FAIRNESS, FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, AND FARM TRANSFER

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of

The University of Guelph

by

JANET EDGAR TAYLOR

In partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

June, 1998

O Janet Edgar Taylor, 1998

Naticna1 Li brary I * m of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OîtawaON KfAON4 Ottawa ON Kf A O N 4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Lïbrary of Canada to reproduce, loan, distniute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copwght in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts £rom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la ~ibliothè~ue nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fome de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thése ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

ABSTRACT

FAIRNESS, FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, AND FARM TRANSFER

Janet Edgar Taylor University of Guelph, 1998

Advisor: Professor Joan E. Norris

This thesis is comprised of three studies based on 36 f a m families who

had transferred or were making provisions for transfemng the fann. Data were

collected frorn the older generation parents, the farm successor, and one of the

off-fafin siblings in each family. The first study was a qualitative analysis that

assessed the applicability of the entrepreneur and yeoman succession patterns

that were developed by Salamsn (e-g. 1985; 1992). Strong support was not

found for the entrepreneur and yeoman typology. lnstead two approaches to

farm management were identified: the expander and the conservator. The

combination of these two approaches in the older famer and younger

successor comprises four succession patterns: expanderexpander; expander-

conservator; conservator-expander; and conservator-consewator. Each had

different working relationships, succession strategies, and areas of potential

conflict. The second qualitative study explored how families determined how to

make the transfer fair. Strong support was found for global reciprocity as a

conceptual framework for understanding how families detemined faimess in

farm transfer. Specific attention was paid to the relationship among cunflict

over transfer, closeness of sibling relationships, perception of faimess, and

determination of fairness. The third study examined the role of family dynamics,

faimess. and conflict over the transfer from the perspective of the fann

successor and one off-farm sibling. Scores were combined from the fam

successor and off-fann sibling to obtain relational family data. Using a multiple

regression analysis, strong support was found for the hypothesis that lower

scores on the Family of Origin Scale, disagreement on fairness, and

disagreement on rules of faimess were predictive of conflid over transfer.

Implications are discussed in terms of interventions with farm families and future

research.

Acknowledgments

Several people contributed to the development of this thesis. My sincere

gratitude is expressed to:

Dr. Joan Norris, who served as thesis advisor. I especially appreciate her

support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies and this

research.

Drs. Joseph Tindale, Marshail Fine, Wayne Howard, and Tom Bryant,

who served as mernbers of my advisory cornmittee, for their valuable

suggestions and comments in their critical review of this research project.

The members of the team who collaborated on the project that funded the

data collection. Special thanks to Wayne Howard and Lorne Owen, for their

organization of the project. Special thanks to Colleen Crozier, James Soldan,

and Cindy MacDonald who conducted the interviews and collaborated on the

interpretation of the data.

