Pistrui, 2002; Evert et al.,
2015; Smith, 2014) this research tries to examine trends over multiple decades but in doing so,
focuses only on family business succession related articles. Finally, the third contribution made is
to provide suggestions to future researchers in order to better advance the field.
In order to get the results, this research is led by two research questions. The first question is: What
are the factors affecting the process of family business succession? Secondly: How do these factors
affect family business succession?
Apart from the introduction and conclusion, this work is made of three chapters: chapter one is the
methodology, it describes the tools of the data collection and data analysis process applied in this
systematic literature review. The second chapter is comprised of descriptive research which shows
the evolution of the literature review in family business succession. The third chapter addresses
the literature review that covers the main themes developed in the existing literature review.
4
CHAPTER ONE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter on methodology covers elements of definitions of a systematic review, and addresses:
the difference between traditional review and systematic review, a systematic review of family
business, the steps of a literature review, development of a review protocol, context of the literature
review, research question to which a systematic review should respond, procedure, criteria of
selection and research strategy, strategy of data extraction, important terms, expected manipulation
of information, and estimation of the process timeline.
The literature suggests that there is an extensive growth in family business research in general
(Evert et al., 2015; Pramodita Sharma, Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012). However, the current state
and historical trends of empirics in family business research lacks details and clarity in terms of
how research has advanced relative to more valid domains (Evert et al., 2015). Therefore, rooted
in the argument that an explicit understanding of previous work is required for the field to progress
(Dyer Jr & Dyer, 2009; Evert et al., 2015), this research thoroughly examines 56 published
empirical articles on factors influencing family business succession. In these articles, scholars have
assessed the improvement in methods and analytic techniques (B. Bird et al., 2002; M. Bird &
Wennberg, 2014; Debicki, Matherne, Kellermanns, & Chrisman, 2009; Evert et al., 2015; Litz,
Pearson, & Litchfield, 2012).
A systematic review is defined by Staples and Niazi (2007) as a methodological way of identifying,
assessing, and analysing published primary studies in order to investigate a specific research
question. According to Kitchenham (2004) it can also discover the structure and patterns of
existing research, and so identify gaps that can be filled by future research. This systematic
literature review focuses only on empirical evidence. It is said to be the practice of basing ideas,
conclusions, or theories on testing, observation, or experience provide a common language and
legitimizing indicator for scholars across fields. Therefore, it plays an influential role in the
development of knowledge and establishing relevance for a field (Evert et al., 2015). This
systematic literature review of previous research conducted over the past 30 years is intended to
provide insight into the nature and various aspects of family business succession (Georgiou &
Vrontis, 2013).
5
1. A systematic review: Elements of definitions
A systematic review is defined as a methodological process that classifies, assesses and analyzes
research evidence to synthesize and map it (Halilem, 2010; Staples & Niazi, 2007). It is also
defined as a methodological way of identifying, assessing and analysing published empirical
research to investigate a specific research question (Halilem, 2010; Staples & Niazi, 2007). In
order to get good quality results, the basic steps of a systematic review will be followed in this
paper. These include: identifying the need for a review; developing a research protocol; identifying
relevant studies; selecting the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; assessing
the quality of retained studies; and lastly, summarizing and synthesizing study results (Halilem,
2010; Staples & Niazi, 2007).
1.2 Difference between traditional reviews and systematic reviews
Systematic reviews differ from the traditional literature surveys in being formally planned and
methodically executed (Staples & Niazi, 2007). According to Kitchenham (2004) a systematic
review requires considerably more effort than traditional reviews and has the added advantage of
providing information about the effects of some phenomena across a wide range of settings and
empirical methods. Another advantage is that they combine quantitative research data using the
meta-analytic techniques (Kitchenham, 2004). Kitchenham (2004) suggests the following features
that differentiate a systematic review from traditional one:
• Systematic reviews start by defining a review protocol that specifies the research question
being addressed and the methods that will be used to perform the review.
• Systematic reviews are based on a defined search strategy that aims to detect as much as
of the relevant literature as possible.
• Systematic reviews document their search strategy so that readers can access its rigour and
completeness.
• Systematic reviews require explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to assess each potential
primary study.
• Systematic reviews specify the information to be obtained from each primary study
including quality criteria by which to evaluate each primary study.
• A systematic review is a prerequisite for quantitative meta-analysis
6
1.2 A systematic review in Family business
A systematic review is defined as a literature review that follows a rigorous, transparent, and
reproductive process, which aims to identify, select, appraise, analyse and synthesize, in a
systematic and comprehensive way, research facts on a topic (Becheikh, Ziam, Idrissi, Castonguay,
& Landry, 2010; Cookson, 1997). A theoretical effort to describe family business have been made
(Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). In previous research on factors influencing the management
succession in family firms, only the literature on management succession from one family member
to another, executive succession were reviewed (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). The strategic
management literature shows that family business has received interest since 1970 (Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2001b). The management researchers have concentrated much effort in this area
because family businesses are becoming more and more important in developed and developing
economies and they will keep increasing in the near future (van der Westhuizen & Garnett, 2014;
Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
Previous systematic literature reviews on family businesses were identified, with the most recent
in this field having been conducted in 2015, focusing on empirics of family business research.
Evert et al. (2015) emphasized the research methods of data analysis of empirical research
published in the Family Business Review since 1988. In this systematic literature review, Evert et
al. (2015) addressed specific challenges regarding construct validity, generalizability, causality,
temporality, and multilevel issues in family businesses. Daspit, Holt, Chrisman, and Long (2015)
also conducted a systematic literature review by using a social exchange perspective to review
family firm succession literature, owing to its fit with the multiphase, multi stakeholder nature of
the process. The researchers searched the history of 34 journals, finding 88 published or
forthcoming articles that quantitatively examined succession. Another systematic literature review
examined previous literature on succession in family firms from an entrepreneurial process
perspective published between 1974 and 2010. In this systematic literature review, Nordqvist,
Wennberg, Bau, and Hellerstedt (2013) found several themes within which succession can be
understood from entrepreneurial process perspective. Furthermore, both the entry of successors
and exit of predecessor are associated with the pursuit of new business opportunities.
7
Among traditional literature reviews conducted on family business, Steier, Chrisman, and Chua
(2004) focused on previous studies that examined the main themes developed in family business
research. Important themes such as management succession, agency costs, effects of culture as
well as elites in the family businesses were explored (Steier et al., 2004). The focus was mainly on
the toll of the family in entrepreneurial wealth creation at firm and societal level (Steier et al.,
2004). In his traditional literature review, Bagby (2004) focussed on CEO succession literature
and found that CEO succession studies have looked mainly at the power or balance of power
between the incumbent, successor and other stakeholders in the process of selection for positions
such as board of directors. Kansikas and Kuhmonen (2008) also conducted a traditional literature
review by analysing family business continuity from founder generation to the second generation
in terms of succession in the context of evolutionary economics. This study reviewed and
combined family business succession and evolutionary thinking in organizational and economic
change in order to provide an insight of the nature of family business succession (Kansikas &
Kuhmonen, 2008).
Previous studies on family business have indicated that it is difficult to assess the family
boundaries in this field (Al-Dajani, Bika, Collins, & Swail, 2014; C. B. Astrachan, Patel, &
Wanzenried, 2014; Pramodita Sharma, 2004; Wortman, 1994). This systematic literature review
aims to analyse the factors affecting succession in the family business succession. First, in this
research, the articles treating the family business/firm research by discussing definitional issues
will be treated, family business research challenged regarding construct validity, generalizability,
causality, temporality, and multilevel issues. Thereafter, the gap is identified and perspectives for
future research are suggested (Evert et al., 2015; Neus Feliu & Isabel C Botero, 2015; Pramodita
Sharma, 2004). The first set of articles on family business succession focus mainly on variation,
selection, retention, and struggle, phases of the management succession process (ground rules,
successor development, and transition) and the relevant stakeholder exchanges occurring during
each phase, including exchanges between incumbents and successors, within family boundaries,
and across family boundaries (Daspit et al., 2015; Kansikas & Kuhmonen, 2008). The second
group of articles focus mostly on succession process by showing the implication of individuals,
families and firms, the intra-family relationship factors, the context factors, and the financial
factors (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Nordqvist et al., 2012).
8
1.3 The steps of a literature review
To understand the factors affecting the process of family business succession, the researcher
focused upon management succession literature in prominent management journals (Daspit et al.,
2015; Nordqvist et al., 2012). This systematic review follows these steps: 1) identifying the need
for the review, 2) development of the review protocol, 3) identifying relevant studies, 4) selecting
the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 5) assessing the quality of retained
studies, and 6) summarizing and synthesizing the results of the study (Halilem, 2010; Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2001b).
1.4 Development of a review protocol
According to Staples and Niazi (2007) a systematic review protocol is a formal and concrete plan
for execution of the systematic review. The planning of a systematic review aims at to make a
research protocol and to define the purpose and the procedures of the literature review (Halilem,
2010). The research protocol is made of the following components: explanation of the context;
research question; strategies of research used to identify the key words, sources database, journals;
research protocol and criteria of selection to evaluate the importance of the study and research
question; procedure and the list of quality evaluation, strategies for data extraction and important
terms, strategy of synthesis and estimation of the process in time (Halilem, 2010).
1.5 Context of the literature review
According to Brockhaus (2004), the initial writers on family business succession were consultants
to family businesses. Mostly, they were financial advisors or family therapists (Brockhaus, 2004).
Before conducting a literature review, a researcher should verify if it is needed (Halilem, 2010).
Because of the growth of the research in family business in different disciplines (Woolridge,
2015), as indicated in previous research “while there were only 111 peer-reviewed articles on
family business before January 1, 1970, the pace of knowledge creation in this field accelerated in
the 1990’s yielding over 2,000 articles” (Sharma, 2015). In the recent article, Short et al. (2016)
states that between 2010 and 2014, over 4,000 family business articles were published. “At this
rate, the current decade will likely yield over 8,000 new peer-reviewed journal articles on family
business” (Short et al. 2015). Even though the latest review in family business succession (Daspit
9
et al., 2015) makes valuable contributions, the researchers recognize its limitations, in that only
the quantitative articles were considered (Daspit et al., 2015).This research has integrated both
quantitative and qualitative studies. Another important limitation is that Daspit et al. (2015) failed
to capture the dynamic nature of succession process. The fact that the research of Daspit et al.
(2015) focused on perspective of social exchange on predecessor and successor, they failed to
analyse other important variables that affect family business succession in second and third
generations (Daspit et al., 2015).
The researcher decided to conduct a literature review on the factors affecting the succession in
family business by assessing all the empirical peer reviewed quantitative, qualitative and mixed
articles. It consists of the will to synthesize the existing body of knowledge to a phenomenon
(Halilem, 2010; Staples & Niazi, 2007). The current literature review (Daspit et al., 2015) goes
further to the latest published literature review which focuses only on the power transfer from the
single incumbent to a single successor and ignores alternative configurations such as power
transfer to co-leaders, sibling partnerships, family leadership teams, mixed family-non family
teams, or teams composed exclusively of non-family members (Daspit et al., 2015). The current
systematic literature review has considered other factors such as context, family, financial and
predecessor, successor, age, gender, and birth order factors, in the process of family business
succession.
1.6 Research question to which a systematic review should respond
The research question was set to drive this systematic review. The clear definition of narrow
research questions is critical to control the effort and duration of the systematic review (Staples &
Niazi, 2007). The right research question is a critical issue in any systematic review (Halilem,
2010; Kitchenham, 2004). Kitchenham (2004) suggests that the right research question is
meaningful and important to practitioners as well as researchers and leads to increased confidence
in the value of the current practice as well as identifying the differences between commonly held
beliefs and reality. The previous literature reveals that most of the research in family business
succession tends to focus on unique research questions (Evert et al., 2015).
10
Therefore, two research questions were formulated in this systematic review:
• What are the factors affecting the process of family business succession?
• How do these factors affect family business succession?
The researcher’s motivation for examining this research question was to provide the factors
affecting the process of the family business succession already studied empirically in the existing
body of knowledge.
1.7. Procedure, criteria for selection and research strategy
Kitchenham (2004) explains that the aim of a systematic review is to find as many primary studies
relating to the research question as possible using an unbiased search strategy. According to
Kitchenham (2004), the selection criteria is intended to identify those primary studies that provide
direct evidence about the research question. In the selection of the primary studies the researcher
should exclude clearly irrelevant publications, and then from the resulting shortlist research only
publications that contain extractable data addressing the research questions (Kitchenham, 2004;
Staples & Niazi, 2007). A formal search strategy is used to find the entire population of
publications that may be relevant to the research questions (Staples & Niazi, 2007). The
description of the research strategy helps to make a study replicable and open to the external review
(Staples & Niazi, 2007). The strategy of research in this systematic review is divided into two
steps:
1.7.1 Step 1
After the formulation of the research question, the researcher proceeds with the identification of
the key terms. During this research, the EndNote X7 was used for the management of secondary
data and its manipulation. Before taking a decision on the database, an expert at Laval University
Library Faculty of Administrative Science, Normand Pelletier, was consulted for advice. The
researcher read carefully the most cited papers and identified the terms mostly referred to in articles
studying the family business succession process (Nordqvist et al., 2012).
In this research, the following key words were used: Family business succession (Royer, Simons,
Boyd, & Rafferty, 2008), family firm succession (Colot & Bauweraerts, 2014), family enterprise
11
succession (Cisneros & Deschamps, 2015), personal factors, intra-family relationship factors,
context factors and, financial factors (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b). The scope of this
research in terms of time was on studies published between 1986 and 2015. The research was
conducted through a number of steps as indicated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Research process
First, after agreement with the library expert on the appropriate database, as indicated in Figure 2
through a parallel exploration of various electronic databases such as Business Source Complete,
ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic Search Complete, a total of 1082 articles were identified after
elimination of duplicates. Of these, 66% from Business Source Complete, 18% from
ABI/INFORM Complete, and 16% from Academic Search Complete were considered to be the
main body of the literature related to the research topic.
Step1: Electronic Database
1082
168
76
92
914
Database
20
56
Step 2: Manual research Results
Fist selection: Title & Abstract
Second Selection: reading text
Third selection: Inclusion and
exclusion
12
Figure 2 Identification of sources in database
Second, a careful title reading and abstracting process aimed to narrow the broad spectrum of
knowledge into more specific and manageable load of academic papers as suggested by Georgiou
and Vrontis (2013) was then undertaken.
As indicated in Figure 3, among 1082 identified articles, 914 which did not meet the criteria (of
results from magazines, trade publications, news papers, books, all papers which are not Scholarly
(Peer Reviewed) Journals, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, German, Romanian and Turkish
articles) as suggested by Staples and Niazi (2007) were excluded.
Business Source Complete
66%
ABI/INFORM Complete
18%
Academic Search Complete
16%
Business Source Complete ABI/INFORM Complete Academic Search Complete
13
Figure 3 Excluded publications
Titles and abstracts of the remaining 168 articles were vigilantly read for the second time and 92
articles were rejected because they do not precisely focus on the factors affecting family business
succession.
84%
5%2%
9%
Magazines, trade publications, newspapers, books
Papers which are not Scholarly (PeerReviewed) Journals
French, Spanish, Portuguese, polish,German, Romanian and Turkish articles
Articleswith no Contecxt, finational,intrafamily relashpip personnalcontexts and after reading theabstracts
14
As indicated in Table 1, the researcher identified the inclusion and exclusion criteria of previous
identified systematic review to go further from their limit.
A
systematic
review
Inclusion criteria Exclusion
criteria
Limits
Evert et al.,
2015,
1. Empirical studies as
quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed
method data-based
research
2. We filtered these
results by searching
for articles with
“family” in the
abstract.
1. Non-empirical
articles were
considered
inappropriate and
excluded from the
sample
The researchers note general
challenges, and offer up some
suggestions, regarding (1) reliability
and validity, (2) generalizability, (3)
causality, (4) temporality, and (5)
multilevel considerations.
Daspit et al.
2015,
1)Quantitative
Succession-related
articles
1)Qualitative
articles,conceptual
articles, and case
study articles
1) Only quantitative studies were
used
2) The researchers were unable to
fully capture the dynamic nature of
the process
3) The researchers were unable to
identify any contributions that offer
primary insights into exchanges
across family boundaries during
Phases 2 and 3.
4) The researchers provide only
limited attention to methods for
examining the succession process,
even though close examination of
such methods remains an essential
ingredient for the field’s progress.
Nordqvist et
al. 2013
1) Only papers
examining succession
in private family firms
1) Research
focusing on CEO
turnover in large
publicly listed
firms
1) The researchers focus exclusively
on a single level of analysis, which
eliminates opportunities for
understanding how factors at one
level of analysis are causally related
to the entrepreneurial processes and
outcomes at another level.
Table 1: Identified systematic review research explicit inclusion/ exclusion criteria
In their systematic review, Evert et al., (2015) considered only empirical studies as quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed method data-based research and considered all non-empirical articles as
15
inappropriate. Some of the limits identified are that the researchers note general challenges and
offer up some suggestions regarding (1) reliability and validity, (2) generalizability, (3) causality,
(4) temporality and, (5) multilevel considerations.
On the other side, Daspit et al. (2015), in their systematic review retained only quantitative
succession-related articles and ignored all qualitative articles, conceptual articles, and case study
articles. The fact that only quantitative studies were used meant that the researchers were unable
to fully capture the dynamic nature of the process and to identify any contributions that offer
primary insights into exchanges across family boundaries. Furthermore, the researchers provide
only limited attention to methods for examining the succession process, even though close
examination of such methods remains an essential ingredient for the field’s progress up to date.
Nordqvist et al. (2013) retained only papers examining succession in private family firms and
excluded all research focusing on CEO turnover in large publicly listed firms. The fact that
researchers focus exclusively on a single level of analysis eliminates opportunities for
understanding how factors at one level of analysis are causally related to the entrepreneurial
processes and outcomes at another level.
16
Lastly, these selected studies were analysed using inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2) in
order to select the most reliable, valid and generalized ones for a systematic review.
Parameters Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Study topic
Family Business Succession
Unclear or unfocused
research topic
Study type
Peer reviewed papers
Empirical research
(Quantitative, Qualitative &
mixed)
Magazines, trade
publications, newspapers,
books
Theoretical studies
Study Language
Study time frame
Only written in English
Published 1986-2015
Written in other languages
(French, Spanish, Portuguese,
Polish, German, Romanian
and Turkish)
Published after 2015
Table 2: Secondary Research explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria
From this, 20 articles which do not cover the research variables and all non-empirical ones were
again excluded and 56 empirical studies were retained. The choice of our sample of only empirical
studies is justified by the fact that the presence of the empirical studies has significantly increased
over time by testing theories and construct development (Evert et al., 2015). With regards to
criteria of inclusion and exclusion, the “study topic”, only studies focussing on factors affecting
family business succession were included (Bruce & Picard, 2006; Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009).
Therefore, all studies with unclear or unfocused research topics were excluded.
