re

,2

L-12

11 Jo

0803

Journal of Family Business Strategy 3 (2012) 127131

view

stio

ed?

cul

e fo

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Family B

jou r nal h o mep ag e: w ww .eappropriate to examine the distinctive characteristics of familybusinesses that may help them to endure more effectively in apost-recessionary environment than other types of businesses.This special issue focuses on the cultural aspects of familybusinesses examining how values and notions of culture areconstructed, negotiated and enacted in relation to family dynam-ics. Our aim is to bring together articles that consider how valuesand cultural processes contribute to the distinctiveness andsustainability of family rms. Values are frequently identied asan important resource for understanding and overcoming currentcrises. In times of uncertainty core values can provide continuityfor decision-making. Enduring values can also constrain entrepre-neurial behaviour and strategic change. Exploring and under-standing how culture and values are characterised in family rmsand how they shape organisational practices is, therefore, a centralissue for academics and practitioners alike.

To provide a theoretical and methodological context for aspecial issue devoted to understanding family rms from the pointof view of culture, a review of articles between 1988 and 2010(May) has been undertaken using the search terms of culture andfamily rms. Forty-seven articles were found which wereprimarily from FBR but also from JSBM, Journal of Business Ethics,

overseas Chinese rms (Sorenson & Yan, 2006), growing rms(McCollom, 1988) and second generation rms (Niemela, 2004);managers/owners such as start-up entrepreneurs (Athanassiou,Crittenden, Kelly, & Marquez, 2002; Au & Kwan, 2009); businessowners (Barnett, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2009; Schein, 1995),CEOs (Stavrou, Kleanthous, & Anastasiou, 2005) and founders(Garca-Alvarez, Lopez-Sintas, & Saldana Gonzalvo, 2002); femaleentrepreneurs (Gundry & Ben-Yoseph, 1998), boards of directors(Corbetta & Salvato, 2004), women in family business settings(Hollander & Bukowitz, 1990), employees of family rms (Ains-worth & Cox, 2003) and shareholders (Aronoff, 2004). In addition arange of research methods were being utilised although there wasa high number of theory-development pieces (17) perhapsindicating the conceptual breadth of this subject area.

From this review, it is also noted that culture is addressed,dened and conceptualised in a variety of different ways in theinquiry of family rms. Many studies, for example, focus on cultureat the level of the organisation (see Ainsworth & Cox, 2003;Astrachan, 1988; Athanassiou et al., 2002; Chirico & Nordqvist,2010; Dyer, 1988, p. 38; Zahra, Hayton, & Salvato, 2004). Here,organisational culture is related to the basic pattern of assump-tions that a group has invented, discovered or learned in order tocope with its problems of adaptation and internal integration(Schein, 1995). Alternatively, organisational culture is dened asthe value overlap between business and family commitment(Corbetta & Salvato, 2004). Other studies focus at the level of thefamily rm (Aronoff, 2004; Carr & Bateman, 2010; Denison, Lief, &Ward, 2004; Holt, Rutherford, & Kuratko, 2010; Ward, 1997). Theadvantages here are that a holistic understanding can be achieved

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +352 46 66 44 5863.

E-mail addresses: denise.etcher@uni.lu (D. Fletcher), leif.melin@jibs.hj.se

(L. Melin), alberto.gimeno@esade.edu (A. Gimeno).1 Tel.: +46 708 856446.2 Tel.: +34 942 806 162.

1877-8585/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.06.001Culture and values in family businessA

Denise Fletcher a,*, Leif Melin b,1, Alberto Gimeno c

a Luxembourg Business Academy, University of Luxembourg, 2b rue Albert Borschette, b Jonkoping International Business School, Jonkoping University, P.O. Box 1026, SE-551c ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull URL, Av. Pedralbes 60-62, Barcelona

1. Introduction

Given the challenging economic climate, it is timely and

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 13 March 2012

Accepted 13 June 2012

Keywords:

Culture

Values

Family business

A B S T R A C T

This article provides a re

addressing three key que

dened and conceptualiz

factors or attributes shape

research and previews th

businesses.view and suggestions for future research

46 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

nkoping, Sweden

4, Spain

Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, and Journal of BusinessVenturing. These articles covered different types of contexts forculture such as one hundred year-old companies (Koiranen, 2002),

of key literature in the eld of culture, values and family business by

ns. First, what is culture in a family business context and how can it be

Second, what can culture do for the family business? And third, which

ture in family business? The article presents several suggestions for future

ur articles included in the special issue on culture and values in family

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

usiness Strategy

l sev ier . co m / loc ate / j fb s

D. Fletcher et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 3 (2012) 127131128by incorporating various aspects of culture such as values(Distelberg & Sorenson, 2009; Koiranen, 2002; Lambrecht, 2005;Vallejo, 2008; Ward, 1997). Surprisingly, there were fewer studieson the corporate cultures of family business. An exception to this isDenison et al. (2004) who refer to both Hofstede (1983) and Petersand Watermans (1982) views on corporate culture to examinehow family rms sustainability and accomplishment are rooted insomething deep within corporate culture.

In addition, only two studies focused on family relations as themain unit of analytical focus. First, Salvato and Melin (2008)include old and current family members along with non-familymanagers to evaluate how value (and implicitly culture) is createdacross generations. This is helpful for signalling how culture isrelationally nurtured in relationships between different genera-tions. Second, Hubler (2009) draws attention to Whytes (1994)the heart aroused to signal the family as the soul of culture.However, Hubler (2009) along with Schein (1983), Athanassiouet al. (2002), Garca-Alvarez and Lopez-Sintas (2001), Poza, Alfred,and Maheshwari (1997), also relate culture back to the founder.Referring back to the founding owner of the family rm is helpingfor understanding some aspects of embedded culture but it shouldalso be noted that culture is dynamic and it evolves as much inrelationships and through discursive processes involving differ-ence and division (as it does through relationships involving unityand harmonisation, see Ainsworth & Cox, 2003). Astrachan (1988,p. 166) also helpfully refers (with reference to Etzioni, 1968) toculture as a manifestation of relationships.

The review also identied the importance of national culture(often using dimensions adopted from Hofstede) to examine hownational level attributes affect family business behaviour (Carr &Bateman, 2010; Gundry & Ben-Yoseph, 1998; Gupta & Levenburg,2010; Sharma & Manikutty, 2005; Sorenson & Yan, 2006; Welsh &Raven, 2006). In addition, there are country evaluations of cultureas is reected in the range of countries addressed in the articleswhich include (to highlight a selection) Mexico (Athanassiou et al.,2002), China (Au and Kwan, 2009), Singapore (Lee, 1996), UnitedStates (Barnett et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2010; Poza et al., 1997; Zahraet al., 2004), Cyprus (Stavrou et al., 2005), Italy and Switzerland(Chirico & Nordqvist, 2010), Portugal (Howorth & Ali, 2001) and theMiddle East (Welsh & Raven, 2006).

To add to the complexity further, some studies do not addressculture directly. For example, Barnett et al. (2009) allude to culturebut use the term family role salience to signify how this has anassociation with business expansion. Bjornberg and Nicholson(2007) refer to emotional ownership (rather than culture). Lee(1996) focuses on family centredness and power centralisation, toimply culture. Likewise, authors emphasise familism (Astrachan,1988; Au & Kwan, 2009) to signify the intangible but unique spiritor essence of family rms. This can be in terms of familiness as abundle of resources that constitute idiosyncratic resources(Habbershon and Williams, 1999). This specialness is alsodiscussed in terms of emotional value to understand ownerspsychology and value considerations other than non-nancialmotives (Zellweger & Astrachan, 2008). In addition, Nicholson(2008) presents some sentiments of kinship where, arguing for aDarwinian view of kinship, he offers three sets of cultural inputs:communitarian, stewardship practices and high involvementcultures.

As can be seen above notions of culture are multifarious andmultidimensional especially when we also take into account thevarious attributes of culture such as values (Denison et al., 2004;Garca-Alvarez & Lopez-Sintas, 2001; Garca-Alvarez et al., 2002;Koiranen, 2002) or culture according to the interrelationship ofagency costs, familial assets and liabilities (Dyer, 2006). This is alsoa fruitful line of inquiry for advancing studies on the congurationsof capabilities that produce sustainable or productive cultures.Here again, a number of studies emphasize maps of cultures byexamining histories of family business (Dyer, 1988) or a hierarchyof needs related to ownership needs (Ward, 1997). The intention inDyers (1988) study is to discover cultural patterns that are:paternalistic, participative, professional/individualist or laissez-faire. The analytical task here is to draw out typologies of culturebased on congurations (see also Sharma & Manikutty, 2005;Stavrou et al., 2005). Some analyses also stress the healthyinterrelationship of systems particularly in terms of ownership,rm and community for understanding culture (Astrachan,1988) or the role of culture as an integrating mechanism for thethree sub systems of family business (family, ownership andmanagement, McCollom, 1988). Here, there is a concern withfeatures that make for a good culture such as appreciation,commitment, long term orientation, good communication andability to resolve conicts (Vallejo, 2008). In addition, cohesive-ness/consensus of culture (Athanassiou et al., 2002), goodregulation in each of the business systems (Aronoff, 2004) andtrust (Carr & Bateman, 2010) are also central features shapingculture. In contrast, rather than emphasise the positive aspects thatshape culture, Ainsworth and Cox (2003) highlight the importanceof critical forms of control that also contribute to culture-making.