The members of the 36 farrn famities who took the time to tell us about

their transfer experience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

CHAPTER ONE: Succession Patterns of Famer and Successor in

Canadian Farm Farnilies

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Participants

Data Collection

Measures

Data Analysis

(1 ) Data collection

(2) Data reduction and coding

(3) Data display

(4) Conclusion drawing and verification

Results

Cornparison With the Yeoman and Entrepreneur Types

Expanders and Consetvators

Farm Succession Patterns

The expander - expander succession pattern

The expander - conservator succession pattern

The conservator - expander succession pattern

ii

The conservator - conservator succession pattern 29

Conclusion 33

References 39

Author Note 44

CHAPTER TWO: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding How Farm

Families Determine Fairness When Transfening the Farm 45

Abstract 46

Introduction 47

Theoretical Perspectives 49

Family fam succession issues for siblings 50

Adult sibling relationships 53

Global reciprocity: The expectation of faimess 56

Method 59

Participants 59

Data Collection 61

Measures 62

Data Analysis 63

(1 ) Data collection 66

(2) Data reduction and coding 66

(3) Data display 68

(4) Conclusion drawing and verification 69

Results 70

iii

One Successor Family: Transfer Fair, No Conflict, Close Sibling

Relationships 70

Multi Potential Successors: Transfer Fair, No Conflict, Close Sibling

Relationships 74

Multi Potential Successor: Transfer Fair, No Conflict, Not Close Sibling

Relationships 76

Muiti Potential Successors: Transfer Fair, Conflict Not Close Sibling

Relationships 77

More Than One Potential Successor: Transfer Not Fair, Conflict,

Mixed Sibling Relationships 80

Discussion 85

References 95

Author Note 1 02

CHAPTER THREE: Sibling Relationships, Fairness, and Conflict Over Transfer

of the Farrn 1 03

Abstract 1 04

Introduction 1 05

Adult Sibling Relationships and lnheritance 1 09

Adult Sibling Relationships and Family of Origin 111

The Justice Motive Model: The Perception of Fairness 115

Method 119

Participants 120

Variables

Confiict

Agreement on niles of fairness

Agreement on fairness of transfer

Perception of family wanth

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Relational Family Level Analysis

Discussion and Implications

References

Author Note

CHAPTER FOUR: Final Conclusions and Afterthoughts

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 Correlation of Variables Predicting Conflict Over

Transfer of the Fann

Table 3 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview Schedule for Older Generation

Appendix B: Interview Schedule for Farm Successor

Appendix C: Interview Schedule for Off-Farm Sibling

Appendix D: F a n Transfer Measure

Appendix E: The Assessrnent of Faimess Questionnaire

vii

Preface

The transfer of the farm to the next generation has been identified as an

important transition in the lives of fam families. Some fonn of parent-child joint

agricultural operation is the major arrangement on which the farm economy

turns. The technical aspects of transferring a family fam business is the simple

part. An accountant can help the family set up the business in a way that will

minimize inheritance and transfer tax. A lawyer can finalize the arrangements.

More mmplicated are the family relationships that can facilitate or hinder

succession at various points throughout the process.

This thesis is based on interviews with members of 36 farm families who

had transferred or were in the process of transferring the farm to a successor.

The general purpose was to examine various issues farm farnilies face when

making decisions about farm transfer. This research was not designed to

examine ail the issues in farm transfer but to focus on specific family issues that

were identified as critical ta the completion of succession. These were the

famer-successor relationship, farm successor and off-fann sibling

relationships, and intergenerational relationships. As the interviews

progressed, the mothers, daughters-in-law and off-farm sisters raised issues

that were specific to their roles. These issues are identified for future research.

The thesis is composed of three chapters, each written as a "stand-

alonen publication that takes a specific focus and analysis. Consequently, there

is some duplication of literature cited and sample descriptions in each chapter.

viii

Chapter one is based on interviews with at least three members of 36 fam

families. This chapter examines the famer-successor dyad because they are

the primary work tearn on which succession is based.

Chapter two is an analysis of faimess concerns from the perspective of

parents and children within a conceptual framework of global reciprocity. This

was done because faimess concems have been identified as underlying conflict

over farm transfer. This research was based on 17 of the 36 families because

they had transferred the farm or had legally completed the transfer. They were

chosen because their transfer decisions were finalized. Specific attention was

paid to their perceptions about conflict over transfer, closeness of sibling

relationships, faimess of transfer, and how faimess was detemined.

Chapter three tests the hypothesis that higher levels of wnflict are

predicted when: (1 ) the farm successor and off-farm sibling in each family have

different rules for assessing the faimess of the transfer; (2) the farm successor

and off-fam sibling in each family do not agree that the transfer is fair; and (3)

the farm successor and off-fan sibling perceive that their family of origin has

lower levels of warrnth and closeness.