With regards to criterion “Study type”, only peer reviewed papers were included and all magazines,
trade publications, newspapers and books were excluded. To avoid the risk of excluding studies
that have potential value and to minimize the possibility of value under-estimation during the
inclusion and exclusion process, the researcher took into consideration only academic articles
(Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Georgiou & Vrontis, 2013; Marshall et al., 2006;
Elmarie Venter et al., 2005) and acted in accordance with their particular empirical research focus
17
in the process of family business succession (Brun de Pontet, Wrosch, & Gagne, 2007; Miller,
Steier, & Le Breton-Miller, 2003).
Considering the criterion “study language”, a significant reason for including studies written in
English is the prominence of North American researchers exploring the field of family business
succession. (Bruce & Picard, 2006; Georgiou & Vrontis, 2013; Marshall et al., 2006). Depending
on the background of these two nations, Georgiou and Vrontis (2013) suggest that the majority of
recorded knowledge on the topic of business succession would be found written in English
language. Regarding the criterion “study time frame”, this systematic literature review starts from
the time the first empirical data were published in 1986 (Sue Birley, 1986) until 2015 when the
most recent empirical study on family business succession was published (Hatak & Roessl, 2015)
and before the research process for this paper began. This systematic review process was
developed because the literature has achieved a certain level of maturity in different kinds of
studies such as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Halilem, 2010).
1.7.2 Step 2
For a literature review to be complete, the researcher should identify highly ranked and reputable
journals, select the important authors and contact them for further suggestions (Halilem, 2010).
Therefore, the researcher selected among the 56 retained articles, the journals in which these
articles were published. Given the increase in family business research in both specialised (J. J.
Chrisman, Chua, & Litz, 2003; Evert et al., 2015) and ordinary journals (J. J. Chrisman, Chua,
Kellermanns, Matherne, & Debicki, 2008; Debicki et al., 2009) especially those on family business
succession were considered.
In order to identify articles published on family business succession, the researcher used
management journals (Debicki et al., 2009; Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013) and articles
published in family business related journals as well as those published in other high quality
journals that are not dedicated to family business were retained (J. J. Chrisman et al., 2008; Evert
et al., 2015; Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013). It is of great consideration that almost a half
of the retained articles have been published in Family Business Review (FBR) which has
repeatedly been ranked in the top 20 Journals in the field of business, as measured by impact
factors and ranked fourth out of 110 business journals in 2014 (Evert et al., 2015; Pramodita
18
Sharma et al., 2015). Evert et al. (2015) suggest that with regards to such indicators, family
business has been greatly successful in enhancing an aspiring academic community’s chances of
ascension differentiation (distinctiveness of the research domain), mobilization (procurement of
the necessary structures, relationships and resources for collective action), and legitimacy building.
As demonstrated in Figure 4, Family Business Review (with ABDC Rating A) efforts indicate a
substantial amount of growth taking place in the area of archival sources 22 out of 56 articles (Brun
de Pontet et al., 2007; Nam & Herbert, 1999; Schröder, Schmitt-Rodermund, & Arnaud, 2011;
Vera & Dean, 2005).
Figure 4 Journals of publication
Six articles were published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (with ABDC Rating A*); 4
in the Journal of Small Business Management (with ABDC Rating A); 3 in the Journal of Business
1 2
6
22
1 1 2 1 1 3 1 24
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 10
5
10
15
20
25
19
Venture (with ABDC Rating A*); 2 in Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (with ABDC
Rating A) and 2 in Small Business Economics: an entrepreneurship journal (with ABDC Rating
A), etc. The researcher tries to show the ranking of these journals according to ABDC 2016 Interim
Journal Review.
The researcher sent e-mails to 20 identified authors who published articles in highly ranked
journals to request their views on the topic and references. Eleven of them responded, with five
proposing further references.
• Robert N. Lussier: [email protected]
• Pramodita Sharma: [email protected]
• Joshua J. Daspit: [email protected]
• Alfredo De Massis: [email protected]
• Isabelle Le Breton-Miller: [email protected]
• Mattias Nordqvist: [email protected]
• Stephanie Brun de Pontet: [email protected]
• James Chrisman: [email protected]
• Doug Bruce: [email protected]
• Josiane Fahed-Sreih: [email protected]
• André Gygax: [email protected]
The researcher’s supervisor, who is an expert in sophisticated literature review from the
department of management of University Laval, approved this article.
1.8 Strategy of data extraction, important terms, and expected manipulation of information
After completing the selection, the researcher read deeply in to the retained papers and contracts
two model for this systematic review. As indicated in Table 3, the first data model includes the
title, authors’ names, university of affiliation, number of authors, journal, year of publication,
theoretical framework, discipline, type of research, size, unity of analysis, sector of activity,
country/zone, methods, variables, results, future research perspective, research questions, and
hypotheses or objectives.
20
No Article
Authors Publication
Con
cep
tual
fram
ew
ork
Discipline Types of
research
Sample
Methods
used
Vari
ab
les
: (D
epen
den
t V
ari
ab
les/
In
dep
end
ent
Vari
ab
les)
Wh
en s
ucc
essi
on
is
stu
die
d? B
efore
? D
uri
ng a
nd
aft
er
Res
ult
s of
the
stu
dy
(To s
how
evid
ence
of
in
dep
end
ent
an
d/o
r d
epen
dan
t
vari
ab
les'
in
flu
ence
)
Fu
ture
res
earc
h
Qu
esti
on
s, H
yp
oth
eses
or
ob
ject
ives
Nam
es
Univ
ersi
ty o
f af
fili
atio
n
Num
ber
of
auth
ors
Journ
al
Yea
r
(e.g
. M
ark
etin
g,
acco
unti
ng, H
RM
…)
Quan
tita
tiv
e/
Qual
itat
ive/
Mix
ed/
Conce
ptu
al
Siz
e
Unit
y o
f an
alysi
s
Sec
tors
of
acti
vit
y
Coun
try /
study z
one
Table 3:Data model A for systematic review
Because the extraction was done by one researcher and to make sure that the extraction was consistent, the supervisor performed data
extraction of a random sample of primarily studies and results were cross-checked with the ones of a researcher (Kitchenham, 2004).
The final protocol was reviewed by the supervisor who is experienced in literature review for the validation as suggested by Staples and
Niazi (2007) that there should be an agreed validation process separate from the protocol piloting activity.
21
The second data model (table 4) includes: No, Article, Independent variables, Conceptual definition, operational definition, dependent
variable, conceptual definition, operational definition, hypothesis, results, and R square.
N
o
Articl
e
Independen
t Variable
Conceptua
l Definition
Operationa
l Definition
Dependan
t Variable
Conceptua
l Definition
Operationa
l Definition
Hypothese
s
Result
s
R
Squar
e
Table 4 Data model B for systematic review
22
1.9. Estimation of the process timeline
As indicated in Table 5, based on the e-mails record with the supervisor, file creation dates the
researcher was able to construct a timeline showing the duration in days of some important steps
in this systematic review (Staples & Niazi, 2007).
Step or activity Time of start Time in terms
of days
Decision to do a systematic review January 2016 22
Protocol elaboration February 2016 25
Research and archives March 2016 30
Step 1: First selection (title and abstract) April 2016 60
Step 1: Second selection (Article) August 2016 30
Extraction and classification September 2016 60
Step 2: Research of the literature (Google Scholar) November 2016 20
Step 2: Views of experts November 2016 10
Step 2: New selection of the documents December 2016 60
Extraction and classification February 2017 60
Synthesis Writing March 2017 60
End (Total) 437
Table 5: Planning of the research
23
CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS: EVOLUTION OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter consists of descriptive results of this literature review. It provides results on general
characteristics of the literature, tendency of the level of analysis, tendency of methodology
tendency of the methods of data collection, tendency of the methods of data analysis, tendency of
the countries studied, tendency of geographic scope of the sample, tendency of geographic focus,
sector of activity focus, tendency of research before, during and after succession, and conceptual
framework.
2.1 General characteristics of the literature review
Kitchenham (2004) suggested that systematic reviews take considerably more effort than ordinary
traditional literature reviews. The systematic review takes longer because of the amount of effort
involved but it is acerbated by the search pilot reviews, protocol reviews, initial selection reviews,
final selection reviews, data extraction reviews, and data analysis reviews (Staples & Niazi, 2007).
Pittaway and Cope (2007) and Lorz, Mueller, and Volery (2013) suggest that systematic literature
reviews utilize methods to assess the quality of the empirical data. Nowadays, the systematic
review is of great importance because it is less biased and the most rational way to summarize
research evidence and a tool to deliver the best available knowledge for decision making (Becheikh
et al., 2010). Figure 5 illustrates the evolution of the literature review.
Figure 5 General trend of the literature review
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
24
This systematic review starts from 1986 because it is when the first empirical article of family
business succession was published (Sue Birley, 1986). Among 56 identified articles, 37 articles
(66%) of them were published in the final ten years of the chosen time frame (2005-2015). This
justifies the growing prevalence of empirical research in family business succession. The fact that
in the three last decades, much has been written on family business succession (Miller et al., 2003),
can be justified in that the succession process involves actions, events, and organizational
mechanisms by which leadership at the top of the firm, and often ownership are transferred (Miller
et al., 2003).
Finding 1: The trend of empirical research in family business succession has continually increased
over the last few decades given the prevalence of the issue of succession in family businesses
(Miller et al., 2003). Many family businesses do not survive the process of leadership transfer. The
research shows that 30% of family businesses survive past the first generation and only 10% to
15% survive to third generation (Miller & Breton-Miller, 2003). Brun de Pontet et al. (2007)
indicated that in North America, of CEOs above the age of 60 who expected to retire within five
years, 55% had not even chosen successor. The same applies to Canada, where almost 80% of
family businesses expected a turnover of leadership within 15 years (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007).
The importance of succession to the continuity of the family business justifies why many issues
of theoretical impact have undergone large scale empirical investigation (Miller et al., 2003). Some
of these cases studied by K. Cabrera-Suárez (2005) may illustrate this matter. The first one is
QUALAUTO (479 employees, 108 million euros annual turnover), which after 49 years had
successful leadership succession to the second generation with positive growth of profitability and
quality relationship after succession (K. Cabrera-Suárez, 2005). Another case is AMERAUTO (60
employees, 21 million euros annual turnover) which at 50 years had a successful succession to the
third generation characterised by profitability and satisfaction of successor, predecessor and other
family and non-family participants (K. Cabrera-Suárez, 2005). One case of failure during
succession is CAREND (150 employees, 6000 vehicles sold the year before closing). After 32
years, the position of the general manager was occupied by a member of the third generation and
the failure of succession caused the firms to close. This failure was followed by the crisis in the
firm which led to serious conflicts between family members and non-family employees (K.
Cabrera-Suárez, 2005). These indicators of the important role of family in the success of family
business succession show how it has been attracting researchers in the area of management
25
especially in the last few decades. Generally, many of the family business being studied were
created after the first and second world wars during the period of flourishing economies. But the
issue of succession came a bit later when other generations rather than the founding ones were to
take over the family businesses. The failures of family businesses in the second and third and more
generations raised the curiosity of the researchers. The fact that in these last decades, the
publications of empirical studies were an average of 2-4 articles per year, shows how there is a
great need for the scholars focus more on the issue of succession in family businesses to make it
understood even better.
2.2 Tendency of the level of analysis
In the literature review, the selection of categorical variables in cluster analysis should always be
analysed by a researcher (Nordqvist et al., 2012). It can be valuable during the exploratory phase
of the research by maximizing the number of categorical articles, and can also deduct irrelevant
articles when it is based on the current theory on the number of categorical articles (Nordqvist et
al., 2012). The scholarly research can be undertaken at various levels such as individual,
interpersonal/group, organizational and societal (Evert et al., 2015). McKinley, Mone, and Moon
(1999) suggest that although it is possible to theorize across multiple levels, given the pre-
paradigmatic status of family business studies, most of the literature focuses on the level rather
than the conceptually complex domain of multiple level theorizing. This systematic literature
review covers the factors affecting family business succession (Brockhaus, 2004; Nordqvist,
Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013), and factors which can affect the individual and organizational level
simultaneously (Miller et al., 2003; Pramodita Sharma, James J. Chrisman, & Jess H. Chua,
2003a).
As shown in Figure 6, among 56 articles, 54% emphasized the organizational level, (Brun de
Pontet et al., 2007; Keating & Little, 1997; Mejbri & Affes, 2012). Among them, 30% of identified
articles focused on the individual level (Dumas, Dupuis, Richer, & St.-Cyr, 1995; Schröder et al.,
2011; Whatley, 2011). Sixteen percent of articles covered both levels (individual and
organizational) simultaneously (Lambrecht, 2005; Royer et al., 2008; Wiklund, Nordqvist,
Hellerstedt, & Bird, 2013). The individual level was of interest because it may determine the
success or failure of the family business (Massis et al., 2008). Nordqvist, Wennberg, and
26
Hellerstedt (2013) suggest that the individual level focuses on different phases of the succession
process which are pre-succession, planning succession, managing succession and post-succession.
Figure 6 Levels of analysis
Pramodita Sharma (2004) suggests that the individual (internal and external) level can affect the
family business. Previous research indicates that at an individual level of analysis, family business
studies have devoted attention to founders, next-generation members, women and non-family
employees (Pramodita Sharma, 2004). At the organizational level analysis, efforts have been
largely directed toward the identification and management of resources in the family business
(Pramodita Sharma, 2004).
Finding 2: According to Brockhaus (2004), succession requires analysis from perspectives of
family, management and ownership systems in order to understand adequately the perspectives of
different stakeholders. A large proportion of empirical studies on family business succession
(54%) examined the organizational level. Therefore, it is necessary to respond to the call of
Pramodita Sharma (2004) that research on family business ought to focus primarily on the
30%
16%
54%
Individual
Individual and Organizational
Organizational
27
organizational level of analysis. In comparison with other levels, organizational level studies have
shown important growth (Diwisch, Voithofer, & Weiss, 2009; Handler, 1992; Marshall et al.,
2006). Individual level (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Schröder et al., 2011; Whatley, 2011) and
both individual and organizational levels simultaneously (Royer et al., 2008; Wiklund et al., 2013).
It is possible that the multi-level analysis which is less significant in this study (16%) will increase
if the future research is going to respond positively to the call of (Evert et al., 2015). Evert et al.
(2015) proposes that they should focus on link temporal perceptions, orientation and style of family
members at the individual, firm and industry levels to succession outcomes. Therefore, it is a
paramount for future researchers to concentrate more on both individual and organizational levels
at the same time in order to see the factors related to them that influence the process of the
succession in family business.
2.3 Tendency of methodology and methods
With regards to the research design, we distinguish between qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods, a decision that depends on the research objective and influences the generalizability of
the results (Lorz et al., 2013). In this literature review, following Evert et al. (2015) only,
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method database research designed to test research questions,
models, hypotheses, or to develop proposition were retained. All other articles were considered
inappropriate and excluded even if they contained some data (Evert et al., 2015; Yu, Lumpkin,
Sorenson, & Brigham, 2012).
As indicated in Figure 7, the literature on family business succession shows the tendency of
publication is much oriented on quantitative, (Bruce & Picard, 2006; Diwisch, Voithofer, & Weiss,
2007; Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009) .
28
Figure 7 Comparison of quantitative, qualitative and mixt articles
Only empirical studies on succession were selected, the most popular topic in family perspective
(Evert et al., 2015). The systematic literature review was conducted on this particular topic because
the assessment demonstrated that 34% relied on regression (Dumas et al., 1995). Many other
articles were more traditional regression and some studies implemented more nuanced regression
techniques such as logistic regression as dependent and independent variables (Evert et al., 2015;
Sean Sehyun Yoo, Mark T Schenkel, & Jaemin Kim, 2014b).
As shown in Figure 7, among 56 identified articles, 61% articles were quantitative. Some of these
studies illustrate the use of quantitative methods. Stéphan Van der Merwe et al. (2009) in their
quantitative study collected and analysed data using Statistica and SPSS. Construct validity of the
questionnaire was assessed by means of principal component exploratory factor analysis with
oblique rotation and by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients. Another example is a quantitative
study conducted by Chung and Luo (2013) examining 10 years of time-varying data on 573 listed
firms. In this study, they conducted a fixed-effect pooled time-series regression analysis using the
QUANTITATIVE61%
QUALITATIVE27%
MIXED12%
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE MIXED
29
STATA command “xtreg fe” (Chung & Luo, 2013). A fixed- effects model focuses on within-firm
variation over time, so the coefficients are not biased by time – invariant firm heterogeneity (Chung
& Luo, 2013). The study of Pramodita Sharma et al. (2003a) serve as another example of
quantitative research in this literature review. This study tested hypotheses by estimating separate
ordinary least-squares regression models for the two groups of stakeholders (Pramodita Sharma et
al., 2003a). Chow test was performed to ascertain significance in the overall differences of the two
models and they used t-tests to compare the coefficients of the two regression models to identify
the independent variables causing the overall differences between incumbents and successors
(Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a).
Qualitative studies in this systematic literature review were 27%. Cadieux, Lorrain, and Hugron
(2002) in their qualitative research the interviews were carried out using an interview guide
designed to gather all information needed. The conversations were recorded on microcassettes and
transcribed after the interview (Cadieux et al., 2002). All data gathered during interviews were
processed with Atlas.ti (Cadieux et al., 2002). The study of Lambrecht (2005) serves also as an
example of qualitative research identified in this systematic literature review. This qualitative
research arises from a self-enriching process of reading, analysis, observation, interviewing and
writing and the life story method was applied (Lambrecht, 2005).
In this systematic literature review 12% of identified studies were mixed (combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches). With mixed method, Handler (1991) developed and
utilized an in-depth interview guide with the sample of 32 individuals. As is consistent with
quantitative, grounded theory approach (Handler, 1991), the data analysis process involved
completing coding sheets that paralleled the interview guide for each participant (Handler, 1991).
On these sheets, data, impressions, and new hypotheses representing refinement of existing
hypotheses were recorded (Handler, 1991).
Even though the results show that there is no increase of qualitative studies overtime, the literature
suggests that qualitative studies represent a key method for researchers to apply, not only to answer
important research questions but also to develop new questions (Evert et al., 2015; Reay & Zhang,
2014).
30
Finding 3: Contrary to the previous results (Evert et al., 2015), in this systematic literature review,
qualitative studies account more than a quarter (27%) of empirical work on family business
succession. The qualitative research will continue to increase as future scholars look to
complement existing research with qualitative methods, by exploring concepts of intention, goals,
and influence of family members and their effect of succession (Evert et al., 2015). The
researchers should also use the mixed methods because it may give the triangulation basis for
convergence (Evert et al., 2015). The combinations of different methods and techniques in the
topic of family business succession will help to get sufficient information and raise the interest of
researchers.
2.4. Tendency of the methods of data collection
Quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as mixed techniques approaches, were developed
simultaneously with our initial review of several quantitative articles within the sample. The
empirics including methodological (the process of collecting data and information) and analytical
(systematic examination of data or statistical approach) practices, play a key role in the forgoing
of a field’s distinct position among established academic areas of interest (Evert et al., 2015;
Harrison & Leitch, 1996; P. Sharma & Chua, 2013). The literature suggests that as there are many
potentially valid approaches to empirically test family business research questions, scholars should
be cognizant to account for both theory and context of the study, exercising good judgement to
ensure the proper use of methods and analytical techniques (Bettis, Gambardella, Helfat, &
Mitchell, 2014; Evert et al., 2015). Within the sample of 56 identified and retained empirical
articles in this systematic literature review, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to
collect and analyse data on factors affecting family business succession. Figure 8 illustrate the
methods used in data collection for both quantitative and qualitative.