Finally, a further category of studies addressing culture infamily rms include those where consideration is given to theways in which business processes are contingent on culture. Herescholars emphasize the effects of culture on, for example,divestment decisions (Sharma & Manikutty, 2005), performance(Corbetta & Salvato, 2004), moving between generations (Dyer,1988) or in gaining competitive advantage (Carr & Bateman, 2010;Zahra et al., 2004).

As can be seen in this short review, studies in family businessculture focus on three aspects. First studies of culture specify whatculture is or how it can be dened/conceptualised in the familyrm context. Second, studies focus on what culture can do for thefamily rm often with normative/regulative overtones. Third,inquiries identify the factors/attributes that shape culture at thesame time as examining the effects that cultural processesengender. These perspectives and emphases are also evident inthe four articles that have been selected for the Special Issue. Eachof them has been selected because they contribute differentaspects of culture.

2. Introducing the articles in this special issue

In the rst article, Exploring value differences across family rms:The inuence of choosing and managing complexity, Simona,Marque`s, Bikfalvi and Munoz go through the variety of denitionsof values and similar concepts, reviewing their main components,characteristics and consequences. They adopt Rokeachs (1973)denition of value (value is an enduring belief that a specic mode ofconduct or end-state is personally or socially preferable to an opposite

or converse mode of conduct or end state). This article focuses on thefactors or attributes that shape culture by identifying that thedominant values of a family business are consequences of the levelof embeddedness of the family into the business. The authorspropose the concept of family management complexity, whichthey measure through the number of family members that occupymanagement positions. The family business is the central unit ofanalysis and study is made of 22 Spanish cases using aninterpretative approach based on grounded theory.

According to the number of family members in managementpositions and their kinship Simona et al. dene three levels offamily complexity (low, medium and high) and identify a specicvalue set to each one (identication, equality and professionalisa-tion), accordingly. The authors link the results to specic conceptsor categories developed in previous studies. In particular, they

D. Fletcher et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 3 (2012) 127131 129build upon stewardship values, but, as they state, their results passover two of the main values that are embedded in the stewardshipapproach altruism and trust. They propose two additionalsources of explanation of the values set of studied familybusinesses. These are succession process and how the familymanages family complexity. In the rst case it allows to a bigger orlesser extent the replication of the value set of the previousgeneration. In the second case, they propose the idea that valueschange depending on whether/if the family decides to split thebusiness between branches or stick together as one unity. Valuesare presented as the dependent variable of a model, to which theindependent variables are family management complexity and theways in which this complexity is managed. This means that nospecic link between values and performance is made. Insynthesis, the article addresses the relationship between thecomplexity that the managing family introduces, how the familymanages this complexity, and the values of the family.

The next article is Understanding entrepreneurial cultures infamily businesses: A study of family entrepreneurial teams in

Honduras by Discua-Cruz, Hamilton and Jack. In terms ofdenitions, the authors understand organisational culture asdealing with patterns of basic assumptions that are shared or held

in common by members of a group, which evolve over time, can be

transmitted between members, are difcult to change suddenly and

reect the history of group experiences. More specically, they relateto entrepreneurial culture, adopting Zahra et al.s (2004) denition(the beliefs, aspirations, histories and self-concepts that are likely toinuence a rms disposition to support and sustain entrepreneur-

ship). Based on Zahra et al.s (2004) denition, their researchquestion centres on: how entrepreneurial cultures are establishedand continued in family businesses. Beginning with the dominanceof the founder in framing culture, they argue that culture istransmitted through the relationship between generations and,more specically, in the succession process. The unit of analysis isthe family entrepreneurial team, dening it as a team composedmainly of family members that engage in identity, evaluating and

exploiting opportunities (Discua-Cruz, Hamilton, & Howorth, 2010).Thus, the focus is in the family team and their portfolioentrepreneurship.