CHAPTER ONE

Succession Patterns of Farmer and Successor in Canadian

Farm Families

Abstract

Two different succession patterns, the entrepreneur and the yeoman, were

identified by Salamon and her wlleagues (e.g., Salamon, 1985; Salamon,

Gengenbacher, 8 Penas, 1986) among ethnic families on century farms. The

applicability of this typology for succession for Canadian farms was assessed

among 36 families who had transferred or were making provisions for

transferring the fam. Case studies revealed patterns consistent with the

Salamon typology for a quarter of the families in this study. but the yeoman and

entrepreneur styles were not the central contrast that differentiated them.

Instead, two approaches to fam management were identified: the expander and

the conservator. The combination of these two approaches in the older famer

and younger successor comprises four farmer-successor succession patterns:

expanderexpander; expanderconservator; wnservatorexpander; and

conservatorconservator. Each style has different working relationships,

succession strategies. and areas of potential difficulty. Results are discussed in

ternis of interventions specific to farm succession pattern.

SUCCESSION PAlTERNS OF FARMER AND SUCCESSOR IN CANADIAN

FARM FAMILIES

The majority of fams and agribusiness in North America are family

operations in the sense that the principals are related by kinship or marriage,

the business and family relationships overlap, and control of the business

normally passes from one generation to another within the same family.

Faning differs from other types of family businesses in two essential ways.

First, faming is more than an economic adivity; it is a family lifestyle based on

beliefs about living and working on the farm (Colman & Capener, 1986).

Second, children are apprenticed into the occupation of faming with few people

entering from the outside except through marriage. Consequently a farm is five

times more likely to pass from generation to generation than a nonfarm

business (Laband & Lentz, 1983). This makes succession critical to the

economic viability of the farm business and the continuation of the family farm

(Russell, Griffin, Flinchbaugh, Martin, & Atilano, 1985; Weigel, Weigel, &

Blundall, 1987).

Succession, or the transfer of the fam to the younger generation, is not a

single act but a multi-staged process that may take many years to camplete.

This is because succession begins before heirs enter the business with the

socialization of children into faming (Anderson 8 Rosenblatt, 1985; Salamon et

al., 1986) and is completed in some cases through inheritance when the

younger generation is middle aged (Russell et al., 1985). This prolonged

1

period of intergenerational involvernent poses potential problerns for family

relationships, the farm business, and the completion of succession (Rosenblatt

& Anderson, 1981 ). In a survey of 7,000 fam families across Canada, the issue

of f a n transfer was rated as very important by 87% of respondents, among a

list of 16 "noneconomic issues" in faning (Agriculture Canada, 1987).

The relationship between business and family dynamics is complex.

(1 991 ) suggests that a family business cannot be undentood without

understanding the farnily that created it. For a family f a n , there is a high

degree of overlap between business, leisure, and family life (Schroeder, F

& van Es, 1985). The importance of understanding the impact of farnily

Jaffe

'1 iege

considerations on business outcornes cannot be underestimated. For example,

Rosenblatt (1 991 ) interviewed members of twenty-four fam families whose

operations were in serious jeopardy during the high interest rate and high land

price period of the 1980s. He concluded that families with farms in financial

trouble had made decisions bassd on family considerations such as

accommodating a successor or the retirernent needs of parents instead of on

business considerations such as land prices and interest rates. For half of

these families, problems with the business arose during the transfer.

The impact of family and business dynarnics on succession is a significant

aspect of faning that has been overlooked in agricultural research (Colman 8

Capener, 1986; Keating, 1994; Salamon et al., 1986). A significant exception is

the work of Salamon and her colleagues (e.g. Davis-Brown & Salamon, 1987;

2

Rogers 8 Salamon, 1983; Salamon, 1985; 1992; Salarnon et al.. 1986; Salamon

8 O'Reilly, 1979). They exarnined the relationship between family dynamics,

economic decision-making, and succession in four ethnic groups who had been

faming in the same geographic location for about a hundred years. Salamon

and O'Reilly (1979) argue that nonfarm families express linkages in physical

resemblance, emotional, and psychological traits. F a n families, on the other

hand, further express these traits in economic decisions, timing of retirement,

land transfer, and purchase of additional acreage. By controlling for similar

backgrounds, environment, agricultural technology, and education, Salamon

(1985) delineated two fam family management types, the yeoman and the

entrepreneur. She found that the Gennan, Irish, and Swedish families most

closely resembled the yeoman type. The Yankee families, however, were

entrepreneurial in their characteristics.