31
Figure 8 Trends of methods of data collection
Mehrotra, Morck, Shim, and Wiwattanakantang (2011) conducted a survey investigating the
association between the dominance of family firms and the extent of arranged marriages in
different countries. In regression analysis, they also made control for the level of general economic
development of each country of the sample of 41 countries. In the case study of Salvato, Chirico,
and Sharma (2010) sixteen in depth semi-structured interviews each lasting 60-120 minutes were
conducted with five family members of the third and fourth generations, and six non-family
members. The sampling began with both family and non family top managers who played an
important role in the strategic aspects of the family business and snowballed from these interviews
as they asked each participant to recommend who could best explicate Falck’s situation with
regards to studied variable (Salvato et al., 2010). In the exploratory study of Nam and Herbert
Case studies 17%
Exploratory study 11%
In-depth interview 14%
Mail surveys5%
Observations 3%
Semi -directive interviews
6%
Survey33%
Telephone survey8%
Snowball-sampling technique
3%
32
(1999) with a sample of 93 respondents, they examined two elements of Korean immigrant
businesses in Metro-Atlanta with specific characteristics of ethnic business, general family
business, ownership and succession planning, conflict and communication as well as key success
factors. Through a telephone survey by Sardeshmukh and Corbett (2011) conducted on a sample
composed of the top managers from 615 manufacturing firms in a seven state region in the North
Eastern United States, they examined opportunity perception by 119 family business successors.
By using snowball – sampling technique to identify the respondents, Venter, Bushoff, and Maas
(2006) measured the perceived success of the succession process by two dimensions: satisfaction
with the process and continued profitability of the business.
Finding 4: Researchers should use mostly qualitative research methods in family business
succession in as much as, despite its improvement, it is still less developed in this area of research.
Scholars should use both quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously in order to get
complete information. Furthermore, different methods should be combined for the purpose of
getting accurate information.
2.5.Tendency of the methods of data analysis
Based on the percentages displayed in Figure 9 regarding methods of data analysis, in 20% of
studies in family business succession t-test methods were applied (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Davis
& Harveston, 1998; Duh, Tominc, & Rebernik, 2009). While 15% of identified articles in this
systematic review relied on regression based methods of data analysis (Schröder et al., 2011; Yoo
et al., 2014b), 10% used structural equation model, longitudinal 10% (Gagne, Wrosch, & Brun de
Pontet, 2011; Marshall et al., 2006; Wiklund et al., 2013), Some other studies approached family
business succession using descriptive statistics 5%, and other methods such as cross-sectional 5%,
(Brun de Pontet et al., 2007) ANOVA and MANOVA test 5% (James J Chrisman, Chua, &
Sharma, 1998), ANCOVA and Least Significant Difference 5% (Robert N. Lussier & Matthew C.
Sonfield, 2012), comparative 5% (Pramodita Sharma & Rao, 2000), actual formulation 5%
(Brenes, Madrigal, & Molina-Navarro, 2006), non-parametric matching approach 5% (Diwisch et
al., 2007), and non- parametric chi square test 5% (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009).
33
Figure 9 Trends of methods of data analysis
Finding 5: The existing literature suggests that cross-sectional analysis does not allow for
controlling of all time-invariant characteristics that might have an impact upon family business
performance (Evert et al., 2015; Molly, Laveren, & Deloof, 2010). Therefore, longitudinal designs
can accurately identify the succession in the family business (Evert et al., 2015; Molly et al., 2010).
For family business succession research to advance further, the researcher adds voice to the early
call of De Massis, Chua, and Chrisman (2008) and Evert et al. (2015) that scholars may seek out
data sets that can be analysed using longitudinal methods. This helps in effectively ruling out
explanations that are clouded by the disadvantages inherent in cross-sectional methods (Evert et
al., 2015). The more emphasis on longitudinal claims is justified by the assumption that it will
strengthen claims of causality within the literature without relying on random experiments on
violating key statistical assumptions (Evert et al., 2015). Despite the importance of longitudinal
Actual formulation 5%
Analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA), Least significant
difference (LSD)
5%
ANOVA5%
ANOVA and MANOVA tests
5%
Comparative study5%
Cross- sectional 5%
Descriptive statistics 5%Estimating separate
ordinary least-squares regression models, Chow test ,
and t tests 0%
Longitudinal10%
Multinomial regressionanalyses
15%
Non parametric chi square test
5%
Non-parametric matching approach
5%
Structural equation model
10%
T-tests
20%
34
approaches in the testing of causal relationships between constructs and variables (Evert et al.,
2015; Litz et al., 2012), the results show that longitudinal designs are not frequently used (10%).
The use of these various methods of quantitative works in hypotheses testing in family business
succession is of great importance. Researchers should continue to use such a variety of methods
to further advance knowledge of other specific subtopics of family business succession.
2.6 Tendency of the countries studied
As indicated in Figure 10, the single nation, non-comparative empirical literature is the most
common perspective used by scholars in family business succession (Davis & Harveston, 1998;
Handler, 1992; Huang, 1999).
Figure 10 Countries where a research was conducted
Finding 6: As indicated in Figure 10, mainly, the research was conducted in North America in the
USA such as (S. Birley, Ng, & Godfrey, 1999; Vera & Dean, 2005) , and in Canada (Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2003b; Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009). One of the reasons is that family
businesses are among the most important contributors to the wealth and employment globally
1
3
1 1
12
1 1
3
1 12
1 1 1 1 1 12 2
1
3
12
1
11
35
(Venter, Boshoff, & Maas, 2006). The family business is most important in the economy and
social well-being of capitalist societies of North America where by family businesses represent
90% and provide over half a job (Pramodita Sharma, James J. Chrisman, Amy L. Pablo, & Jess H.
Chua, 2001a). Family business in the USA varies between 4.1 million and employ between 15%
and 59% of the USA workforce (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Whatley, 2011). While in Canada
family businesses are found to provide jobs to more than 6 million of citizens (Halilem, 2010;
Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Whatley, 2011). The fact that only English published articles were
retained in this research and the big number of research can not be ignored among reasons that
USA and Canada are found as the main countries where the research was conducted.
With regards to geographical scope, the majority of articles (89%) had the sample of a single
country (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009), and very
few articles 11% covered multiple countries (Robert N. Lussier & Matthew C. Sonfield, 2012;
Mehrotra et al., 2011).
Finding 7: Compared to the results of Evert et al (Evert et al., 2015), there is a smaller increase of
scholars who tend to use samples from more than one nation. Based on research conducted in
different countries, Robert N Lussier and Matthew C Sonfield (2012) were aiming to measure and
compare differences in levels of family business succession planning in Croatia, Egypt, France,
India, Kosovo, Kuwait, and the USA. They found that there were statistically significant
differences in family business succession planning between Croatia, Egypt, France, Kosovo,
Kuwait, and the USA. However, there were no statistically significant differences between India
and the other six countries (Robert N Lussier & Matthew C Sonfield, 2012). On the other hand,
Mehrotra et al. (2011) investigated the association between the dominance of family firms and the
extent of arranged marriage in 41 countries. They found that the predominance of family
businesses correlates strongly across countries with plausible proxies for arranged marriage.
Therefore, the use of multiple countries may show different realities of factors that affect the
succession in the family firm based on various factors such as culture, political, economic,
technological, legal, and other factors.
In this systematic review, as indicated in figure 11, almost a half of studies were conducted in
North America 41% (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Handler, 1992; Marshall et al., 2006) 23% in
36
Europe (Bennedsen, Nielsen, Perez-Gonzalez, & Wolfenzon, 2007; Duh et al., 2009; Schröder et
al., 2011), in Asia 14% (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Chung & Luo, 2013),
intercontinental 7% (Robert N Lussier & Matthew C Sonfield, 2012; Mehrotra et al., 2011), Africa
7% (Mejbri & Affes, 2012; Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009), Australia 6% (Diwisch et al.,
2009; Hatak & Roessl, 2015; Royer et al., 2008) and a non-significant percentage was conducted
in South America 2% (Brenes et al., 2006).
Figure 11 Geographic scope of the sample
Finding 8: Based on the results of this systematic review, only few researchers on family business
succession were interested in less developed economies such as Africa, South America and Asia
(Brenes et al., 2006; Chung & Luo, 2013; Venter, Boshoff, et al., 2006). There should be a deep
investigation of why scholars of family business succession focus mainly in developed countries
of North America and Europe. There is a need for researchers to explore intercontinental research
for comparative studies on family business succession. Figure 12 illustrates the continents where
research was conducted. Scholars on family business should investigate the factors affecting
Geographical focus0%
North America41%
Europe23%
Asia14%
Africa7%
South America2%
Australia6%
Intercontinental7%
37
family business succession in the developing countries as well. In fact, the reality the factors may
be the same or not in developed and developing countries and affect the succession in different
way. The level of education and management practices in developed countries with regards to
succession are not the same as in developing countries.
2.7 Sector of activity focus
The sector of activity was taken into consideration in this systematic review. Figure 12
demonstrates that, among researchers who specify the sector, only 3 have conducted their research
in the farming sector. With the objective to acquire a detailed understanding of the factors
influencing to become a successor, Dumas et al. (1995) undertook in-depth interviews with thirty-
six women (next-generation) representing all the farming regions of the province of Quebec except
one. Only women of 28 years old and less were considered. Simply because the more advanced
the age, the more likely the women became owners through marriage rather than through a
purchase by their parents (Dumas et al. (1995). In this study only the women whose the parents
were still alive, and who participated actively in the management of the firm were retained (Dumas
et al. (1995). On the other hand, Keating and Little (1997) undertook a grounded theory study of
the succession process among New Zealand farm families. They found that the process included
five stages which are: watching for interest, reducing the pool of eligible, assessing commitment,
compensating the others, and placing the successor (Keating & Little, 1997). The researchers
brought different kinds of experience, one researcher was a long time resident of Canterbury
farming community and understands community beliefs and structures (Keating & Little, 1997).
Another one was an experienced qualitative researcher who has conducted prior research with farm
families (Keating & Little, 1997). In this study, the entire sample were not chosen at the same time
(Keating & Little, 1997). The simple reason is that in grounded theory, the analysis is an ongoing
process, the results from each interview inform the choice of respondents for the next interview
(Keating & Little, 1997). In this study, the first respondents were a couple (F1,RM,RF) whose
only son took over the firm (Keating & Little, 1997). The second interview was conducted with
this couple’s son of (F1, RM, RF) (Keating & Little, 1997). The fact that he was alone in the family
was helpful to the researchers because they did not get information on how a successor might be
chosen from several sons (Keating & Little, 1997). Since the son was interviewed without his
spouse, the researchers did not get information on how women enter in the farm succession
38
decision (Keating & Little, 1997). Because the researchers needed to know more about experiences
of men with several siblings, they looked for a situation where there had been a harmonious
resolution of this process (Keating & Little, 1997). They choose the next couple (F2, RM, RF) for
their sample because the farmer was one of three brothers (Keating & Little, 1997). The next
interview was with a couple (F3, ReM, ReF) where the husband had farmed with his brothers
before farming on his own (Keating & Little, 1997). His wife had not been confronted with the
task of entry into the community since she had grown up in the area (Keating & Little, 1997). The
third couple they interviewed (F4, ReM, ReF) came into farming abruptly because of the death of
the husband’s father (Keating & Little, 1997). They provided more useful information on the
advantages of and disadvantages of taking over a farm earlier than either generation would have
preferred (Keating & Little, 1997). The researchers interviewed also two women from the retiring
generation to further explore themes in women’s eligibility as successors (Keating & Little, 1997).
The final first-round interview was conducted with a retired couple and their farming son (F8, RM,
RF, ReM) (Keating & Little, 1997). This was the only interview with two generations at the same
time, and it gives a family view of the succession process (Keating & Little, 1997). After the first
major data analysis, the researchers conducted four second round interviews, the first three of
which were done with respondents from the first sample (Keating & Little, 1997). The final
interview was with a couple that had not been a part of the round one sample (F9, ReM, ReF)
(Keating & Little, 1997). This couple was chosen because they identified themselves as not
interested in succession by their children, even though they received their farm from parents
(Keating & Little, 1997). Therefore, this negative case was useful for better understanding the
limits of interest in family succession (Keating & Little, 1997). In total, the researchers interviewed
18 respondents from nine families representing two generations of farmers. The receiving
generation were in their late thirties to mid-forties. Retiring generation respondents were in their
mid-sixties to mid-seventies.
Other studies focussed on automobile distribution (Cabrera-Suarez, 2005). In this case study, to
select the cases, first of all, a general survey was carried out on family firms located in the Canary
Islands by means of postal questionnaire sent to a total of 260 firms taken from a business guide
of the Canary Islands (Cabrera-Suarez, 2005) . These were selected when the surnames of the
managers and directors listed in the guide coincided (Cabrera-Suarez, 2005).
39
In the hospitality and service sector 10 daughters who had taken over their families’ business from
a parent were respondents (Vera & Dean, 2005). Each of participants was currently controlling the
family business, with two exceptions (one had sold her business when she could not compete with
a larger company and the other had left her company due to disagreements with her farther
regarding running the business) (Vera & Dean, 2005). In all cases, the parent was a leader of the
business prior to the daughter taking over (Vera & Dean, 2005). The mean age of the sample was
46 years and ranged from 30 to 62 years (Vera & Dean, 2005). Many of them were married with
children and 60% of them were the first born in the family (Vera & Dean, 2005). All the
respondents were the second generation of family involved in the family business, with only one
exception who was the third generation in the business (Vera & Dean, 2005). The respondents
were in a variety of industries, including hospitality, service, construction, and manufacturing and
all their companies were located in the western United States (Vera & Dean, 2005).
Other studies were in industrial and commercial (Lambrecht, 2005), manufacturing (Cadieux et
al., 2002), real estate (Fattoum & Fayolle, 2009), wholesale and retail (Nam & Herbert, 1999),
non-financial firms (Yoo et al., 2014b).
40
Figure 12 Sectors of activity
Finding 9: These results show that scholars give less importance to the activity of the family
business and more to the succession in as much as, 41 of 56 retained articles did not specify the
activity of the family businesses studied (M. K. Cabrera-Suárez & Martín-Santana, 2012; Hatak
& Roessl, 2015; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005). Among the few researchers who specified the activity
of the family business, 3 of them were in farming. The activity of the family business should be
among the subtopics to be developed by scholars in family business succession research because
it may influence or be influenced by succession. Also, the activity of family business may be
influenced by other factors such socio-cultural and economic as well as geographical conditions.
Therefore, the researcher should focus on this variable while studying succession in family
businesses.
1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
41
1 1 1 1 1
41
2.8 Tendency of research before, during and after succession
As indicated in Figure 13, a significant number of studies on family business succession are based
on the time of succession: before, during and after succession. The period considered as before
succession is when the ownership and management of the family business is still in the hands of
the founder of the first generation. During succession is when the transition of the family business
from the predecessor to the successor is still in process. After succession, is the period when the
leadership and/or ownership of the family business have already been handed over to the successor
of the next generation. While 22 out of 56 identified research studies were focussing on during
and after succession. With the case study approach based on the life stories, Mejbri and Affes
(2012) involved both the successor and the predecessor using a semi-directive interview of four
FOBs. They found that managerial succession presents an intentional behaviour that its planning
is determined in Tunisian family businesses by desirability of succession, its feasibility and
conformity with social norms (Mejbri & Affes, 2012; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Sean
Sehyun Yoo, Mark T. Schenkel, & Jaemin Kim, 2014a). 20 articles where conducted before,
during and after succession (Brenes et al., 2006; Fahed‐Sreih & Djoundourian, 2006; Keating &
Little, 1997). Seven articles conducted before and during succession Brun de Pontet et al. (2007)
examined how succession variables are related to levels of control reported by an incumbent leader
and successor in a sample of 100 Canadian family business at, or approaching succession (Brun
de Pontet et al., 2007; Davis & Harveston, 1998; Eddleston, Kellermanns, Floyd, Crittenden, &
Crittenden, 2013). Four studies were conducted before succession (Sue Birley, 1986; Gagne et al.,
2011; Huang, 1999) and only 3 were after succession (Handler, 1992; Miller et al., 2003).
42
Figure 12 Trends of research before, during and after succession
Finding 10: Some researches provide an explanation about why the next generation of the family
members are positive or negative towards entering the family business after the departure of the
predecessor. Such research neglected their intentions for future involvement in the firm
(Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013; Dean A Shepherd & Andrew Zacharakis, 2000; Stavrou,
1999). The studies of the pre-planning phase have investigated the resources and actions of the
predecessor that may facilitate succession process, the will of the incumbent to leave the power to
the successor and the ability of the successor to learn from his predecessor (Cadieux, 2007;
Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013). As shown in Figure 13, the period of after succession has
only 3 out of 56 retained articles of this study and the period before succession has 4 out 56. This
lack of interest of the researchers on these periods justifies the gap in the factors affecting family
business succession. In the period before succession, it is where predecessors play a major role to
determine the success and failure of the succession in the future. The education, the behavior and
the relationship in the family before the succession may influence the will or simply push the future
4
7
20
22
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
B E F O R E S U C C E S S I O N
B E F O R E A N D D U R I N G
S U C C E S S I O N
B E F O R E , D U R I N G A N D A F T E R
S U C C E S S I O N
D U R I N G A N D A F T E R
S U C C E S S I O N
A F T E R S U C C E S S I O N
43
successor to lose interest in the family business. On the other side, in the period after succession,
there should be lessons based on the good or bad experience of the succession, to improve and
assure the continuity and survival of the family business.
2.9 Conceptual framework
In this systematic review, the prominent topical areas of the research on factors influencing the
family business succession that appeared in our review were discussed (Evert et al., 2015). As
indicated in Figure 15, factors such as context, financial and personal factors, succession planning,
successor readiness, affective commitment of the successor, role of the predecessor, intra-family
relationship, age, gender and birth order were found as factors affecting family business
succession.
44
Figure 14 Conceptual framework
Financial
factor
45
Interestingly, age, gender and birth order appear in the centre of the cycle showing the relationship
between predecessor and a successor. With regards to macro-environment, culture plays very
important role in the succession process in as much as, for some cultures, when a predecessor dies,
automatically is the first born who takes over the family business leadership. On the relationship
between predecessor and successor, the role of the successor grows older in age, it may justify the
level of maturity and readiness to take over the family business. On the other side, the age of the
predecessor may play a significant role in the succession process. The young family business
leaders do not pay much attention to succession like older family business leaders. In a competitive
economic environment, succession of the family business may be anticipated because younger
leaders seem to be more innovative and risk-takers than the older ones. With regards to the macro-
environment, there are some cultures where the male children are preferred than female siblings
in the process of family business succession.