The article is based on a case research methodology, by dening apurposive sample of six cases that have engaged in founding oracquisition of two or more businesses with two generationsinvolved. Twenty ve in depth interviews were undertaken withdifferent members of the family entrepreneurial team. The researchcontext is Honduras which is distinctive in that it questions theextent to which the Anglo American view (in which individualentrepreneurs acting in context with developed nancial markets, aclear legal framework and separation of ownership and manage-ment) is appropriate for understanding family entrepreneurship inHonduras and, by extension, to other countries with similarcharacteristics. This allows the authors to propose that individualentrepreneurial behaviours in the Honduras context can be betterunderstood within a family team framework.

The research shows that entrepreneurial culture is developedand transmitted through a relationship between generations andthrough the processes and decisions they are able to share. Theauthors observe a linkage between culture and resources in howsenior and junior generations approach opportunity identicationand exploitation. The ndings show more passive identication andmore intuitive exploitation on the one hand from the seniors, withmore proactive identication and analytical exploitation applied bythe junior generations, on the other. According to Discua Cruz et al.,entrepreneurial cultures allow both generations to collaborate in theentrepreneurial endeavor, which permits a sharing of resources andcapabilities (funds, networks knowledge, energy, etc.). The articlelinks to research on culture that emphasizes cultural transmission inrelationships and relationalities across generations. It also stressesthe importance of contexts in these studies, referring to theopenness of societies, their institutional contexts, the familyrelationships and the business paradigms.

In the third article, Family-owned manufacturing SMEs andinnovativeness: A comparison between within-family successions and

external takeovers, Grundstrom, Oberg, and Ohrwall Ronnbackfocus on two long-term aspects of family business. The rst issuccession and the ability to innovate; the second refers toinnovativeness as an aspect of organisational culture. They under-stand organisational culture as sets of meaning that are shapedthrough social and historical processes of the company and whichguide activities of the rm. They dene innovativeness as a notion ofopenness to new ideas, thus pointing to it as values related to therms orientation towards innovation. In their analyses, innova-tiveness is measured as innovation intensity (degree of focus oninnovations), radical/incremental innovation (newness of innova-tions), and innovating in new or established frames (whetherinnovations occur in present thought patterns or are challenged bynew ways of innovating).

The article adopts a multiple case study approach, that allowsthe authors to make a comparative case analysis between vecases with within-family succession and ve cases where thecompany is sold to external owners, focusing how the innova-tiveness is inuenced by the different types of succession. The unitof analysis is the rm (manufacturing SMEs), with the ambition toexplain the various companies innovativeness orientations interms of innovation intensity, incremental/radical innovations andinnovations within present or new frames. The ndings show thatregardless of if the family rm is succeed by a family member or anexternal owner, its innovativeness is still within-frame andincremental with a low innovation intensity. The succession (ofboth types) implies only minor change in the innovationorientation, if any at all. This means that values related toinnovativeness remain largely as they were before the successions.This is explained by the stability in values, reinforced by thedivesting party to carefully choose its successor, trying to ensurethe transfer of his/her cultural legacy.

The change in innovativeness observed in some cases cannotmainly be understood from the process by which the ownership istransferred (family rms handed over to next generation or thosetaken over by external parties). Rather, such changes can beunderstood from considering the values transferred through thechoice of successor, the acquiring partys motives, the continuity ordisbanding of customers, and the actual type of product innovationprocess in each rm. In some of the rms with succession withinthe family, more radical innovations are explained by an opennessto take on new ideas from customers.

In the nal article, Towards a better understanding of familybusiness groups and their key dimensions, Della Piana, Vecchi andCacia introduce an analytical framework aimed at assessing thegovernance associated with inter-organisational relations in afamily business group (FBG). The article adopts a family embedded-ness perspective when focusing on four distinctive dimensions ofFBGs, namely their nature, type, intensity and persistence over time.Here family rms and their family stakeholders are viewed asembedded in social relationships, where the intensity and persis-tence of strong social ties are assumed to play an important role forthe long-term sustainability of the FBG.