The central contrast between these yeoman and entrepreneur types was

the fundamentally different meaning each attached to land. The entrepreneur

families were cornmitted to the business of farrning while the yeoman families

were commi!ted to the family fanstead. In tum, these different cornmitments

had an impact on management strategy, succession strategies, inheritance

patterns, and family characteristics.

Salamon (1 985) found that yeoman families were committed to continuity,

that is, to reproducing a viable farm and at least one farmer in each generation.

Thess families were characterized by cooperative intergenerational

3

relationships and acrimonious sibling relationships. Their expansion strategies

were limited to family capabilities and succession was initiated by parents. In

contrast, entrepreneurial families were committed to managing a well-nin

business that produced profit Such families were characterized by competitive

sibling relationships and harmonious cross-generation relationships. Their

expansion strategies were limited by available capital and succession was

initiated by successors

Similar categorizations of farm management and farm families have been

described in other agncultural research. A business-oriented style is thought to

characterize the entrepreneur (Olsson, 1988), dedicated producer (Fairweather

& Keating, 1994), accumulator (Pomeroy, 1986 cf Faiweather & Keating, 1994),

extensifier (Van der Ploeg, 1985), and fam efficiciency entrepreneur (Walker,

1989). A lifestyle approach is thought to characterize the cautious strategist

(Olsson, 19881, sufficer (Pomeroy, 1986 cf Faiweather & Keating, 1994),

intensifier (Van der Ploeg, 1985) and environmentally effective famers (Walker,

1989). Bennett (1 982) also described a classification of farrn management

styles but he stressed that the style is influenced by the life-cycle of the

enterprise. For example, an operator in a "maintainingn or "coastingn stage

would move into an active redevelopment phase when a successor was

available. Conversely, a faner who was actively developing the business

could slow down and demonstrate characteristics of a less active management

style when there was no successor. Fairweather and Keating (1 994) also argue

4

that different farm management styles may be in evidence at different phases of

the family life cycle. Regardlesç of whether fam management types are fluid,

changing according to the life cycle of the farnily, or fixed, influencing farnily and

fam decisions, it is certain that there are different approaches to family farming.

In his study of Canadian farm succession, Bennett (1982) found a

relationship between ethnic affiliation and management style. His

Saskatchewan sample, like Salamon's (1 985) Great Plains sample in the United

States, was composed of ethnic groups that were either Catholidpeasant or

Protestantlentrepreneur in origin. Bennett (1 982) found that the first

generation, and a few second-generation families, remained close to the

original 'peasant" traditions. These effects were largely wiped out by the third

generation, however, a finding that difiers from that of Salamon (1 985; 1992).

Bennett (1 982) wncluded that by the third generation 'ethnic traditions had

œased to operate as a general constraint against active management, other

things being equaln (p. 384).

The various canceptualizations of farm family styles provide strong

evidence for a relationship between fam management style and farm family

relationships. The entrepreneur and yeoman wnceptualization developed by

Salamon (1 985; 1992) is the most indepth, comprehensive work linking farrn

family styles to succession patterns. Consequently, Salamon and her

wlleague's (1986) work k s formed the basis for this research. Salamon and

her colleagues (1 986) suggested that these patterns would be less apparent but

5

nonetheless present in every farrn cornmunity, a proposition that has not been

tested. Therefore, this study was carried out to answer two questions: (1 ) Are

there identifiable farm succession patterns in Canadian farm families? (2) How

applicable is the entrepreneur-yeoman typology developed by Salamon in

describing Canadian fam family succession patterns? The focus of this

research is on families at the point of transferring the farm business to the next

generation. This provides some control for differences in family life cycle that

may influence management styles (Bennett, 1982; Fairweather & Keating,

1994).