On the issue of financial factors, this appears on the macro and micro-environments of the family
businesses. At the level of macro-environment for instance, when there is a global economic crisis,
many family businesses suffer financially which may demotivate potential successors to take over
the family businesses. Yet on the micro-context, internal management issues may incite poor
financial performance of the family business, which may lead to the lack of interest to continue
the leadership and ownership of the family businesses or vice versa. The intra-family relationships
play a vital role in the succession process of the family business on the side of the predecessor,
successor, other family members and other stakeholders (Handler, 1992). In the succession
process of the family business at the level of the successor and predecessor, based on in-depth
interviews with 32 successors working in family businesses, Handler suggests that succession
involves a four-stage role adjustment process wherein the incumbent’s role gradually diminishes
in terms of involvement and control of the business, while the successor’s role gradually increases
(Dyck, Mauws, Starke, & Mischke, 2002). Handler concludes that successors were more likely to
have a positive succession experience when they fulfilled career, psychosocial, and life stage
opportunities in the context of the family firm; were able to exercise personal influence in the
family business; achieved mutual respect and understanding with the incumbent; and had high
commitment to continuation of the family business (Dyck et al., 2002).
46
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ON FAMILY BUSINESS SUCCESSION
This chapter on the literature review of family business succession discusses the main factors that
affect succession within family businesses. Apart from succession in family business, other
discussed factors are context factors, personal factors, financial factors, succession planning,
successor’s readiness, affective commitment of the successor, role of the predecessor, intra-family
relationship factors, age, gender and birth order.
Many studies have been conducted about differences in perceptions about the process of
succession (Hewitt, van Rensburg, & Ukpere, 2012; Pramodita Sharma, Chua, & Chrisman, 2000).
Georgiou and Vrontis (2013) suggest that about two thirds of all enterprises are family operated,
owned, or controlled, and that family businesses range in size from traditional small firms to large
conglomerates. The existing literature on succession supports that one of the major problems
facing the family business is the capability to guarantee proficient family management across
generation (Georgiou & Vrontis, 2013).
The family business succession is defined as “a social process, and it is through ongoing social
interaction that the meaning of succession is inter subjectively shared and shaped” (Lam, 2011).
Succession is a chain of goal setting and goal achievement based on decision making, plans and
actions (Kansikas & Kuhmonen, 2008). Succession is said to be a result of strategy, tactics,
decisions, goal setting and goal achievement within a family business (Kansikas & Kuhmonen,
2008). For family business specifically, succession is defined by Kansikas and Kuhmonen (2008)
as a transfer of tangible and non-tangible ownership and entrepreneurship from one generation to
another.
As indicated in Table 6, attempts have been made to identify various dimensions and phases of
the succession process, differentiating successful and unsuccessful successions and the factors that
to contribute to its success (Pramodita Sharma & Irving, 2005; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005). The
succession process begins well before the successor is brought into the business and ends when
the predecessor retires (Cadieux, 2007; Cadieux et al., 2002). The succession process refers to a
series of identifiable steps that take place over time with the expectation of ensuring the readiness
of the successor to take over the difficult task of leadership when required (Bammens,
47
Voordeckers, & Gils, 2008; Neubauer, Lank, Foster, & Foster, 1999; Stéphan Van der Merwe et
al., 2009; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
Two different views “Passing a baton” Mitchell, Hart, Valcea, &
Townsend, 2009, Lam, 2011
“Passing a torch” Howorth & Zahra Assaraf,
2001; Stéphan Van der Merwe
et al., 2009
Phases of succession process 1) Initial phase, 2)
Integration phase, 3) Joint
management phase, 4)
Retirement phase
Cadieux et al., 2002, Fox et al.,
1996
Succession variables Personal factors Sharma & Irving, 2005
Succession Planning Sharma et al., 2003b
Firm factors (Boyd et al., 2014; Ibrahim &
McGuire, 2011; Miller et al.,
2003
Management transition Stavrou, 1999
Ownership transition Massis et al., 2008
Firm’s financial structure Schulze, Lubatkin, & Dino,
2003
Table 6: Main elements of succession
A previous study on family business succession reveals two different views: a “passing a baton”
approach (Mitchell, Hart, Valcea, & Townsend, 2009) which is explained as the moment when a
successor takes over as the chief executive officer (CEO) of the family business (Lam, 2011).
Dyck et al. (2002) define the “baton-passing” as a technique determining the details by which the
succession will be achieved.
In their study on succession, Dyck et al. (2002) suggest that both runners must agree on which
type of baton-passing technique they will use (e.g., downward, upward or snatch pass), and which
48
hands will be used (right-to-left facilitates passing the baton, but requires runners to switch hands
before the next pass). They further confirm that the runners must agree on how the incoming runner
presents the baton (which hand, palm up or down), and how the outgoing runner receives the baton
(which hand, palm up or down) (Dyck et al., 2002).
With regards to succession of the family business management and leadership, incumbents and
successors have different managerial and leadership styles and different expectations of how the
baton should be transferred, especially when there are marked differences in previous experience
and training (Dyck et al., 2002). They suggest that incumbents often have difficulty ‘‘letting go’’
of the leadership baton, perhaps because they feel the successor does not yet have a good grip on
it (Dyck et al., 2002). Their results show that unlike relay team members, who have coaches and
can practice the same maneuver repeatedly to master the mechanics of baton passing, managers
often have a limited repertoire of experience in succession and have few external resources to
facilitate the process (Dyck et al., 2002).
With regards to “Passing a torch”, Jim Rohn, the famous American entrepreneur, once said, “All
good men and women must take responsibility to create legacies that will take the next generation
to a level we could only imagine.” Quoted in Rohn (1994). Rohn (1994) went further by
emphasizing that it is their duty to realize that at some point they must be prepared to pass the
torch and then step aside and let the next generation take over. Even though this is often very hard
to do the very success and continued survival of their family businesses depend on them doing this
well (Rohn, 1994).
On the side of business owners, they view succession as an event characterized by the moment
when the torch is passed to the new leadership (Howorth & Zahra Assaraf, 2001; Stéphan Van der
Merwe et al., 2009). Studies on family business succession focus mainly on the issues related to
stakeholders including business founders, their successors and other stakeholders such as family
members and professional managers (Lam, 2011; Nordqvist et al., 2012).
Literature on family business research outlines a view of succession as a complex process
influenced by personal goals of owners, family structure, ability and ambitions of potential
successors, legal and financial issues (Nordqvist et al., 2012; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a;
Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003b). Family business succession is defined as a contiguous process
49
whereby both management and ownership control are transferred from one generation to the next
(Brun de Pontet et al., 2007), while maintaining positive family relationship and enabling the
business to expand and prosper financially (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b). Definitions
are also important for entrepreneurship research, which integrate succession and ownership
transition in their models to better understand the choices and constraints available for
entrepreneurs, who want to start, enter or leave a firm (Nordqvist et al., 2012; Parker & van Praag,
2012). Because of successful transfer of management, much has been written on succession issues
(Brockhaus, 2004). Despite that family business succession has received much research attention
(Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003b), this topic is still not yet understood because family business
succession is rarely a single event (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007).
According to Dyck et al. (2002), the suitability of successor’s skills and experiences, timing,
details by which succession will be achieved, and communication between the predecessor and
successor is important for the success of the succession process. Hewitt et al. (2012) suggest that
this process extends over time and needs to be carefully planned. Attempts have been made to
reveal various dimensions and phases of the succession process, to show the difference between
successful and unsuccessful successions, and classifying the factors that contribute to effective
succession (Cadieux et al., 2002; J. J. Chrisman et al., 2003; Fox, Nilakant, & Hamilton, 1996;
Hewitt et al., 2012; Morris, Williams, & Nel, 1996; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a; Weidenbaum,
1996). Most of these studies theoretically developed models to empirical test understanding of the
succession process (Fox et al., 1996; Hewitt et al., 2012). Therefore, there are four phases of the
succession process (Cadieux et al., 2002). The first one is the initial phase, in this phase the owner
is completely and solely in charge of the daily affairs of the business. The second is the integration
phase; this phase begins when the owner brings his or her successor in to business by giving him
or her a part-time or summer job. The third is the joint management phase; this phase is considered
to be the transitional step in the process, differing from the first two phases mainly in that it marks
the official entry of the successor into the business. The fourth and final step is the retirement
phase, this last phase marks the official retirement of the predecessor and the complete transfer of
power and ownership (Cadieux et al., 2002).
The succession process has been discovered to be a multi-staged phenomenon which triggers
events (Cadieux et al., 2002; Fox et al., 1996). An integrative model that describes the successful
50
succession process on contextual variables within the family, industry and society was developed
(Hewitt et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2003). According to Pramodita Sharma et al. (2001b), for the
succession in the family business to happen, there must be three fundamental elements: a leader
who hands over the leadership role, a successor who takes over the role and a mechanism by which
the transition takes place. According to Boyd, Botero, and Fediuk (2014), the research on family
business succession focussed mainly on the following variables: personal factors (Pramodita
Sharma & Irving, 2005), succession planning (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003b), firm factors (Boyd
et al., 2014; Ibrahim & McGuire, 2011; Miller et al., 2003), management transition (Stavrou,
1999), ownership transition process (Massis et al., 2008), the impact of succession on firm’s
financial structure (Schulze, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2003). Since the majority of private family
businesses in many countries are likely to change ownership as the owner’s approach retirement,
there is a need to study the conditions surrounding such transfers of ownership as well as their
consequences (Bennedsen et al., 2007; Nordqvist & Melin, 2010; Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et
al., 2013; Parker & van Praag, 2012).
The qualitative study of Lambrecht (2005) has outlined five ways for successful family business
succession. The first way is when the successor took the lead because of their interest, motivation
and ambitions. The second way is at the explicit request of the successor because he/she wants to
work with the family members in order to maintain the health of the business. The third way arises
from a moral sense of the duty among the successors, when they choose to remain involved in the
family business so that they may not disappoint the predecessor. The fourth way involves the
predestination, when the successors labeled the transfer as being self-evident. The fifth way was a
predecessor giving possible successors and indirect soft push from behind by influencing studies
of possible successors (Lambrecht, 2005).
3.1 Individual factors
At an individual level, personal factors may affect the family business succession from the side of
a successor or the side of the predecessor. Whatley (2011) suggests that personal factors greatly
influence the succession in the family business. The literature on succession asserts that problems
occur due to factors that operate at the individual level (De Massis et al., 2008).
51
With regard to successor related factors, the literature suggests that for a succession to be
successful, a successor should have the required skills to take the leadership of the family business
(De Massis et al., 2008). The will and commitment of a successor is also important in the process
of family business succession (De Massis et al., 2008; Pramodita Sharma & Rao, 2000). The
successor’s willingness to take over depends on his/her commitment to the family; his/ her
maturity, and the degree of his/her exhibited responsibility (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009). The
character and values based on integrity are the most important attribute of a potential successor
(De Massis et al., 2008; Pramodita Sharma & Rao, 2000). Personality plays an important role in
the process of family business succession. Pramodita Sharma et al. (2000) outlined a list of
desirable successor attributes and personality characteristics: creativity, independence, integrity,
intelligence, self-confidence, and a willingness to take risks. The more the successor’s personal
needs and career interests are aligned with opportunities offered by the family business, the better
the chances are that the successor will be willing to take over the family business (Alkaabi &
Dixon, 2014; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, the relationship between the potential successor and non-family managers can affect
either positively or negatively the family business succession (Bruce & Picard, 2006; De Massis
et al., 2008). The literature describes the process factors as the factors which deal with preparing
the successor, evaluating the successor, and communicating with the family business’ key
stakeholders in order to improve the individual and relationship factors that may influence
succession (De Massis et al., 2008). Involving the potential successor in decision making and
assigning him/her a clear role in the process of family business succession is one of the most
motivating factors to takeover.
It is important for the incumbent to involve the successor in the business as early as possible in
order for him or her to gain experience because the readiness of the successor depends on a number
of variables that are easily measurable and refer to the knowledge, skills and overall grounding of
the successor (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009). In addition, the willingness of the incumbent to involve
the successor is also indicated as a factor which bound the successor to the family business
succession (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001a). For effective family business succession, a potential
successor should have abilities to meet the strategic plans of the family business such as education,
technological skills, managerial skills, and financial management skills (Brockhaus, 2004).
52
In their quantitative study, Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert (2012b) show that personal factors
have the highest impact on the succession process in the family business with the impact level of
0.469. Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert (2012a) found that the relationship between the intra-
family relationship and personal factors has the coefficient of 0.118, which is considered to be
fairly weak compared to the coefficient of 0.398 that represents the relationship between the
contextual factor and personal factor (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012a). Based on the
findings of Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert (2012a) it indicates that personal factors are among
constructs that have the highest level on the effectiveness of the succession process. We suggest
that further research may be conducted on this issue in comparison with multiple countries.
3.1.1 Age
Age can play an important role in the family business succession process. Research indicates that
young family business leaders tend to be more risk-takers than the older ones (Stavrou, 1999).
When the manager is older, the changes of the family business managerial success is higher than
for the ones with younger managers (Amran & Ahmad, 2010). The fact that the successor’s age
goes proportionally with management experience, is often the reason why investors have less
confidence in young successors (Amran & Ahmad, 2010). The age of each member of the dyad
affects how they experience succession and whether they are more or less likely to make adaptive
progress (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007). The literature has found that as the incumbents get older,
they tend to approach succession from a more competitive and less collaborative approach (Brun
de Pontet et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2006). The research suggests that as managers grow older,
they become more reliant on their own source of information for making decisions, more
conservative, less likely to take risk and less flexible in handling conflict (Marshall et al., 2006).
Due to the implication of age in the success of succession in the family firm, this study supports
the call of Schroder, Schmitt-Rodermund, and Arnaud (2011) that parents should empower and
actively involve their children into the business early, to prepare them for the heavy responsibility
of family business ownership.
The results of qualitative research conducted by Vera and Dean (2005) suggest that the average
time of succession (37 years) was slightly younger than previously reported findings. Only one
case was reported when a daughter took over the family business when she was in her 20s, with
53
half of the respondents taking over the business in their late 30s, and 40% during their 40s (Vera
& Dean, 2005).
In a quantitative study conducted by Brun de Pontet et al. (2007), age was normatively related to
the handover of the family business to the next generation (Leaders: M = 61.76, SD = 7.89;
Successors: M = 33.85, SD = 7.75). Therefore, there should be further investigation of how the
ages of the successor or predecessor separately affect family business succession.
Finding 11: Age plays a very important role in family business succession because the more
incumbents get older, the succession process get easier. But on the other side, the age of a successor
plays a role on succession process. Despite the innovative ideas and initiatives of younger
successors which mostly improve the performance of the family business, but they are the high-
risk takers as well. This may affect positively or negatively the succession of the family business.
Therefore, incumbents are advised to prepare their potential successors to take over the family
business from an early age.
3.1.2 Gender
Gender is also an important factor which influences family business succession (Vera & Dean,
2005). According to the literature, daughters historically were excluded in the succession of family
business (Stavrou, 1999; Vera & Dean, 2005). Not only the first-born daughters were not selected
as successors but some owners preferred to sell their businesses instead of putting daughters in
leadership role (Vera & Dean, 2005). For many family businesses, male successors are preferred
compared to female relatives, and in some cases the eldest son becomes the uncontested successor
(Amran & Ahmad, 2010). Some family businesses in the USA see the choice of a daughter as a
successor as undesirable (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Fox et al., 1996). There is also a perception that
males perform better than females which explains why male successors tend to receive greater
family support (Amran & Ahmad, 2010). However, generally speaking, compared to the past,
daughters and wives are now rising into leadership positions of family businesses in larger
numbers (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Stavrou, 1999). Some research findings reveal that the level of
gender neutrality in family businesses is increasing (Pramodita Sharma & Rao, 2000; Stavrou,
1999). Vera and Dean (2005) suggest two reasons that explain this discrimination, one is
54
overprotection from the father for the daughter to not face the managerial problems of family
business and another one is work-life balance considerations.
Research indicates that females are disadvantaged in the succession process of the family business
(Schröder & Schmitt-Rodermund, 2013; Schroder et al., 2011; Stavrou, 1999). Females often take
over the family firm only when all the siblings are female and, in many cases, women prefer to
seek employment outside of the family business (Schroder et al., 2011). Despite parental beliefs
about gender equality, there is a continuing tendency for a son, rather than a daughter, to take over
the family business (L. Glover, 2014; Mathews & Blumentritt, 2015; Vera & Dean, 2005). The
attitudes now tending towards equality of the sexes promotes the opinion that females are eligible
successors (L. Glover, 2014). Based on culture, family business succession is a process that is
mainly male dominated in the sense that it is generally biased against females (Wang, 2010).
Despite the culture diversity, it is often daughters who experience undue barriers in selection
(Wang, 2010).
With regards to gender, qualitative results show how the wife/mother often played a leading role
in succession, even when she was not active in the family business, as guardian of the family
values, advisor to the husband, and binding agent between the family and the business (Lambrecht,
2005). With regards to discrimination based on gender Vera and Dean (2005) reported qualitative
results from interviews: “If you prove yourself through performance, they don’t care if you are
female or male” another one said “Everybody was waiting for me to fail. I think if my brother had
taken over, they never would expect that, because he is a man.”, another said “To this day, people
act very surprised when I am introduced as president. I usually hear ‘wow, a woman’. Maybe
because this is male dominated industry. But I can show that I know what I am doing” (Vera &
Dean, 2005). While girls are excluded because of gender, boys can be excluded because of personal
characteristics such as health, skills and availability (Keating & Little, 1997)
Quantitative results show that for the current ladder, as was not significant (Brun de Pontet et al.,
2007). The age of successor was positively associated with share ownership, Wald = 10.30, df =
1, b= 0.10, p < 0.00 (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007). While for the incumbent, age was unrelated to
whether he /she currently held the title of CEO. For the successor, however, age was a significant
predictor, indicating that older successors are more likely to hold an executive position than were
55
younger successors, Wald = 12.47, df = 1, b= 0.13, p < 0.00 (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007).
Significantly, in this quantitative research, the successors reported perceiving significantly more
control when there was more clarity on choice for successor, F (1, 93) = 12.21, R2 = 0.07, b= 0.29,
p < 0.01; the business was further along with the succession process, F (1, 93) = 9.93, R2 = 0.06,
b= 0.26, p < 0.00; the leader had more confidence in the successor’s leadership abilities, F (1, 93)
= 6.37, R2 = 0.04, b= 0.20, p < 0.01; and there was more confidence about stakeholders’ reaction
to succession, F (1, 93) = 12.13, R2 = 0.07, b= 0.28, p < 0.00 (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007).
Schröder et al. (2011) indicate that girls display high likelihood to opt for employment than to
succeed into the family business. Girls showed also a higher inclination to start a new firm than to
succeed the family business (Schroder et al., 2011). Girls are motivated to integrate the family
business only if they bring along the ability, competencies and skills to stick to their objectives
even against the odds (Schroder et al., 2011).
Finding 12: Gender is one of the factors affecting family business succession. The females are not
considered as successors for many societies depending on their cultures. Despite the importance
of gender in the process of succession in family business, the theme is less developed. Therefore,
future researchers should concentrate more on gender in different cultures from different countries,
to see the levels it affects family business succession.
3.1.3 Birth order
Birth order is one cited factor that affects the process of family business succession. The literature
on family business succession assumes that the eldest sons of owners will be their successors (Fox
et al., 1996; Tatoglu et al., 2008). In some cases, the first born takes over the business in order to
avoid ambiguity and rivalry within the family (Brockhaus, 2004). Brockhaus (2004) points out
that there is a rising tendency by family businesses to select a successor who is not the eldest son.