The overlapping between formal and informal ties is termedintensity, which means that intensity provides an indication of thestability and cohesiveness of the FBGs relational network,stressing the family bonds and the bridges between the familyand the FBGs businesses. To further characterize the FBG, theauthors add the persistence of the set of inter-organisationalrelationships, seen as a dynamic feature. Based on the authors

D. Fletcher et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 3 (2012) 127131130view that the values and cultural processes contribute to thedistinctiveness and sustainability of family rms, where enduringvalues also provide continuity for governance, they suggest thatpersistence can be seen as a source of embeddedness ensuringlongevity to the FBG. Included is the view that persistent familyvalues are crucial for maintaining family ownership of a FBG in thelong run.

The article builds on a single case study, and a well-establishedItalian FBG in the fashion industry was selected as an explorativecase study covering a period of 20 years. This case is viewed as anetwork of inter-organisational relationships between legallyseparate rms owned by the same family, and bound togetherby both formal and informal ways of connection. The dimensions ofthe analysis are the nature of the inter-organisational relationshipsand the types of relationships, with a focus on personal ties bylooking at interlocking directorships. In terms of data collection,the authors relied on publicly available secondary data.

Based on analyses of both density of personal ties within theFBG and the intensity of inter-organisational relationships, thendings demonstrate the relevance of the proposed framework forunderstanding the FBG. The framework with its four keydimensions nature, type, intensity and persistence used tounderstand the complexity of the social context in which FBGs areembedded, provides a more encompassing denition of the FBG,with an emphasis of its relational structure where personal tiesplay a crucial role. To conclude, the FBG is a case of both culturaland political embeddedness, where personal ties of the familyshape the strategic development of the FBG.

3. Conclusion

Having provided a review of key literature in the eld of culture,values and family business and providing previews of the fourarticles selected for the Special Issue, it is evident that this area ofinquiry is rich both empirically and conceptually. Not only is thisextremely positive for family business inquiry but it is alsoimportant for demonstrating that culture, as Schein (1995) noted,is one of the most powerful and stable forces at work inorganisations. A fruitful area for future research on family businessculture, however, relates to critical stances towards culture. Forexample, as the articles outlined above demonstrate, we have astrong understanding of the factors that are producing (and at thesame time are produced by) culture. We have little understanding,however, of how family business cultures produce relations ofpower or asymmetry and what ideologies, discourses and reason-ings contribute to such relations. In advancing a more criticalperspective culture as critique this means projecting outwardsfrom the family rm itself to wider institutions, ideologies anddiscourses that contribute to culture production within the familyrm. Family rms embody and reect deeper meanings aboutsociety, the economy, relationality and/or meanings of work and itis timely to respond to the critical potentialities of familybusinesses in terms of culture.

It is on this note that we welcome readers to this special issue inthe hope of inviting further fruitful debates and critiques aboutfamily rm culture-making.

References

Ainsworth, S., & Cox, J. W. (2003). Families divided: Culture and control in small familybusiness. Organization Studies, 24(9), 14631485.

Aronoff, C. (2004). Self-perpetuation family organization built on values: Necessarycondition for long-term family business survival. Family Business Review, 17(1),5559.

Astrachan, J. H. (1988). Family rm and community culture. Family Business Review,1(2), 165189.Athanassiou, N., Crittenden, W. F., Kelly, L. M., & Marquez, P. (2002). Founder centralityeffects on the Mexican family rms top management group: Firm culture, strategicvision and goals, and rm performance. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 139150.

Au, K., & Kwan, H. K. (2009). Start-up capital and Chinese entrepreneurs: The role offamily. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(4), 889908.

Barnett, T., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2009). The effects of family versuscareer role salience on the performance of family and nonfamily rms. FamilyBusiness Review, 22(1), 3952.

Bjornberg, A., & Nicholson, N. (2007). The family climate scalesDevelopment of a newmeasure for use in family business research. Family Business Review, 20(3), 229246.

Carr, C., & Bateman, S. (2010). Does culture count? Comparative performances of topfamily and non-family rms. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,10(2), 241262.

Chirico, F., & Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational valuecreation in family rms: The role of organizational culture. International SmallBusiness Journal, 28(5), 487504.

Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. A. (2004). The board of directors in family rms: One size tsall? Family Business Review, 17(2), 119134.

Denison, D., Lief, C., & Ward, J. L. (2004). Culture in family-owned enterprises:Recognizing and leveraging unique strengths. Family Business Review, 17(1), 6170.