Method

The data for this analysis were derived from a larger project entitled

'Planning and Transitions in a Multi-familyiMultigeneration Farm Businessn that

was funded by the Canadian Farm Management ~ouncil '. The main objective

of the project was the development of training and resource materials that will

aid farm families in working together and in transferring the farm. The research

phase involved cornpiling case studies of Canadian farm families in order to

identify issues, problems, and effective 'niles of thumb" in successful mufti-

family and multi-generation fann business. This was not a national study, but a

study of volunteer cases selected with an attempt at national coverage to

identify as wide a diversity in themes as possible (Berg, 1989).

Participants

Thirty-six fann families were selected from five provinces2 that met the

following criteria: (a) the farm business was financially successful enough,

according to the family, to support two generations; (b) the family had either

completed the transfer or had decided to transfer the f a n land and business to

a successor; and (c) had two generations including an off-farm sibling of the

second generation willing to be interviewed. Each case in this sample

consisted of at least one member of the parent generation, one successor, and

one off-fam sibling, regardless of family size. Achenbach, McConaughy, and

Howell (1 987) concluded from a meta-analysis of ratings of behavior by two

informants, that data from one informant is a reasonable estimate of what

another informant of the same type would give. Thus, in this study, parents,

successor, and off-farm sibling each represented a different type of family

member.

This sample was obtained with the assistance of the local Ministry of

Agriculture offices. The data were collected between January and April of 1996

when farmers, particularly crop farmers, had more time to participate than

during growing and harvesting seasons. Although not proportionately

representative of the national fam population, the 36 cases represented al1

major commodity groups across Canada (O'Toole & Prud'homme, 1983). There

were three hog operations, three poultry, nine beeflgrain mixed, three field

crops, fourteen dairy, and four fruit or vegetable operations. Data were

7

collected from 36 families consisting of 151 individuals: 33 fathers, 28 mothers,

36 successors, 16 spouses of successors, 10 off-fann brothers, and 28 off-fam

sisters. In 35 families, the successor was a son, and in one family the

successor was a daughter. No distinctions were made in this study to gender

differences between sons and daughters as successor so the terni usuccessoi'

will be used to refer to both. Similarly the terrn "fannef is generally used to

refer to the father as the principal operator. In one family, however, the

principal operator was the rnother, and in some families the parents worked

collaboratively and contributed equally to the interview. The intent for this

research was not to delineate the balance of power between mothers and

fathers in farm families, but to focus on the farmer-successor succession

patterns. Salamon (1 992) poin~s out that while mothers, brothers, and sisters

are critical to the eventual outcome of succession, the father-son dyad,

however, is the primary dyad in succession.

The intent of this research was to interview the two generations

separately so that each would be candid in answering questions. When

interviewers arrived at some f a n s a spouse was sometimes absent, or both

generations were together. For example, four farnilies stated that they preferred

both generations to be interviewed together because they "had no secretsn or

that they "discuss everything anyway". This gave the interviewers an

opportunity to observe their interactions when discussing the questions. The

interviewers concluded that for three of these families, being interviewed

8

together did not compromise the purpose of the research because al1 farnily

members contributed to the interview. In the fourth family, we were cautious in

our interpretations because the intewiewer noted that the successor did not

participate as much in the interview, or when he did, gave joking and off-hand

answers. For this family, interviewing the generations separately may have

resulted in obtaining different data.

The intent of this research was to interview each couple of the older

generation and younger generation successor. In 21 families, the parents in the

older generation were interviewed together; in one family, the parents were

interviewed separately (although the interviewer found that they gave

essentially the same answers); in three families, the mother only was

interviewed (in one of these the father had died when the children were young

and she was the principle operator; in the other two families, the rnother was the

spokesperson for the couple and the fathers were not interested in answering

questions); in seven families, the father only was interviewed (in two farnilies

the mother had died; one mother was working off-farrn at the time of the

interview; one mother was ill; and in three families the mother was unavailable).