In these cases, integrity and capacity are deemed more important than birth order (Brockhaus,
2004; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2000). Nevertheless, the first born is often considered as the first
choice and other siblings look for alternative career in some traditions areas (Albrecht, Gasson,
Errington, Keating, & Keating, 1995; Argent, 1999). On the other hand, a successor may be even
the youngest son, who remained on the farm as a helper until the parent retired or died (Acero &
Alcalde, 2016; Anderson, Duru, & Reeb, 2012; L. Glover, 2014).
56
The results of the qualitative study conducted by Dumas et al. (1995) suggests that succession was
the domain of the youngest in the family, who seemed in some cases, to represent the last case for
succession. In this study, six women out of fifteen were the youngest in the family, while thirteen
out of fifteen were in the youngest third of the family and only one of the women was the oldest
(Dumas et al., 1995). Furthermore, among the men, seven out of fifteen were the youngest, while
nine out of fifteen were in the youngest third of the family and five of the men were the oldest in
the family, which is outstanding difference from the women (Dumas et al., 1995). The quantitative
results on the influence of the birth order indicate that families with strong preferences for male
children and whose first-born child was a girl, would be larger in size than those with male first
born counterparts (Bennedsen et al., 2007).
Finding 13: Birth order plays an important role in family business succession. In some family
businesses, there is a high preference for the first born in the choice of successor, or the last born
for the simple reason that he/she may be still active in the business during the retirement time of
the incubator. Despite the conflicts and grievances which may affect the succession process, this
factor is less developed. Therefore, scholars of management should investigate its effects on the
relationship with other siblings.
3.2 Relationship factors
3.2.1 Successor’s readiness
As it is commonly said, the success without a successor is a failure. Therefore, there is a need to
thoroughly prepare the future generation to take over the family business. The successor’s
readiness depends on the knowledge, skills and his background in general (Morris et al., 1996;
Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009). The education background of a leader is one of the vital factors
ensuring the survival of the family business (Amran & Ahmad, 2010). In the past, family
businesses CEOs were not highly educated (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Brockhaus, 2004).
Nowadays, the family business owners need to pay much more attention to successor’s education
in insuring the survival and growth of the business in the globalized world (Amran & Ahmad,
2010; Ibrahim & McGuire, 2011). Family businesses need to have well educated, knowledgeable
people well equipped with knowledge of the situation in order to survive in the competitive
business environment (Amran & Ahmad, 2010). For effective succession process in family
57
business succession, the education and previous experience of the successor should demonstrate
various skills such as financial skills, marketing/sales skills, interpersonal skills (Dutta, Bhavani,
& Bhavani, 1998; Pramodita Sharma & Rao, 2000). On the issue of education, Georgiou and
Vrontis (2013) and James J Chrisman et al. (1998) suggest that successor’s demonstrated
academic, professional and social skills are helpful to earn credibility and respect within family
businesses and it is associated with the success of succession. The decision making ability,
experience and advanced interpersonal skills were found to be most important as well (Georgiou
& Vrontis, 2013).
Massis et al. (2008) suggest that, if the potential successor does not have the required skills to
manage the family business, it may lead him to refuse the position. Generally, it is argued that
there is a positive relationship between the successor’s ability to lead the business and succession
outcome (Massis et al., 2008). The higher the preparation level that the potential successor has,
the higher the chance that he or she will take over the business after the incumbent steps down
(Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Miller et al., 2003). Equally important to the owner-
manager’s willingness to hand over the family business is that the successor must be interested
and willing to take over the family business (Pramodita Sharma, 2004; Pramodita Sharma et al.,
2000; E. Venter, C. Boshoff, & G. Maas, 2005).
Elmarie Venter et al. (2005) suggest that the credibility of the successor is crucial to his or her
successful integration into the family business because, without credibility the successor cannot
attain legitimacy. Some studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between the
prepared successor and succession success (E. Venter et al., 2005; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
The external experience of the successor matters a lot. Elmarie Venter et al. (2005) suggest that if
successors worked elsewhere before joining the family business, had a formal education, regularly
attended business-related courses and seminars, and received mentoring from someone other than
their parents, they would be more competent and ensure the profitabilty and continuity of the
family business. Reading books and articles on family businesses and attending conferences and
seminers on family business related issues should supliment formal education (Elmarie Venter et
al., 2005). The successor should be able to work independently and provide leadership to the entrire
family business (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Ibrahim & McGuire, 2011; Stephan Van der Merwe,
Elmarie Venter, & Suria M Ellis, 2009).
58
In their quantitative research, Pyromalis and Vozikis (2009) found that the higher degree of the
successor’s readness to more satisfaction of succesion and its effectiveness with p-values 0.015
and 0.033 perspectively. On the other side, Elmarie Venter et al. (2005) indicates the preparation
level of the successor (estimate 0.281; p < 0.001), indicate that the more the successor is prepared,
the more likely it is that the family business will sustain after succession.
Contrary to findings of Stephan Van der Merwe et al. (2009) who published evidence of a
quantitative nature (premised on empirical evidence of the determinants of management
succession planning in small and medium-sized family businesses) both nationally and
internationally is still limited. This study found that the topic was quite developed. This research
suggests that scholars may conduct studies on succession planning comparing developed and
developing countries.
Finding 14: The successor’s readiness plays a vital role in the success of the succession process.
In most cases, the incumbents do not invest much in preparing their successor for their future
responsibility of leadership and ownership of the family business. The rate of the success of the
succession and continuity of the family business is proportional to the rate of successor readiness
to take over the family business. Therefore, scholars should study the role of the successor and the
role of the predecessor in this process of preparedness of readiness of the successor in family
business.
3.2.2 Affective commitment of the successor
The will is very important to achieve many great things. The will of the successor to take over the
family business is very important in the succession process (Morris et al., 1996; Pyromalis &
Vozikis, 2009). Georgiou and Vrontis (2013), James J Chrisman et al. (1998), Pramodita Sharma
et al. (2001b) emphasize on a successor’s willingness to join and serve with commitment in the
family business. Commitment is defined as successor’s willingness to take over the business (S.
D. Goldberg, 1996). Affective commitment has the strongest positive correlation with these
desirable work behaviours, followed by normative commitment (M. K. Cabrera-Suárez & Martín-
Santana, 2012). According to Pramodita Sharma and Irving (2005), affective commitment is based
on individual’s emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the family
59
business. A successor with a high level of commitment to an organization reveals a strong belief
in, acceptance of and excitement about organizational goals (Pramodita Sharma & Irving, 2005).
Commitment is also a key factor traditionally associated with success in family business
succession because committed successors show willingness to develop a professional career in the
family business and to assume the functions of leadership in the business which leads to the success
of succession (M. K. Cabrera-Suárez & Martín-Santana, 2012; Pramodita Sharma & Irving, 2005;
E. Venter et al., 2005). For the success of the successor in terms of maintaining a competitive
advantage, commitment is more important than technical skills (K. Cabrera-Suárez, 2005;
Pramodita Sharma & Irving, 2005). Pyromalis and Vozikis (2009) suggests that the will of
successor to take over the family business and the over-all satisfaction of the succession process
are proportional to the commitment of the family, his maturity and the degree of responsibly
exhibited by him or her.
The will and eagerness of the successor plays a very important role in transferring the family
business to the next generation (Cadieux et al., 2002; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2000). The skills, abilities and performance can increase the successor’s trust,
credibility and legitimacy in the process of the family business succession (Fox et al., 1996;
Pramodita Sharma et al., 2000). Mejbri and Affes (2012) suggest that the commitment of the son
encouraged the predecessor to apply some procedures in order to consolidate the statute of his
successor and, by effect of dependence, to confirm the intention of generational continuity of the
business.
Pramodita Sharma and Irving (2005) suggest that an individual with a high level of affective
commitment to the organization reveals a strong belief in, acceptance of and an excitement about,
the family business goals which leads to the satisfaction of career goals within the context of the
family business. Furthermore, Pramodita Sharma and Irving (2005) indicate that affective
commitment is based on a family member’s strong identification with, and desire to contribute to,
their family business’ success. Affective commitment will exhibit the strongest positive link with
discretionary behaviours displayed by the family members of any basis of commitment (Pramodita
Sharma & Irving, 2005).
60
The quantitative results save proved that the successor’s commitment to take over the family
business ownership affects positively the succession process in terms of satisfaction, (p-value
0.047) and effectiveness (p-value 0.05) (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009).
Finding 15: The affective commitment is determined by the will and commitment of the successor
to take over the leadership and ownership of the family business. Skills, trust, abilities, career
perspectives, nature of the business as well as other related factors may influence the affective
commitment of the successor. Besides its importance, the results indicate that this variable is less
developed in family business succession. To make this variable even better understood, there
should be separate studies of affective (based on desire), normative (based on obligation),
acculturative (based on opportunity costs), and imperative (based on need) commitments in family
business.
3.2.3 Intra-family relationship factors
The nature of the relationships among family members may affect either positively or negatively
the succession process. Literature on family business succession emphasizes the importance of
the relationship between the successor and the incumbent in determining the process, timing, and
effectiveness of the succession (Brockhaus, 2004). S. D. Goldberg (1996), K. Cabrera-Suárez, De
Saá-Pérez, and García-Almeida (2001), Handler (1992), Georgiou and Vrontis (2013) all
emphasized the importance of the quality of the relationship between the incumbent and successor
to the process of the family business succession. Studies that look at the role of family relations in
family business succession could contribute to the better understanding of the role of emotional
process, such as perceived fairness among potential successors and incumbents fear of losing their
business (Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013). Family relationships can determine the future
of the family business (Stavrou, 1999). A good relationship between successor and predecessor
contributes positively in the process of family business succession (Fox et al., 1996; Pramodita
Sharma & Rao, 2000).
In family business succession, the spouses, parents, adult children, and other family relatives play
an important role in the process of the decision making (Ye, Parris, & Waddell, 2013). The
literature suggests that the harmony, consensus and quality of the relationship between the
incumbent and the successor are all essential for succession (De Massis et al., 2008; Kelly,
61
Athanassiou, & Crittenden, 2000). Even though each family member has a role to play in the
process of family business succession, the founder(s) play multiple roles in governing and
managing the family business and they make the most important executive decisions, particularly
for succession (Williams, Zorn, Russell Crook, & Combs, 2013; Ye et al., 2013). The willingness
of the predecessor is also important because when an incumbent is not willing to let go, succession
may be delayed, or worse, commenced and then aborted (Sharma et al., 2001a).
The potential successor must have the trust of family members and should be actively involved in
the business (Brockhaus, 2004). When the family members share the same values and show mutual
respect to each other, the family business succession becomes effective (Pyromalis & Vozikis,
2009). A potential successor needs support and trust from other family members actively involved
in the family business (Brockhaus, 2004). Pyromalis and Vozikis (2009) suggest that the family
members build trust and share the same values and mutual respect for higher satisfaction.
The relationship between predecessor and successor is vital in family business succession (Miller
et al., 2003). Various authors found the positive link between the quality of the relationship and
the success of the succession process (Cadieux et al., 2002; Fox et al., 1996; S. D. Goldberg, 1996;
Kuratko, 1993). The harmony in the family helps in the succession process and creates mutual
understanding among the participants (Fox et al., 1996; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b; Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2000). According to S. D. Goldberg (1996), the sibling relationships can affect the
viability and continuity of many family businesses.
The family members should have a culture of commitment to the success of succession in the
family firm (Kansikas & Kuhmonen, 2008; Pramodita Sharma & Irving, 2005). The quality of the
relationship between the successor and other family members, such as siblings, is also considered
to be important in the succession process (Brockhaus, 2004; Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert,
2012b). Generally, the relations between family members play a very important role in business
harmony and success of succession (Tatoglu et al., 2008). Mutual respect is very important and to
earn it, the next generation family members are expected to prove themselves to other family
members, particularly those that are the founders or owners (Tatoglu et al., 2008).
The quality of relationship between father and son relationships is important because it can affect
the incumbent’s ability to teach and train his own son (Stavrou, 1999). Pramodita Sharma et al.
62
(2003b) argued that because succession is critical to maintain the family’s direct connection with
the business, the level of commitment should be positively associated with the intention to pursue
succession, which leads to successful planning of the family business succession. The quality of
relationship between the predecessor and successor is the critical determinant of the success of the
succession process in the family business (Brockhaus, 2004; J. J. Chrisman et al., 2008; Lansberg
& Gersick, 2015; Elmarie Venter et al., 2005). The quality of the working relationship between
the owner-manager and the successor mediates the association between successor training and both
family cohesion and family adaptability (Elmarie Venter et al., 2005).
When there is not a good relationship between the predecessor and successor there is a risk of the
succession process failing because the successor may decide to leave the family business or simply
the incumbent blocks the appointment (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013; Massis et al., 2008). The
quality of the relationship between family members in general, whether they have a direct
involvement in the family business or not, is vital and its improvement may influence positively
the succession process (Morris et al., 1996). Fattoum and Fayolle (2008) suggest that the
significant improvement of a relationship where there is a low level of mutual respect and
understanding between generations is rare and that is highly dependent on the incumbent’s
openness to learning.
In the qualitative study conducted on Tunisian family firms, Fattoum and Fayolle (2009) suggest
three phases that the relationship between the predecessor and successor go through: first, when
the successor integrates the family business, both are in delicate position. This may create conflict
between the two when for example a father is resistant to innovative ideas of the son. Then, they
start to learn how to work together, which creates harmony, trust and conducive environment due
to effective communication. Lastly, during the phase of retirement, the tension is back and
atmosphere is tense again because the predecessor find himself out of overall control (Fattoum &
Fayolle, 2009). Handler (1991) suggests that an individual’s relationships with siblings and other
relatives involved in the business can have major effect on succession. On the other hand, in their
qualitative results Bigliardi and Ivo Dormio (2009) suggest that unwillingness to the incumbent
to definitely retire from the business and his fear of losing his status in the business were the main
causes of failure that compromised the succession success.
63
Quantitatively, regarding the issue of family relations, Fahed‐Sreih and Djoundourian (2006)
suggest that with the possible exception of prenuptial agreements, which could indicate lack of
trust, are indicative of healthy family relationships. Healthy and amicable family relations are
prerequisites for success and longevity (Fahed‐Sreih & Djoundourian, 2006). Among respondents,
45% indicated they have formal family meetings in addition to shareholder meetings. On the other
side, the impact of the positive relations on satisfaction of family business was at the level of
significance near 0.00 (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009). Elmarie Venter et al. (2005) found that the
relationship between the owner and successor (estimate 0.276; p < 0.01) means that the better
relationship between the owner and the successor, the more succession is successful. The
relationship between the owner and the successor is strongly influenced by family harmony
(estimate 0.574; p < 0.001). Therefore, the more harmonious the relationship between all family
members, the better the relationship between the owner and successor will be (Venter & Boshoff,
2007).
Finding 16: Intra-family relationships play a very important role in the family business succession
process. If there is a good relationship between the successor and the predecessor or with other
family members, it may affect positively the succession process. On the other side, any conflict
among the family members, predecessor and successor, certainly affects negatively the succession.
Therefore, researchers are encouraged to conduct research vis-a-vis the relationships beyond
family members and how such relationships with stakeholders, or other partners, may affect
succession in the family business.
3.2.4 Role of the predecessor
The owner has a significant role in the process of family business succession. Georgiou and Vrontis
(2013) and Breton‐Miller, Miller, and Steier (2004) qualify the family business incumbent as the
most important factor of successful succession. The predecessor should overcome the normal fear
such as losing control, power and his/her influence in the community for the success of family
business succession (Massis et al., 2008; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). The predecessor should
have a trust and capacity of sharing for the success transfer (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). The
founder of the family business displays characteristics of an entrepreneurial personality which is a
64
combination of need for achievement, internal locus of control, creativity, innovativeness and
networking skills (Kansikas & Kuhmonen, 2008).
In the succession process, Tatoglu et al. (2008) asserts that the predecessor adopts consecutively
the roles of the sole operator, monarch, delegator and consultant. In the family business, the role
of predecessor can be determinant in creating an environment that encourages successors to learn
by experience and to accept their mistakes and where they can make significant progress in
developing their self-confidence and managerial autonomy (S. D. Goldberg, 1996; Stavrou, 1999;
E. Venter et al., 2005). An incumbent of the family business can exert a great deal of control over
the process of succession (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a). Mejbri
and Affes (2012) argued that the desire of the owners to maintain control of the family business
influenced their intention to pursue succession and to begin the preparation even before the official
integration of their children in the firm.
The refusal of the incumbent to let go of the family business is the most cited barrier to effective
succession (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). The incumbent’s resistance is based on the fear of
psychological loss in retirement because their work role affords them a level of respect and
admiration that they may not easily find elsewhere (Blombäck & Brunninge, 2013; Brun de Pontet
et al., 2007). When a predecessor is not willing to let go, it may delay or cancel the succession and
the incumbent retains the power and leadership of the family business (Pramodita Sharma et al.,
2001b). Pramodita Sharma et al. (2000) suggest that as most incumbents rely on the business to
fund their retirement, they may not leave the power to the successor when their fear that their
absence may affect the continuity of the family business. Massis et al. (2008) suggest that when
an incumbent is too attached to the business, the potential successor might not be given the
opportunity to develop the skills or get the respect needed to manage the family business. The birth
of new children, or the remarriage or divorce of the incumbent during the succession process, may
delay succession (Massis et al., 2008).
The quantitative study conducted by (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a) suggests that the
predecessor’s propensity to step aside (t=2.85, P<.01) is related to the success of the succession
period and the firm thereafter. The incumbent will be more satisfied with succession process when
65
they are in control of the result, and if the decision was more consistent with their views on who
was a suitable successor (Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003a).
Finding 17: The predecessor plays a very important role in the success or failure of succession in
family business. In most cases, due to fear of losing power and influence, they do not easily let go
the leadership to the successor. But again, the role may differ from the funding family business
owner to the incumbent of the second, third or more generations. Therefore, there should be further
research on the role of the predecessor based on consecutive generations to the succession, in order
to see if the predecessor of the first generation may play the same role as the one of the second or
third generation or more.
3.3 Succession process characteristics
3.3.1 Succession Planning
The planning function is a very important function of management of any business. Succession
planning is one of the most challenging tasks facing family business managers and the most studied
topic in the family business succession, is succession planning (Benavides-velasco, Quintana-
garcía, & Guzmán-parra, 2013; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003b; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2000;
Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009). According to S. D. Goldberg (1996), the succession planning
process is acted up with hope of selecting and preparing the right successor. The literature reveals
that succession planning has positive effects on the succession process (Fox et al., 1996; Pyromalis
& Vozikis, 2009).
Fox et al. (1996) describes how succession planning is a topic that is approached with uncertainty
because it imposes a wide variety of significant changes on the family firm: family relationships
need to be restored, traditional patterns of influence are redistributed, and longstanding
management and ownership structures must give way to new structures (Brockhaus, 2004).
Succession planning, or the lack of it, is the single most important reason why many first
generation of family owned businesses’ fail (Whatley, 2011). Succession planning should be
initiated at a very early stage in the descendant’s life (Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Stavrou, 1999).