Discua-Cruz, A., Hamilton, E., & Howorth, C. (2010). Family Entrepreneurial Teams: Avehicle for portfolio entrepreneurship, Working paper series (pp.): Lancaster Uni-versity Management School.

Distelberg, B., & Sorenson, R. L. (2009). Updating systems concepts in family businesses.Family Business Review, 22(1), 6581.

Dyer, W. G. (1988). Culture and continuity in family rms. Family Business Review, 1(1),3750.

Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the family effect on rm performance. Family BusinessReview, 19(4), 253273.

Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: A theory of societal and political processes. NewYork: Free Press. (p. 724).

Garca-Alvarez, E., & Lopez-Sintas, J. (2001). A taxonomy of founders based on values:The root of family business heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 14(3), 209230.

Garca-Alvarez, E., Lopez-Sintas, J., & Saldana Gonzalvo, P. (2002). Socialization pat-terns of successors in rst- to second-generation family businesses. Family BusinessReview, 15(3), 189203.

Gundry, L. K., & Ben-Yoseph, M. (1998). Women entrepreneurs in Romania, Poland, andthe United States: Cultural and family inuences on strategy and growth. FamilyBusiness Review, 11(1), 6173.

Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2010). A thematic analysis of cultural variations in familybusinesses: The CASE project. Family Business Review, 23(2), 155169.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessingthe strategic advantages of family rms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 125.

Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions. International Studies ofManagement & Organization, 13(1/2), 4674.

Hollander, B. S., & Bukowitz, W. R. (1990). Women, family culture, and family business.Family Business Review, 3(2), 139151.

Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Kuratko, D. F. (2010). Advancing the eld of familybusiness research: Further testing the measurement properties of the F-PEC.Family Business Review, 23(1), 7688.

Howorth, C., & Ali, Z. A. (2001). Family business succession in Portugal: An examinationof case studies in the furniture industry. Family Business Review, 14(3), 231244.

Hubler, T. M. (2009). The soul of family business. Family Business Review, 22(3), 254258.

Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneurially active inbusiness: Exploring the values and family characteristics of old Finnish familyrms. Family Business Review, 15(3), 175187.

Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new explan-atory model. Family Business Review, 18(4), 267282.

Lee, J. (1996). Culture and management A study of small Chinese family business inSingapore. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 6367.

McCollom, M. E. (1988). Integration in the family rm: When the family systemreplaces controls and culture. Family Business Review, 1(4), 399417.

Nicholson, N. (2008). Evolutionary psychology, organizational culture, and the familyrm. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 7384.

Niemela, T. (2004). Interrm cooperation capability in the context of networkingfamily rms: The role of power. Family Business Review, 17(4), 319330.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from Americasbest-run companies (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row. (p. 360).

Poza, E. J., Alfred, T., & Maheshwari, A. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture andmanagement practices in family and family rms A preliminary report. FamilyBusiness Review, 10(2), 135155.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Salvato, C., & Melin, L. (2008). Creating value across generations in family-controlled

businesses: The role of family social capital. Family Business Review, 21(3), 259276.

Schein, E. H. (1995). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. FamilyBusiness Review, 8(3), 221238.

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture.Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 1328.

Sharma, P., & Manikutty, S. (2005). Strategic divestments in family rms: Role of familystructure and community culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(3), 293311.

Sorenson, R., & Yan, J. (2006). The effect of Confucian values on succession in familybusiness. Family Business Review, 19(3), 235250.

Stavrou, E. T., Kleanthous, T., & Anastasiou, T. (2005). Leadership personality andrm culture during hereditary transitions in family rms: Model developmentand empirical investigation. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2),187206.

Vallejo, M. C. (2008). Is the culture of family rms really different? A value-basedmodel for its survival through generations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2),261279.

Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges and best practices.Family Business Review, 10(4), 323337.

Welsh, D. H. B., & Raven, P. (2006). Family business in the middle east: An exploratory studyof retail management in Kuwait and Lebanon. Family Business Review, 19(1), 2948.

Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporateAmerica (1st ed.). New York: Currency Doubleday. (p. 307).

Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-familyrms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entre-preneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(4), 363381.

Zellweger, T. M., & Astrachan, J. H. (2008). On the emotional value of owning a rm.Family Business Review, 21(4), 347363.

D. Fletcher et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 3 (2012) 127131 131

Culture and values in family business-A review and suggestions for future researchIntroductionIntroducing the articles in this special issueConclusionReferences