For the younger generation, 16 successors were interviewed with their spouse

and the remainder were interviewed alone (six were single, two separated, 12

spouses were unavailable for the interview). There were 10 off-farm brothers

and 26 off-farm sisters that were interviewed by telephone or in person.

The older generation fanners (35 fathers, 1 mother) ranged in age from 40

to 77 years of age (m= 63, SD 7.41 ). Their education ranged from completing

grade school to completing two years of university. In 1 i families, the older

generation started the farm; in 17, they were the second generation; and in 8

they were the third generation. The younger generation successors (35 sons, 1

daughter) ranged in age from 20 to 47 (M = 33, a 6.35). The successors were

better educated than their parents with their education ranging from grade

school to a graduate degree in Agriculture. This education difference was

statistically significant (1 = -4.63, df = 70, Q = .O01 )

Data Collection

Families were initially contacted by telephone or by letter. The consent of

only those family rnembers who would be fomially interviewed was required:

parents, successor, and one off-farm sibling. The choice of wfiich off-farm

sibling would participate when there was more than one to choose from was

made by family rnembers who participated in this study. It is possible that this

method of selection screened out any "black sheep" that might have been in

some of these families (Marshall, 1984) and thus minimized the degree of

conflict reported.

Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews took place in their homes for the

on-fam generations and over the telephone, in most instances, for the off-fam

sibling. Interviews took a total of about 4 hours per case for families who were

audio-taped and longer per case when the interviewer did not audiotape but

I O

took notes (up to 9 houn in some cases). Nineteen families were audiotaped

and 17 were not audiotaped.

Measures

Data were collected using a semi-stnictured interview and answers from

the F a n Transfer Measure. The interview had three parallel foms: one for the

older generation (see Appendix A); one for the younger generation successor

(see Appendix B); and a separate one for the off-fam sibling (see Appendix C).

The interview probed family values of continuity, attitudes about faming as a

business or family lifestyle, involvernent of children in the farm, decisions about

which adult child would take over, faimess, transfer process, communication,

decision making, and retirement.

The Farm Transfer Measure (see Appendix D) consisted of four questions

that were answered on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants indicated their

agreement to statements regarding perceived faimess of the farm transfer, the

value of keeping the fann in the family, perceived ease of decisions about

transfer, and amount of conflict caused by the transfer. This information was

not for any quantitative analysis in this study but used in combination with the

interview data to gain an understanding of the perception of family members.

Data Analvsis

The level of analysis was essentially the farmer-successor dyad within the

context of the family. That is, information was collected concerning perceptions

of the famer-successor dyad from family members. The specific focus on

11

farmer and successor dyad was done because, as Salamon (1992) points out,

they are the primary work team. In this way, data were wllected individually

and dyadically but used to fom an understanding of the famer-successor dyad.

Obtaining data from more than one member of a family not only strengthens the

information about a family, but also increases confidence in the conclusions

(Copeland & White, 1991). This is also referred to as triangulation.

Triangulation is a strategy that increases the validity of research findings

(Mathison, 1988), checks against researcher bias (Hubeman & Miles, 1994),

and increases the level of validity or 'trustworthiness" or the findings (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Mathison (1 988) points out that triangulation of measures and

infonnants can lead to three outcomes, namely convergence, inwnsistency

among data, and contradiction. This leads to another dilemma in family

research, narnely, how to analyze differing assessments of family

characteristics from members of the same family. Copeland and White (1 991 )

argue that each family member is accurately describing his or her own

subjective perspective on the target characteristic and disagreement between

family members has important theoretical implications. The goal is to capture

as much of the farnily reality as possible which is in keeping with postpositive

arguments that reality can never be fully apprehended, only approximated

(Guba, 1 990). Therefore, disagreements between farnily members were treated

as important information and noted.