According to Stavrou (1999), the planning process involves the identification of the pool of
potential successors, the actual designation of the successors, and the notification of the successor
66
designate and other major power figures of designation by the predecessor or by appropriate higher
authority. On the other side, with regards to succession planning, the founder controls the process
entirely, the founder consults with selected family members, the founder works with the
professional advisors and the founder works with family involvement (Tatoglu et al., 2008).
Despite the importance of and availability of a well written succession plan shared with key
stakeholders in succession process (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Lansberg & Gersick, 2015), it is
something that many fail to provide (J. H. Astrachan, Pieper, Sciascia, & Mazzola, 2013; Brun de
Pontet et al., 2007). A failure to appropriately prepare for succession has been cited as major barrier
to survival of the family business (Bizri, 2016). Succession planning is very important in
minimizing the risks inherent in transfer and continuity of the family businesses (J. J. Chrisman,
Sharma, & Taggar, 2007; Mejbri & Affes, 2012). Unfortunately, the researchers believe that many
family businesses leave succession planning to chance (Cadieux et al., 2002; Dyck et al., 2002;
Mejbri & Affes, 2012; Morris et al., 1996). The failure to plan for succession is one of the main
barriers to the continuity of the family business (Stephan Van der Merwe et al., 2009; Elmarie
Venter et al., 2005).
Stephan Van der Merwe et al. (2009) suggest that a formal written succession plan, incorporating
a step by step approach to dealing with all the practical and psychological aspects of the succession
process will prove greatly beneficial. Also, the lack of a succession plan can be culturally
orientated, as some cultures do not openly discuss mortality, especially of beloved and respected
elders (Bizri, 2016; Stephan Van der Merwe et al., 2009). On this issue, Pramodita Sharma et al.
(2001b) suggest that the absence of succession planning, the sudden departure of the founder-
manager can cause major upheavals of power and authority, conflict among successors and thorny
estate issues.
In their quantitative study, Stéphan Van der Merwe et al. (2009) show that succession planning
explains 44% of variance in the expected outcome of the succession, which is also important in
practice. While the perceived suitability of the successor explains, in addition to succession
planning, a further 6.9% of variance in the expected outcome of the succession, which is of
medium practical importance (Stephan Van der Merwe et al., 2009). On the other side, in their
research, Pyromalis and Vozikis (2009) found that with p-values approaching 0.00 and 0.001, the
67
higher the degree of succession planning, the higher the level of overall satisfaction with the family
business satisfaction process. These results support existing literature which asserts that
succession planning increases the probability of a successful succession outcome and increases the
level of satisfaction as well as better financial performance (Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009; Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2003a; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). Therefore, similar studies should be
expanded to other countries where this variable is less studied, such as in countries in Africa, Asia
and Latin America.
Finding 18: Based on the results, succession planning is the most studied topic in the family
business. Mostly, the focus was on the role of the predecessor to prepare the successor, yet even
other stakeholders may play a role in succession planning. The results may differ if the succession
planning is done earlier or a bit later in the process. Therefore, scholars should conduct further
research on the level of effects of succession planning based on the time it starts.
3.4 Financial factors
Financial aspects may influence the succession in macro or micro contexts. Finance plays a role
in the process of family business succession (Massis et al., 2008). When among siblings, only one
is willing to continue with the family business, others may sell their shares and when the successor
cannot afford the purchase, then they will seek external finance (Massis et al., 2008).
The financial aspects may be explained by the economical situation. Since management succession
is usually accompanied or followed by ownership succession, the tax burden associated with the
transition (e.g., inheritance) could exceed the family’s liquid resources (De Massis et al., 2008).
The economic context can affect the succession of the family business based on changes in market
conditions, its growth slowing or declining, increased competition (Cespedes & Galford, 2004; De
Massis et al., 2008; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b). There is a positive correlation between
business size, monetary and non-monetary rewards and the intentions of a potential successor to
join the family business (De Massis et al., 2008; E. Venter et al., 2005). Some studies of the impact
of succession on financial factors of family business are based mainly on cross-sectional data,
investigating capital structure differences between founder-controlled and descendant controlled
family business but the reduction in control would again significantly decrease the likelihood of
intra-family succession (De Massis et al., 2008; Molly et al., 2010). Therefore, despite the positive
68
effect of succession on debt financing, other studies find a negative relation between succession
and debt financing (Molly et al., 2010).
It is suggested that in sibling partnerships there is a lower willingness to bear risk compared to
controlling owners and cousin consortiums because increased levels of loss aversion, goal
misalignment, and conflicts among family members reduce these firms’ incentive to use debt to
fund their investments (Molly et al., 2010; Schulze et al., 2003). The literature states that
descendants are less willing to undertake risky activities because they usually have invested large
amounts of capital to buy themselves into the company (Molly et al., 2010; Dean A Shepherd &
Andrew Zacharakis, 2000). It is stated that when the incumbent has many heirs, but only one or a
few intend to remain involved in the family firm, the other heirs may wish to sell their shares (De
Massis et al., 2008). In the context of family business succession, financial sunk costs would
include the "Buy In" costs the money the successor had to invest into the family business in order
to obtain management control (Dean A. Shepherd & Andrew Zacharakis, 2000). In order to explain
how the financial factors may affect family business succession, the literature suggest that
unearned gains are not perceived to be as valuable as earned gains and are therefore more readily
spent (or gambled) (Dean A. Shepherd & Andrew Zacharakis, 2000).
With regard to the influence of financial factors to family business succession, it is estimated that
the probability of family business succession are often based on standard family business income
and size (Calus, Van Huylenbroeck, & Van Lierde, 2008). Specifically, the literature suggests that
taxing successions can discourage firm investment and growth, and may even force entrepreneurs
or successors to sell their firms in order to meet their tax liability (Tsoutsoura, 2015). Fiscal regime
influences the succession process, the type of transition, the development of a firm after
succession, and which firms are transferred (Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013). Taxation
can also affect the succession process because of the difficulties in understanding the complicated
legal regulations (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b; Malinen, 2004). While the family
business with potential to generate high financial payoffs is more likely to be attractive to the
potential successor, a family business that has low expected financial payoffs may be of limited
interest to the next generation of family members (Brockhaus, 2004; Pramodita Sharma et al.,
2001b).
69
The qualitative results show that financial factors may influence the succession at micro
environment to the point that, for the sake of financial independence, many families wished to
keep ownership of the business in their own hands (Lambrecht, 2005). The fact that family
businesses require a lot of sacrifices often gives a feeling that a loss of ownership would be
emotionally intolerable (Lambrecht, 2005).
Quantitatively, (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012a) found that the financial factor has an
impact on the succession process in family business with coefficients of 0.199. In their comparison,
the financial and intra-family relationships factor had lesser impact (Chaimahawong &
Sakulsriprasert, 2012a). The financial variables have been studied at both individual level and
organizational level at the same time. Therefore, scholars should differentiate the factors of
financial factors at individual levels and organizational levels and how they affect the succession
in family businesses.
Finding 19: The financial factors which affect family business succession. When the family
business does not perform well financially, the potential successor may not be interested to
continue with the business. When the family business is struggling with tax payment, the
successors may avoid bearing the risk and prefer to look for opportunities somewhere else.
Therefore, researchers should go deep by investigating the effects of financial factors to micro and
macro environment of the family businesses separately.
3.5 Context factors
The context is one of the factors that affect the succession in family businesses. Contextual factors
are associated with changes in the economic environment that has effects on family business
succession (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b). Changes in the macro or micro
environment of the business can influence either positively or negatively the succession process in
family businesses. The literature identifies two categories of context: macro context which
includes societal and cultural contexts and micro context which has individual and family contexts
(De Massis et al., 2008; Wang, 2010).
Breton‐Miller et al. (2004) suggest that succession is a social and family process influenced by
cultural circumstances and social context of the business. From this point of view, Georgiou and
70
Vrontis (2013) summarize contextual factors from the literature into the following components:
family dynamics, board of directors, incumbent-successor expectations, organizational
performance, transfer of capital, organizational size and age, succession monitoring and reflective
feedback. It has been proved that with regards to individualism and collectivism paradigm,
individualistic oriented people will tend to interpret and handle both family and business issues
differently from collectivistic oriented people (Colot & Bauweraerts, 2014; Ye et al., 2013).
According to the resource-based view of the firm, competitive advantage results from the ability
of firms to use resources, heterogeneously distributed across competing firms and tend to be stable
over time (Orsato, 2006). Competitive environments play a very important role in the process of
family business succession (S. D. Goldberg, 1996; Marceau, Aldrich, & Aldrich, 1991; Stavrou,
1999). The national context is also important in the process of succession especially in firm
demographics and cultural factors (Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al., 2013; Pramodita Sharma &
Rao, 2000; Stavrou, 1999; Venter & Boshoff, 2007). Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al. (2013)
suggests that demographic aspects influence successions since family businesses in region with
rapidly aging populations may experience more options for succession processes if the entry of
outsiders is considered a viable alternative to intra-family transition.
Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert (2012b) suggest that if change in market conditions increase
the probability for business failure, the incumbent is likely to transfer the business to his or her
potential successor. Generally, the uncertainty or fear of failure push the incumbent to sell the firm
(Elmarie Venter et al., 2005). Furthermore, the context may influence succession because
uncertainties and contingencies in the business environment affect the distribution of power and
control within family business and this distribution, in turn, influences selection and replacement
of successors (De Massis et al., 2008). The size of the family business also may influence the
decision of the successor to take over the leadership (Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert, 2012b).
When the firm is larger the opportunity of the successor to join the business is high, and when the
size is small, the successor may not be interested by its monetary rewards (Chaimahawong &
Sakulsriprasert, 2012b).
From the qualitative results of Lambrecht (2005), six stepping stones to family business succession
were enumerated. The first stepping stone was entrepreneurship, which stands for the transfer of
71
knowledge, management values, entrepreneurial characteristics, and the soul of the family
business to next generations. The second stepping stone was studies whereby, most successors
earned and advanced degree before full time entry into the family business. The third is that
literature demonstrates that larger family businesses sometimes provide formal internal education
for family members at a young age (Lambrecht, 2005; Tifft & Jones, 1999). The fourth stepping
stone was the acquisition of external experience in other companies, whether or not abroad. Along
with knowledge and worldly wisdom, the successors gained self-confidence. The fifth stepping
stone which is an individual’s official entrance in to the family business Lambrecht (2005)
distinguishes between beginning at the bottom of the ladder, freedom for and by the successors.
At this stage, before the succeeding generation held a management position, it generally passed
through various departments in the business and both predecessors and successors underscored the
importance of freedom for the new generation when it officially started in the family business
(Lambrecht, 2005). The sixth and the last stepping stone related to written plans and agreements,
Lambrecht (2005) suggests that there must be a consideration to the measures needed in the event
such as death or resignation of a family member. Even though the written plans were not an
absolute guarantee for a successful transfer, poor planning could prove costly for the business and
the family (Lambrecht, 2005). Miller et al. (2003) suggest that most problems related to succession
are inattention to the marketplace and the larger external environment.
In a quantitative study, Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert (2012b) found that context has impact
on the succession process in family business with the coefficients of 0.512. Therefore, the
willingness of the successor to continue the family business depends on how well the successor
understands the business context or industry that the family business operates in (Chaimahawong
& Sakulsriprasert, 2012a).
Finding 20: The context factors have a vital role in family business succession. At micro level, the
business culture and practices may deceive or encourage the successor to take over the business.
At the macro level, the national or regional culture, demographics, education etc. may affect the
succession as well. Therefore, researchers should study deeply and separately the effects of macro
and micro contexts in family business succession.
Synthesis
72
This chapter consists of explaining the factors affecting family business succession according to
the existing literature. As a comprehensive term, succession is the replacement of the leader of a
family business by a successor who must be a member of the same family (Brun de Pontet et al.,
2007). The process of family business succession is made of four phases: the first one is the initial
phase, the second is the integration phase, the third is the joint management phase, and the fourth
and final step is the retirement phase. In the initial phase, the predecessor starts to introduce the
successor in the family business as a part-timer especially in the holidays. The integration phase
is when the successor is fully integrated in the business. Joint management is when the successor
participates in the management of the family business is an advanced phase of the mentorship.
And the retirement phase it is when the predecessor fully steps out and leaves the business in the
hands of the successor.
The factors affecting family business succession were grouped into individual factors, relationship
factors, succession process characteristics, financial factors, and context factors.
At an individual level, personal factors such as age, gender and birth order may affect the family
business succession from the side of a successor or the side of the predecessor. These individual
factors appear in micro environment and in relationship factors. Age was found as the factor
affecting family business succession on both sides, one on the side of the predecessor, when
advanced in age, he may be more conservative in decision-making. But also when the predecessor
is advanced in age, succession planning becomes easier. On the side of the successor, when he/she
is younger, the less they will be trusted by stakeholders.
Among the relationship factors we have the successor’s readiness, the affective commitment of
the successor, intra-family relationship factors and the role of the predecessor. With regards to the
successor’s readiness, the predecessor plays a vital role to educate and prepare the potential
successor for the future leadership and ownership of the family business. For affective
commitment, there should be a great will and commitment of the successor to take over the family
business. The intra-family relationships also play a vital force in the succession process. When
there are not good relationships between predecessor and successor or other family members, it
can affect negatively the succession. At the same time, good relationships lead to successful
73
succession and continuity of the family businesses. The predecessor plays a vital role in preparing
and making the succession a success.
There are also succession process characteristics which have succession planning as a component.
Succession was found to be among the more developed topics in family business succession
literature. Succession planning is the one factor that determines the success in the process of the
succession. Many business incumbents do not plan succession ahead of time.
There are also financial and contextual factors which both appear at the same time in the macro
and micro environments of the family business. The financial situation of the family business or
of the nation or the region may influence either positively or negatively family business succession.
On the level of context, as the culture varies from one society to other societies it may have positive
or negative influence on succession in the family business.
Succession planning and the successor’s readiness are studied mainly before the succession. The
period of the personal factors such as age, gender, birth order, demography etc. may vary
depending on one culture to another. All other variables are studied at the same time at before,
during and after succession period.
74
The definition of these variables and their sources are highlighted in Table 7
Variables Variable components Definition Main bibliographic sources
Ind
ivid
ual
fact
ors
Personal factors The personal factors are the forces from
within the individual that influence the
process of family business succession
(Lam, 2011).
Sharma & Rao, 2000; Pyromalis & Vozikis,
2009, Bruce & Picard, 2006; Brockhaus,
2004; Kansikas & Kuhmonen, 2008,
Sharma et al., 2003, Shepherd, D. A., &
Zacharakis, A. (2000).
Age Age increases likelihood of disability or
death and it forces the predecessor to hand
over the famaily business to the successor
(Marshall et al., 2006). Age of potential
successors is likely to influence family
businesses’ choice between internal or
external succession (Wiklund et al., 2013).
Amran & Ahmad, 2010, Brun de Pontet et
al., 2007, Marshall et al., 2006, Stavrou,
1999, (Wiklund et al., 2013)
Gender Gender is the most significant determinant
of succession outcomes and, in the case of
sons versus daughters (Wang, 2010).
Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Fox et al., 1996, L.
Glover, 2014, Mathews & Blumentritt,
2015; Schröder & Schmitt-Rodermund,
2013; Schroder et al., 2011, Stavrou, 1999,
Vera & Dean, 2005
Birth order Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al. (2013)
suggest that birth order is one topic that
should be closely examined because some
studies argued that most entrepreneurs are
the first-born children and other say that
later-born siblings are more likely to
engage in innovation and creativity than
first born siblings.
Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Albrecht, Gasson,
Errington, Keating, & Keating, 1995;
Anderson, Duru, & Reeb, 2012; Argent,
1999, Brockhaus, 2004; Fox et al., 1996;
Tatoglu et al., 2008, L. Glover, 2014,
Nordqvist, Wennberg, Bau, et al. (2013),
Sharma et al., 2000,
75
Rel
ati
on
ship
fact
ors
Successor’s readiness The level of successor’s readiness is
classified into formal education level,
training received from the incumbent,
work experience (outside the firms), entry
level position, and the number of years
working with the family businesss before
the succession occurred (Cabrera-Suarez,
2005)
Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Brockhaus, 2004,
Brun de Pontet et al., 2007; Chaimahawong
& Sakulsriprasert, 2012; Dutta, Bhavani, &
Bhavani, 1998; E. Venter et al., 2005,
Ibrahim & McGuire, 2011, Massis et al.
(2008), Miller et al., 2003, Morris et al.,
1996; Pyromalis & Vozikis, 2009, Sharma
& Rao, 2000, Sharma et al., 2000; Sharma,
2004; Stephan Van der Merwe et al., 2009.
Affective commitment
of the successor
The affective commitment is the desire
that individuals with strong affective
commitment want to pursue a course of
action (M. K. Cabrera-Suárez & Martín-
Santana, 2012). Commitment is also
defined as the successor’s willingness to
take over the business (Cabrera-Suarez,
2005; M. A. Goldberg, 2007; S. D.
Goldberg, 1996)
Cadieux et al., 2002; E. Venter et al., 2005,
Elmarie Venter et al., 2005, Fox et al., 1996;
Goldberg, 1996, M. K. Cabrera-Suárez &
Martín-Santana, 2012, Mejbri and Affes
(2012), Morris et al., 1996; Pyromalis and
Vozikis (2009) , Sharma & Irving, 2005;
Sharma et al., 2000, Sharma et al., 2001b
Intra-family
relationship factors
Intra-family relationship is characterized
by the respect of actively involved family
members, respect of non-involved family
members, trust of family members, and
ability to get along with family members
(James J Chrisman et al., 1998; Pramodita
Sharma et al., 2000)
Brockhaus, 2004; Kelly, Athanassiou, &
Crittenden, 2000; Williams,Zorn, Russell
Crook, & Combs, 2013; Pyromalis &
Vozikis, 2009; Sharma et al., 2001a;
Howorth, C., & Zahra Assaraf, A. (2001);
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R.
N. (2003),
Cespedes, F. V., & Galford, R. M. (2004).
Role of the predecessor Therefore, for the next generation to
acquire these kinds of abilities and tacit
Boyd et al., 2014, Brun de Pontet et al.,
2007; E. Venter et al., 2005,
76
knowledge, there should be a quick
mentoring and strategic planning to make
the succession process quicker and more
flexible (Boyd et al., 2014).
Goldberg, 1996; Kansikas & Kuhmonen,
2008), Massis et al. (2008), Mejbri and
Affes (2012) , Miller et al., 2003, Pramodita
Sharma et al. (2000), Sharma et al., 2001b,
Sharma et al., 2003a, Stavrou, 1999; Tatoglu
et al. (2008).
Su
cces
sion
pro
cess
ch
aract
eris
tics
Succession Process Succession is continuous process whereby
leadership and power transfer from one
family member to the next, while
maintaining positive family relationship
and enabling the business to expand and
prosper (Chaimahawong &
Sakulsriprasert, 2012a).
Laakkonen & Kansikas, 2011; Wang, 2010;
Lam, 2011; Mitchell, Hart, Valcea, &
Townsend, 2009; Howorth & Zahra Assaraf,
2001; Chaimahawong & Sakulsriprasert,
2012; Colot & Bauweraerts, 2014; Van der
Merwe et al., 2009.
Succession Planning Succession planning means to make the
required arrangements according to the
future needs of the family business in order
to guarantee the harmony of the family and
the continuity of the business through the
next generation (Georgiou & Vrontis,
2013).
Pramodita Sharma et al. (2001b), (J. H.
Astrachan et al., 2013; Brun de Pontet et al.,
2007), (Brun de Pontet et al., 2007;
Lansberg & Gersick, 2015), (Tatoglu et al.,
2008), Stavrou (1999), Fox et al. (1996),
(Amran & Ahmad, 2010; Stavrou, 1999),
(Fox et al., 1996; Pyromalis & Vozikis,
2009), S. D. Goldberg (1996), Benavides-
velasco, Quintana-garcía, & Guzmán-parra,
2013; Sharma et al., 2003b; Sharma et al.,
2000; Stéphan Van der Merwe et al., 2009)
77
Con
text
fact
ors
Context factors Context factors are considered as forces
from outside the individual that influence
the effectiveness of succession (Lam,
2011).
De Massis, Chua, & Chrisman, 2008;
Wang, 2010; Lussier & Sonfield, 2012; Ye,
Parris, & Waddell, 2013; De Massis et al.,
2008; Ye, Parris, & Waddell, 2013,
Laakkonen, A., & Kansikas, J. (2011);
Bigliardi, B., & Ivo Dormio, A. (2009).
Fin
an
cial
fact
ors
Financial factors Financial factors include the factors
related to limitations in the company’s
financial resources in terms of the current
tax burden and the cost of obtaining
external financing and influence the
succession (Chaimahawong &
Sakulsriprasert, 2012a).
Cespedes & Galford, 2004; Sharma et al.,
2001a; E. Venter, C. Boshoff, & G. Maas,
2005; Molly, Laveren, & Deloof, 2010;
Dean A Shepherd & Andrew Zacharakis,
2000; Calus, Van Huylenbroeck, & Van
Lierde, 2008; Tsoutsoura, 2015; Calus, M.,
Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Van Lierde, D.
(2008).
Table 7: Variables affecting the process of family business succession and sources
78
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This research discusses the issues of central importance for an understanding of the factors
affecting the process of family business succession that were found in the literature. Although
many researchers and practitioners were interested in family business/firm research as a whole
(Evert (De Massis et al., 2008; Evert et al., 2015; Neus Feliu & Isabel C Botero, 2015), other
researchers focused on family business succession (Brockhaus, 2004; Kansikas & Kuhmonen,
2008; Royer et al., 2008). An important number of scholars focus mainly on succession process
(Pramodita Sharma et al., 2003b). There is not yet a published review of the literature on the factors
affecting family business succession. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to elucidate a clear
understanding of the previous literature on the factors affecting the process of family business
succession and outline the agenda for future research in this area (Evert et al. 2015, Brockhaus,
2004).
This study is very important because even though family businesses perform and live longer than
non-family businesses, when the succession fails it affects immediately the whole family business.
In conducting the present systematic literature review to achieve the objectives of the research,
two research questions were formulated: what are the factors affecting the process of the family
business succession? And; how do these factors affect the family business succession? Using the
selected keywords, the researcher searched articles by using electronic database such as Business
Source Complete, ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic Search Complete.
The findings show that a total of 56 empirical studies which were published between 1986 and
2015 and which satisfy the criteria for inclusion or exclusion were retained. Among 56 articles
retained, 66% were published in the last ten years. There is an increased trend in research into
family business succession. The literature shows that 30% of family businesses survive past the
first generation and only 10% to 15% survive into the third generation. The scholarly researches
into family business succession are undertaken at individual, interpersonal/group, organizational
and societal levels. The findings of this research indicate that among identified studies 54% focus
on the organizational level, 30% focus on individual levels and 16% focus on individual and
organizational levels at the same time. The fact that the multi-level analysis is less significant in
this study, suggests that scholars should emphasis the link between temporal perceptions,
79
orientation and style of the family members at the individual, firm and industry levels to succession
outcome (Evert et al., 2015).
The majority of selected studies were quantitative (61%), and contrary to previous studies, more
than a quarter (27%), were qualitative and only 12% were mixed. The researchers on family
business succession should use the mixed methods of research which seem to be less developed
according to the results of the study. The use of mixed methods gives triangulation basis for
convergence. A big percentage of the studies use survey 46%, another important percentage was
case studies 17%, 14% used in-depth interviews as data collection methods. The interviews were
conducted with predecessors and successors, family and non-family business members etc. Other
methods, such as exploratory studies, semi-directive interviews as well as snowball sampling
techniques were explored. Different methods of data analysis were used in selected articles of this
systematic literature review: With regards to methods of data analysis, about 20% of studies in
family business succession t-test methods. 15% on regression based methods of data analysis, 10%
used structural equation model, 10% longitudinal, some other studies approached family business
succession using descriptive statistics 5%, and other methods such as cross-sectional 5%, ANOVA
and MANOVA test 5%, ANCOVA and Least Significant Difference 5%, comparative 5%, actual
formulation 5%, non-parametric matching approach 5%, and non-parametric chi square test 5%.
Geographically, many of studies were conducted in North America (USA=12 and CANADA=11).
It has been found that the family business is the most important in the economy and social well
being in the USA and Canada. There are less researchers who tend to use the sample of many
countries. In this study, 89% of identified articles were on a single country, and only 11% focused
on multiple countries.
The literature of family business succession is less developed in developing countries and it is
more developed in developed countries. It was found that scholars of family business succession
focus less in Africa, South America and Asia and focus mainly in developed countries of North
America and Europe. Though in this study many scholars do not specify the sector of activity, the
activity was taken into consideration. The research was conducted in the various sectors such as
farming, automobile distribution, hospitality and service, industrial and commercial,
manufacturing, real estate, wholesale and retail, non-financial firms, etc. In the research 22/56
identified studies were conducted on family business during and after succession, 20 before, during
80
and after succession, 7 before and during succession, 4 before succession and 3 of them were after
succession.
This systematic review makes two contributions: the first contribution is to provide a detailed and
exhaustive systematic literature review of the factors affecting the succession in family business.
The field of family business succession approaches nearly three decades of development (Evert et
al. 2015). This shows how important it was to carry out a systematic literature review on existing
empirical studies. The second contribution aims at suggesting the future research perspectives in
this area which will contribute by illustrating the importance of knowledge resources during the
process of family business succession in order to guarantee that efficient transition occurs and that
the business/firm is effective after the succession (Daspit et al. 2015).
Since the national economic impact of the family business is quite important in both developed
(Ibrahim and Guire, 2011; De Massis and al.2008) and developing countries (Farrington and
al.2010; Fattoum and Fayolle, 2008). The study of family business has been widely studied in the
literature by researchers in the past few decades (Short et al. 2016, Sharma, 2015, & Wilson et al.,
2014, Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert, 2013, Bigliardi and Dormio, 2009). There has been an
increase in terms of the total number of articles published in leading academic journals. Therefore,
the impact of these studies on the broader academic and research community and the number of
conferences and journals dedicated to family business across the world show its growing prestige
and acceptance as an established field (Chaimahawong and Sakulsriprasert, 2013, Zahra and
Sharma, 2004).
Limitations and Future directions:
Although this systematic literature review makes valuable contribution to the existing literature on
family business succession, it has some limitations. First, even though all articles published on
factors affecting family business succession were identified, but only empirical studies
(quantitative, qualitative and mixed) were retained ignoring conceptual and theoretical studies that
would have contributed further. Considering only peer reviewed journals, ought to have made
these findings a bit narrow. We acknowledge that limiting this study to only English papers, has
limited the considerable value of papers published in other languages. In this systematic literature
review, the researcher did not deeply investigate why scholars choose to conduct their research
81
before, during and after succession. Despite its great importance, the period of research is less
developed.
The researcher suggests research directions to the future scholars. The future researchers may look
for patterns of change in the longitudinal data being collected, incorporate more psychologically-
oriented variables in the analyses, and to consider the impact of the succession processes of the
family businesses, on its outcome, sustainability and on the health and well-being of the people
involved (family and family members). There is also a need for further research into the
relationship between intentions and attitudes on the side of the parents and on the side of the
siblings and their impact on family business succession.
As suggested by Schroder et al. (2011), scholars should conduct a large sample family research
that incorporates families that consider generational succession as neither a desired nor feasible
option, and families in which the placement of the chosen successor has not occurred. Such a study
could provide some context and illustrate circumstances under which family succession is likely
or unlikely to occur.
Future researchers should investigate the impact of variables such as the activity sector, type, size,
the micro and macro environments, the relationship between predecessor, successor and other
family and non-family members on the succession and continuity of the family businesses. The
scholars in the family business should respond to the early call of Dumas et al. (1995) by
conducting a study on the financial survival and growth strategies that encourage succession
choices, as well as technological, innovational, and educational strategies and choices that help
successors adapt to change. The factors that discourage the decision to pursue succession also
merit further research, especially those related to financial as well as nonfinancial constraints and
the profitability of these family businesses.
There is also a need of a study on the role of outside directors on the board and to management in
the family business succession. Future research could explore research on the effects of conflicts
of interest in the family and non-family managers to the process of family business succession.
Further studies on family business succession should be conducted in developing countries
especially in Africa because this issue is still new in the African context. As suggested by Duh et
al. (2009), another important future research direction is to study factors influencing the growth
82
ambitions of owner-managers of family businesses and how family ownership and management
influence the decision to grow.
Based on the suggestion of Pyromalis and Vozikis (2009) it is still needed to conduct research by
concentrating on examination of the interaction of the succession critical success factors with one
another, as well as a more advanced statistical analysis in order to be able to assign weights and
relative values in order to classify the critical success factors according to their specific impact on
the succession outcome. Furthermore, further research is the expansion of the inquiry of family
succession beyond the farm to other family businesses. Such a study could help inform the question
of whether the processes described here are specific to farms, or whether they are basic processes
in inherent in all types of family businesses. The family business scholars are encouraged to
continue emphases on the succession which is the foundation of the field (Evert et al., 2015; Litz
et al., 2012) by using qualitative methods. Future researchers should conduct a comparative study
of the factors affecting the succession in family businesses and non-family businesses. Future
researchers should conduct research on the differences of female and male potential successors on
intention to succession, considering culture diversity.
The aspects of ethical and moral values were not developed in family business succession, yet it
plays a significant role in the choice of the successor and the continuity of the family business after
succession. Therefore, future researchers should emphasis much more on the role of these variables
to the success of the family business succession.
Implications
This systematic review contributes to practice by identifying the factors affecting family business
succession and how they affect it. Successful succession is a function of the stakeholder’s
satisfaction or organizational profitability (Daspit et al., 2015; Pramodita Sharma et al., 2001b).
The family business owners and managers should put in their mind that success without successors
is a failure. It means that the family business incumbents must prepare, with all means, the
successor from an early age so that at the time of succession, the successor will be ready to take
over the leadership and ownership of the family business. When the preparation is not well done,
the family business cannot survive; neither can it be profitable and sustainable. Therefore, the
incumbents should make sure that they empower the potential successors with skills, knowledge,
83
and experience required to be successful successors. The predecessor should involve the
successors as early as possible to make sure that they get trust from the business members. The
incumbent leader should create a conducive working environment and good relationships among
siblings. The predecessor should cease to see the transfer of the family business as a loss of power
and influence. There should be some written criteria for succession in families with more than one
child, to avoid any kind of conflict after the death of the founder. The successors on the other hand,
should invest much in learning from the predecessor’s good practices in order to be good owners
and leaders of their family firms.
The findings of the study are consistent with some of the theories that provided the foundation of
this study. This study was mainly based on factors affecting family business succession. In this
systematic literature review, 56 empirical articles identified were quantitative, qualitative and
mixed papers. Different methods and techniques of sophisticated systematic literature review were
used to get results.
Family owners, incumbent leaders, successors, family and non-family managers, advisors,
consultants, members of the family business and researchers will all benefit from this study by
understanding the state of current literature and understanding the factors affecting succession in
the family business and how to make the succession a success.
Family business practitioners should understand that when the succession is not prepared ahead of
time, it cannot be successful and consequently it leads to the failure of the family business.
Practitioners should take into consideration the process of family business succession, because the
more the incumbent gets order, the more they develop self-centeredness in the decision-making
process. But at the same time, if the successor is of a young age, there should be an effort to
increase his/her credibility and trust on the side of the stakeholders. The practitioners should
understand the implications of gender in the family business. Based on the culture, there are some
societies which do not consider female siblings as successors, the practitioners should make sure
that all siblings are given equal chance regardless their sex. The practitioners should consider the
issue of birth order in the succession of the family business. Some societies, when the firstborn is
a male, he automatically becomes the successor to the family firms. On the other side, the last born
becomes automatically the successor because, at the time of the retirement, he/she is the one who
84
is still active in the family business with the parents. Such old practices should change and take
into consideration other parameters such as moral and ethical values, commitment and experience
of the successors to give them equal chance. Because it does not mean necessarily that the first or
the last born may be better than other siblings. Practionners should take into consideration the
relationships of the family members and non-family members in the succession process. The
predecessor and successor should be assessed based on their role in avoiding conflict and assuring
success.
The practitioners should make sure that the succession is done when the successor has enough
experience, skills and abilities required to take such high responsibilities of ownership and
leadership of the family business. They should make sure that everything is well done to assure
the commitment and the will of the successor to take over the family business by creating a
conducive environment. Financial factors should be taken into consideration by family business
practitioners for succession, because if the family firm is struggling economically internally or
externally, the potential successors may avoid taking such risk and prefer to look for other
opportunities elsewhere. The practitioners should take into consideration the context of the family
business in the succession process. They should take into consideration the political, economic,
social, technological, ecological and legal context in choosing the successor who may cope with
them.
85
REFERENCES
Acero, I., & Alcalde, N. (2016). Controlling shareholders and the composition of the board:
Special focus on family firms. Review of managerial science, 10(1), 61-83.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0140-x
Al-Dajani, H., Bika, Z., Collins, L., & Swail, J. (2014). Gender and family business: New
theoretical directions. International journal of gender and entrepreneurship, 6(3), 218.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03221.x
Albrecht, D. E., Gasson, R., Errington, A., Keating, N., & Keating, N. (1995). The farm family
business. Rural sociology, 60(1), 166-168.
Alkaabi, S. K., & Dixon, C. (2014). Factors affecting internationalization decision making in
family businesses: An integrated literature review. Journal of applied management and
entrepreneurship, 19(2), 53-77.
Amran, N. A., & Ahmad, A. C. (2010). Family succession and firm performance among malaysian
companies. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(2).
Anderson, R. C., Duru, A., & Reeb, D. M. (2012). Investment policy in family controlled fims.
Journal of banking & finance, 36(6), 1744-1758. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.01.018
Argent, N. (1999). Inside the black box: Dimensions of gender, generation and scale in the
australian rural restructuring process. Journal of rural studies, 15(1), 1-15.
doi:10.1016/s0743-0167(98)00044-8
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of cb-sem and pls-
sem for theory development in family firm research. Journal of family business strategy,
5(1), 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.002
Astrachan, J. H., Pieper, T. M., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2013). Family involvement in the
board of directors: Effects on sales internationalization. Journal of small business
management, 51(1), 83-99. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00373.x
86
Bagby, D. (2004). Enhancing succession research in the family firm: A commentary on “toward
an integrative model of effective fob succession”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
28(4), 329-333.
Bammens, Y., Voordeckers, W., & Gils, A. V. (2008). Boards of directors in family firms: A
generational perspective. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 163-180.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9087-5
Becheikh, N., Ziam, S., Idrissi, O., Castonguay, Y., & Landry, R. (2010). How to improve
knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic
literature review. Research in higher education journal, 7, 1.
Benavides-velasco, C. A., Quintana-garcía, C., & Guzmán-parra, V. F. (2013). Trends in family
business research. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 41-57.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9362-3
Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Perez-Gonzalez, F., & Wolfenzon, D. (2007). Inside the family
firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. Quarterly journal of
economics, CXXII(2), 647-692.
Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2014). Quantitative empirical analysis in
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 949-953.
Bigliardi, B., & Ivo Dormio, A. (2009). Successful generational change in family business.
Measuring Business Excellence, 13(2), 44-50. doi:10.1108/13683040910961207
Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. (2002). Family business research: The
evolution of an academic field. Family Business Review, 15(4), 337-350.
Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Regional influences on the prevalence of family versus non-
family start-ups. Journal of business venturing, 29(3), 421.
Birley, S. (1986). Succession in the family firm: The inheritor's view. Journal of small business
management, 24, 36.
87
Birley, S., Ng, D., & Godfrey, A. (1999). The family and the business. Long Range Planning,
32(6), 598-608. doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(99)00076-x
Bizri, R. (2016). Succession in the family business: Drivers and pathways. International journal
of entrepreneurial behaviour & research, 22(1), 133-154. doi:10.1111/etap.12040, 299-
312.
Blombäck, A., & Brunninge, O. (2013). The dual opening to brand heritage in family businesses.
Corporate communications, 18(3), 327. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2012-0010
Boyd, B., Botero, I. C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2014). Incumbent decisions about succession transitions
in family firms: A conceptual model. International journal of financial studies, 2(4), 335-
358. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijfs2040335
Brenes, E. R., Madrigal, K., & Molina-Navarro, G. E. (2006). Family business structure and
succession: Critical topics in latin american experience. Journal of Business Research,
59(3), 372-374. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.09.011
Breton‐Miller, I. L., Miller, D., & Steier, L. P. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective
FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305-328.
Brockhaus, R. H. (2004). Family business succession: Suggestions for future research. Family
Business Review, 17(2), 165-177.
Bruce, D., & Picard, D. (2006). Making succession a success: Perspectives from canadian small
and medium‐sized enterprises. Journal of small business management, 44(2), 306-309.
Brun de Pontet, S., Wrosch, C., & Gagne, M. (2007). An exploration of the generational
differences in levels of control held among family businesses approaching succession.
Family Business Review, 20(4), 337-354.
Cabrera-Suarez, K. (2005). Leadership transfer and the successor's development in the family firm.
Leadership quarterly, 16(1), 71-96. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.010
88
Cabrera-Suárez, K. (2005). Leadership transfer and the successor's development in the family firm.
The leadership quarterly, 16(1), 71-96. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.010
Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saá-Pérez, P., & García-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from
a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1),
37-46.
Cabrera-Suárez, M. K., & Martín-Santana, J. D. (2012). Successor's commitment and succession
success: Dimensions and antecedents in the small spanish family firm. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2736-2762.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.676458
Cadieux, L. (2007). Succession in small and medium-sized family businesses: Toward a typology
of predecessor roles during and after instatement of the successor. Family Business Review,
20(2), 95-109.
Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J., & Hugron, P. (2002). Succession in women-owned family businesses: A
case study. Family Business Review, 15(1), 17-30.
Calus, M., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Van Lierde, D. (2008). The Relationship between Farm
Succession and Farm Assets on Belgian Farms. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 38-56.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00448.x
Cespedes, F. V., & Galford, R. M. (2004). Succession and failure. Harvard business review, 82(6),
31-42.
Chaimahawong, V., & Sakulsriprasert, A. (2012a). Family business succession and post
succession performance: evidence from Thai SMEs. International Journal of Business and
Management, 8(2), 19.
Chaimahawong, V., & Sakulsriprasert, A. (2012b). Family business succession and post
succession performance: Evidence from thai smes. International Journal of Business and
Management, 8(2). doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n2p19
89
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Kellermanns, F. W., Matherne, C. F., & Debicki, B. J. (2008).
Management journals as venues for publication of family business research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 927-934. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2008.00263.x
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm
performance: An extension and integration. Journal of business venturing, 18(4), 467-472.
doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00055-7
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family
businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 11(1), 19-34.
Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., & Taggar, S. (2007). Family influences on firms: An introduction.
Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1005-1011. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.016
Chung, C.-N., & Luo, X. R. (2013). Leadership succession and firm performance in an emerging
economy: Successor origin, relational embeddedness, and legitimacy. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(3), 338-357. doi:10.1002/smj.2011
Cisneros, L., & Deschamps, B. (2015). The Role of Advisors and The Sequence of Their Actions
in Sibling Team Succession. M@n@gement, 18(4), 282-308.
Colot, O., & Bauweraerts, J. (2014). Succession in family versus nonfamily SMEs: What influence
does it have on performance? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.), 31(3), 149-159. doi:10.1002/cjas.1285
Cookson, G. (1997). Family firms and business networks: Textile engineering in yorkshire, 1780-
1830. Business history, 39(1), 1-20.
Daspit, J. J., Holt, D. T., Chrisman, J. J., & Long, R. G. (2015). Examining family firm succession
from a social exchange perspective: A multiphase, multistakeholder review. Family
Business Review, 29(1), 44-64. doi:10.1177/0894486515599688
90
Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (1998). The influence of family on the family business succession
process: A multi-generational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22, 31-
54.
De Massis, A., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors Preventing Intra-Family Succession.
Family Business Review, 21(2), 183-199. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00118.x
Debicki, B. J., Matherne, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Family business
research in the new millennium an overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why.
Family Business Review, 22(2), 151-166.
DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Impact of founder experience on exit intentions. Small
Business Economics, 38(4), 351-374.
Diwisch, D. S., Voithofer, P., & Weiss, C. R. (2007). Succession and firm growth: Results from a
non-parametric matching approach. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 45-56.
doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9072-z
Diwisch, D. S., Voithofer, P., & Weiss, C. R. (2009). Succession and firm growth: Results from a
non-parametric matching approach. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 45-56.
Duh, M. (2015). Succession process: A chance for rebirth or failure of a family business.
International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 45.
Duh, M., Tominc, P., & Rebernik, M. (2009). Growth ambitions and succession solutions in family
businesses. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(2), 256-269.
doi:10.1108/14626000910956047
Dumas, C., Dupuis, J. P., Richer, F., & St.-Cyr, L. (1995). Factors that influence the next
generation's decision to take over the family farm. Family Business Review, 8(2), 99-120.
Dutta, S., Bhavani, T. A., & Bhavani, T. A. (1998). Family business in india. Contributions to
indian sociology, 32(1), 141.
91
Dyck, B., Mauws, M., Starke, F. A., & Mischke, G. A. (2002). Passing the baton - the importance
of sequence, timing, technique and communication in executive succession. Journal of
business venturing, 17(2), 143-162. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(00)00056-2
Dyer Jr, W. G., & Dyer, W. J. (2009). Putting the family into family business research. Family
Business Review, 22(3), 216-219.
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(5), 1177-1202.
Evert, R. E., Martin, J. A., McLeod, M. S., & Payne, G. T. (2015). Empirics in family business
research: Progress, challenges, and the path ahead. Family Business Review, 29(1), 17-43.
doi:10.1177/0894486515593869
Fahed‐Sreih, J., & Djoundourian, S. (2006). Determinants of longevity and success in Lebanese
family businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 19(3), 225-234.
Farrington, S., Venter, E., & Boshoff, C. (2010). # 107-the influence of family and non-family
stakeholders on family business success. The southern african journal of entrepreneurship
and small business management, 3, 32-60.
Farrington, S. M. (2014). A comparative study of the entrepreneurial orientation of small family
and small non-family businesses. Management dynamics, 23(2), 26-44.
Fattoum, S., & Fayolle, A. (2008). The impact of the relationship predecessor/successor in the
unfolding of the process of succession in family enterprises. [L'impact de la relation
prédécesseur/successeur sur le déroulement du processus de succession dans les entreprises
familiales]. Revue des sciences de gestion, 43(230), 105-113.
Fattoum, S., & Fayolle, A. (2009). Generational succession: Examples from Tunisian family firms.
Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(02), 127-145.
Feliu, N., & Botero, I. C. (2015). Philanthropy in Family Enterprises A Review of Literature.
Family Business Review, 0894486515610962.
92
Feliu, N., & Botero, I. C. (2015). Philanthropy in family enterprises: A review of literature. Family
Business Review, 29(1), 121-141. doi:10.1177/0894486515610962
Fox, M., Nilakant, V., & Hamilton, R. T. (1996). Managing succession in family-owned
businesses. International Small Business Journal, 15(1), 15-25.
Gagne, M., Wrosch, C., & Brun de Pontet, S. (2011). Retiring from the family business: The role
of goal adjustment capacities. Family Business Review, 24(4), 292-304.
doi:10.1177/0894486511410688
Georgiou, T., & Vrontis, D. (2013). Wine sector development: a conceptual framework toward
succession effectiveness in family wineries. Journal of Transnational Management, 18(4),
246-272.
Goldberg, M. A. (2007). Choice of entity for the family business. Journal of applied business
research, 23(2), 7-20.
Goldberg, S. D. (1996). Research note: Effective successors in family-owned businesses:
Significant elements. Family Business Review, 9(2), 185-197.
Halilem, N. (2010). Inside the triple helix: An integrative conceptual framework of the academic
researcher's activities, a systematic review. Journal of research administration, 41(3), 23.
Handler, W. C. (1991). Key interpersonal relationships of next-generation family members in
family firms. Journal of small business management, 29(3), 21.
Handler, W. C. (1992). The succession experience of the next generation. Family Business Review,
5(3), 283-307.
Harrison, R., & Leitch, C. (1996). Discipline emergence in entrepreneurship: Accumulative
fragmentalism or paradigmatic science. Entrepreneurship: Innovation and Change, 5(2),
65-83.
Hatak, I. R., & Roessl, D. (2015). Relational competence-based knowledge transfer within
intrafamily succession: An experimental study. Family Business Review, 28(1), 10-25.
93
Hewitt, M. L., van Rensburg, L. J., & Ukpere, W. I. (2012). A measuring instrument to predict
family succession commitment to family business. African Journal of Business
Management, 6(49), 11865.
Howorth, C., & Zahra Assaraf, A. (2001). Family business succession in portugal: An examination
of case studies in the furniture industry. Family Business Review, 14(3), 231-244.
Huang, T.-C. (1999). Who shall follow? Factors affecting the adoption of succession plans in
Taiwan. Long Range Planning, 32(6), 609-616.
Ibrahim, A. B., & McGuire, J. B. (2011). Family business research: An assessment and future
directions. International journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 12(1), 1-14.
Kamei, K., & Dana, L.-P. (2012). Examining the impact of new policy facilitating sme succession
in japan: From a viewpoint of risk management in family business. International journal
of entrepreneurship and small business, 16(1), 60-70.
Kansikas, J., & Kuhmonen, T. (2008). Family business succession: Evolutionary economics
approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(03), 279-298.
Keating, N. C., & Little, H. M. (1997). Choosing the successor in New Zealand family farms.
Family Business Review, 10(2), 157-171.
Kelly, L. M., Athanassiou, N., & Crittenden, W. F. (2000). Founder centrality and strategic
behavior in the family-owned firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(2), 27-42.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele
University, 33(2004), 1-26.
Kuratko, D. F. (1993). Family business succession in korean and u.S. Firms. Journal of small
business management, 31(2), 132.
L. Glover, J. (2014). Gender, power and succession in family farm business. International journal
of gender and entrepreneurship, 6(3), 276.
94
Laakkonen, A., & Kansikas, J. (2011). Evolutionary selection and variation in family businesses.
Management Research Review, 34(9), 980-995.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171111158956
Lam, W. (2011). Dancing to two tunes: Multi-entity roles in the family business succession
process. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 508-533.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242610376357
Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new explanatory model.
Family Business Review, 18(4), 267-282.
Lansberg, I., & Gersick, K. (2015). Educating family business owners: The fundamental
intervention. Academy of management learning & education, 14(3), 400.
Litz, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Litchfield, S. (2012). Charting the future of family business
research: Perspectives from the field. Family Business Review, 25(1), 16-32.
Lorz, M., Mueller, S., & Volery, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of
the methods in impact studies. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(02), 123-151.
Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. C. (2012). Family businesses' succession planning: a seven-country
comparison. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(1), 7-19.
Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. C. (2012). Family businesses' succession planning: A seven‐country
comparison. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(1), 7-19.
doi:10.1108/14626001211196370
Malinen, P. (2004). Problems in transfer of business experienced by finnish entrepreneurs. Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 130-139.
Marceau, J., Aldrich, H. E., & Aldrich, H. E. (1991). A family business? The making of an
international business elite. European sociological review, 7(1), 86.
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
95
processes and plans. Journal of business venturing, 21(3), 348-368.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.004
Massis, A. D., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors preventing intra-family succession.
Family Business Review, 21(2), 183-199.
Mathews, T., & Blumentritt, T. (2015). A sequential choice model of family business succession.
Small Business Economics, 45(1), 15-37. doi:10.1177/0894486513497506 .
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9628-2
McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. (1999). Determinants and development of schools in
organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 634-648.
Mehrotra, V., Morck, R., Shim, J., & Wiwattanakantang, Y. (2011). Must love kill the family firm?
Some exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1121-1148.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00494.x
Mejbri, K. M., & Affes, H. (2012). Determinants of intention and succession planning in Tunisian
family business. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(12).
Miller, D., & Breton-Miller, I. L. (2003). Challenge versus advantage in family business. Strategic
organization, 1(1), 127-134.
Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003). Lost in time: Intergenerational succession,
change, and failure in family business. Journal of business venturing, 18(4), 513-531.
doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00058-2
Mitchell, J. R., Hart, T. A., Valcea, S., & Townsend, D. M. (2009). Becoming the Boss: Discretion
and Postsuccession Success in Family Firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(6),
1201-1218. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00341.x
Molly, V., Laveren, E., & Deloof, M. (2010). Family Business Succession and Its Impact on
Financial Structure and Performance. Family Business Review, 23(2), 131-147.
doi:10.1177/0894486510365062
96
Morris, M. H., Williams, R. W., & Nel, D. (1996). Factors influencing family business succession.
International journal of entrepreneurial behaviour & research, 2(3), 68-81.
Nam, Y.-H., & Herbert, J. I. (1999). Characteristics and key success factors in family business:
The case of Korean immigrant businesses in metro-Atlanta. Family Business Review,
12(4), 341-352.
Neubauer, F., Lank, A. G., Foster, M. J., & Foster, M. J. (1999). The family business: Its
governance for sustainability. International Small Business Journal, 18(1(69)), 119-120.
Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms. Entrepreneurship
and regional development, 22(3-4), 211-239.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985621003726119
Nordqvist, M., Wennberg, K., Bau, M., & Hellerstedt, K. (2013). An entrepreneurial process
perspective on succession in family firms. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 1087-1122.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9466-4
Nordqvist, M., Wennberg, K., Bau’, M., & Hellerstedt, K. (2012). An entrepreneurial process
perspective on succession in family firms. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 1087-1122.
doi:10.1007/s11187-012-9466-4
Nordqvist, M., Wennberg, K., & Hellerstedt, K. (2013). An entrepreneurial process perspective on
succession in family firms. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 1087-1122.
Orsato, R. J. (2006). Competitive environmental strategies: when does it pay to be green?
California management review, 48(2), 127-143.
Parker, S. C., & van Praag, C. M. (2012). The entrepreneur's mode of entry: Business takeover or
new venture start? Journal of business venturing, 27(1), 31-46.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.08.002
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence.
International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.
97
Pyromalis, V. D., & Vozikis, G. S. (2009). Mapping the successful succession process in family
firms: Evidence from greece. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
5(4), 439-460. doi:10.1007/s11365-009-0118-3
Reay, T., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Qualitative methods in family business research. The SAGE
handbook of family business, 573-593.
Rohn, J. (1994). Passing the torch.
Royer, S., Simons, R., Boyd, B., & Rafferty, A. (2008). Promoting family: A contingency model
of family business succession. Family Business Review, 21(1), 15-30.
Salvato, C., Chirico, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). A farewell to the business: Championing exit and
continuity in entrepreneurial family firms. Entrepreneurship & regional development,
22(3-4), 321-348. doi:10.1080/08985621003726192
Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Corbett, A. C. (2011). The duality of internal and external development of
successors: opportunity recognition in family firms. Family Business Review,
0894486510391783.
Schröder, E., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of adolescents'
motivations to join the family business. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 476.
Schroder, E., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Arnaud, N. (2011). Career choice intentions of
adolescents with a family business background. Family Business Review, 24(4), 305-321.
doi:10.1177/0894486511416977
Schröder, E., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Arnaud, N. (2011). Career choice intentions of
adolescents with a family business background. Family Business Review, 24(4), 305-321.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of
ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(2), 179-194.
98
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and
directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1-36.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2003a). Predictors of satisfaction with the succession
process in family firms. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 667-687. doi:10.1016/s0883-
9026(03)00015-6
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2003b). Succession planning as planned behavior:
Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16(1), 1-15.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. E. (2012). 25 years of family business review:
reflections on the past and perspectives for the future: Sage Publications Sage CA: Los
Angeles, CA.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., Pablo, A. L., & Chua, J. H. (2001a). Determinants of Initial
Satisfaction with the Succession Process in Family Firms: A Conceptual Model.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 25(3), 17.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., Pablo, A. L., & Chua, J. H. (2001b). Determinants of initial satisfaction
with the succession process in family firms: A conceptual model. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 25(3), 17-36.
Sharma, P., & Chua, J. H. (2013). Asian family enterprises and family business research. Asia
pacific journal of management, 30(3), 641-656. doi:10.1007/s10490-013-9350-z
Sharma, P., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2000). Perceptions about the extent of succession
planning in canadian family firms. Canadian journal of administrative sciences, 17(3),
233-244.
Sharma, P., Hatak, I. R., Roessl, D., Michael-Tsabari, N., Weiss, D., Bonneuil, N., . . . Thomas, J.
(2015). Editor’s notes: 2014—a year in review 4.
Sharma, P., & Irving, P. G. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment:
Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 13-33.
99
Sharma, P., & Rao, A. S. (2000). Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A
comparative study. Family Business Review, 13(4), 313-330.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2000). Structuring family business succession: An analysis of
the future leader's decision making. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 25-25.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2000). Structuring Family Business Succession: An Analysis
of the Future Leader's Decision Making. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(4), 25.
Smith, R. (2014). Assessing the contribution of the 'theory of matriarchy' to the entrepreneurship
and family business literatures. International journal of gender and entrepreneurship, 6(3),
255.
Staples, M., & Niazi, M. (2007). Experiences using systematic review guidelines. Journal of
Systems and Software, 80(9), 1425-1437.
Stavrou, E. T. (1999). Succession in family businesses: Exploring the effects of demographic
factors on offspring intentions to join and take over the business. Journal of small business
management, 37(3), 43-61.
Steier, L. P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2004). Entrepreneurial management and governance
in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 295-303.
Tatoglu, E., Kula, V., & Glaister, K. W. (2008). Succession planning in family-owned businesses:
Evidence from turkey. International Small Business Journal, 26(2), 155-180.
doi:10.1177/0266242607086572
Tifft, S. E., & Jones, A. S. (1999). The Trust: The Powerful and Private Family Behind the New
York Times. Little Brown.
Tsoutsoura, M. (2015). The Effect of Succession Taxes on Family Firm Investment: Evidence
from a Natural Experiment. Journal of Finance, 70(2), 649-688. doi:10.1111/jofi.12224
Van der Merwe, S., Venter, E., & Ellis, S. M. (2009). An exploratory study of some of the
determinants of management succession planning in family businesses. Management
100
Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 18(4), 2-
17.
Van der Merwe, S., Venter, E., & Ellis, S. M. (2009). An exploratory study of some of the
determinants of management succession planning in family businesses. Management
dynamics, 18(4), 2.
van der Westhuizen, J. P., & Garnett, A. (2014, 2014/12/19/
2014 Dec 19). The correlation of leadership practices of first and second generation family
business owners to business performance, Varazdin.
Venter, E., & Boshoff, C. (2007). The influence of organisational-related factors on the succession
process in small and medium-sized family businesses. Management dynamics, 16(1), 42-
55. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1996.00171.x
Venter, E., Boshoff, C., & Maas, G. (2005). The influence of successor-related factors on the
succession process in small and medium-sized family businesses. Family Business Review,
18(4), 283-303.
Venter, E., Boshoff, C., & Maas, G. (2005). The influence of successor‐related factors on the
succession process in small and medium‐sized family businesses. Family Business Review,
18(4), 283-303.
Venter, E., Boshoff, C., & Maas, G. (2006). Influence of owner-manager-related factors on the
succession process in small and medium-sized family businesses. International journal of
entrepreneurship and innovation, 7(1), 33-48.
Venter, E., Bushoff, C., & Maas, G. (2006). Influence of owner-manager-related factors on the
succession of process in small and medium-sized family businesses. International journal
of entrepreneurship and innovation, 7(1), 33-47.
Vera, C. F., & Dean, M. A. (2005). An examination of the challenges daughters face in family
business succession. Family Business Review, 18(4), 321-345.
101
Wang, C. (2010). Daughter exclusion in family business succession: A review of the literature.
Journal of family and economic issues, 31(4), 475-484.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9230-3
Weidenbaum, M. (1996). The chinese family business enterprise. California management review,
38(4), 141-156.
Whatley, L. (2011). A New Model for Family Owned Business Succession. Organization
Development Journal, 29(4), 21-32.
Wiklund, J., Nordqvist, M., Hellerstedt, K., & Bird, M. (2013). Internal versus external ownership
transition in family firms: An embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship, 37(6), 1319-
1340. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12068
Williams, D. W., Zorn, M. L., Russell Crook, T., & Combs, J. G. (2013). Passing the torch: Factors
influencing transgenerational intent in family firms. Family Relations, 62(3), 415-428.
Wortman, M. S. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: A conceptual and
research-based paradigm. Family Business Review, 7(1), 3-27.
Ye, J., Parris, M. A., & Waddell, D. (2013). The succession decision in Chinese-Australian family
businesses: An exploratory study. Small Enterprise Research, 20(2), 110-125.
doi:10.5172/ser.2013.20.2.110
Yoo, S. S., Schenkel, M. T., & Kim, J. (2014a). Examining the impact of inherited succession
identity on family firm performance. Journal of small business management, 52(2), 246.
Yoo, S. S., Schenkel, M. T., & Kim, J. (2014b). Examining the impact of inherited succession
identity on family firm performance. Journal of small business management, 52(2), 246-
265.
Yu, A., Lumpkin, G., Sorenson, R. L., & Brigham, K. H. (2012). The landscape of family business
outcomes: A summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables. Family Business
Review, 25(1), 33-57.
102