Using bath an interview and a questionnaire increases the level of validity

or "trustworthiness" of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because this was a

small sample, similarities and differences within each category are described in

detail thus demonstrating the conclusions of this researcher about this

particular sample. The idea of reliability for this qualitative study is that a later

investigator following the same procedures on the same sample would arrive at

the sarne findings and conclusions (Yin, 1984). Therefore the method section

includes thick descriptions of the methodolog ical strateg ies used. Data anal ysis

will be discussed under the four wmponents of data analysis described by

Miles and Huberman (1 984; 1994). These are (a) data collection, (2) data

reduction and coding, (3) data display, and (4) conclusion drawing and

verifkation.

II) Data collection.

The data were wllected by four interviewers3. The problem of

maintaining consistency when separate interviewers collect data was addressed

in the following ways. Two interviewers made audio recordings and one took

extensive verbatim notes that were read back to respondents for a check on

accuracy and corrections made where necessary. This interviewer also made

notes about her observations and impressions of the families. The notes from

the fourth interviewer were not verbatim nor as detailed as those of the other

three. He had worked, however, with each family as a consultant throughout

the process of succession for about three years prior to the interview and knew

q3

these familias very well. Each case was reviewed with him. Recognizing the

possible differences in quality and depth using different collection methods and

interviewers, I met with the interviewers and discussed the results and

interpretations for each family with the interviewer who had met the family. This

was done to reduce researcher error.

(2) Data reduction and codina.

This involves reducing the data through sumrnaries, coding, finding

themes and clustering within a framework on which the research questions were

based. The initial coding scheme was based upon the literature review guiding

this studying, particularly the work of Salamon and her colleagues (e.g. Davis-

Brown & Salamon, 1987; Rogers & Salamon, 1983; Salamon, 1985; 1992;

Salamon et al., 1986; Salamon & O'Reilly, 1979). This literature was used as a

starting point in analysis, a process described by Gilgun (1 992) as using

previous research to sensitize the researcher to issues. Consequently the data

were summarized for each family in the following way. The answers to the

Farm Transfer Measures (perception of conflict; values of fam continuity;

decisionmaking process; perception of fairness of transfer) were listed for each

participant according to family. The interview transcripts were examined

according to the following issues; older generation's entry into faming,

successor's entry into farming, quality of working relationship, decision-making

process, transfer process, power struggle, conflict issues, conflict resolution,

and similarities and differences between generations.

14

13) Data disdav.

Hubeman and Miles (1994) describe this process as an organized,

compressed assembly of information that is necessary for the researcher to

begin thinking about its meaning in order to draw wnclusions. With this

method, the data is focused enough to permit viewing of the full data set in one

location to answer the research questions. For this study, the data from each

individual member of the family was wded and wndensed onto a sheet of

paper for each family under the following headings: ownership status of fam

business; older generation entry into faming; younger generation entry into

faming; how successor chosen; work relationship; decision making process;

how off-farrn children treated in transfer; fairness concerns; transfer decision

process; who diswssed transfer; conflict; conflict resolution; and issues raised

by family as impacting transfer.

Families were first sorted and grouped according to whether the family

held entrepreneur or yeoman values as described by Salamon (1 984).

According to Salarnon, entrepreneur or yeoman values fom the basis for family

and f a n decisionmaking, relationship to land, commitment to continuity,

obligations to future generations, and the value placed on woperation with

family members to achieve group goals. These entrepreneur and yeoman

goals, however, were not found to be organizing themes for many of these

families. Consequently, the families were sorted according to themes that

distinguished one family from another in order to identify succession patterns.

15

Preliminary analysis revealed that some fatmer-successor dyads worked

together as a team with shared decisionmaking, and others operated as a "one

bossn operation. Consequently families were sorted under "team" and "one-

bossn operations. Information was displayed on a sheet of paper for each

family in order ta group similarities and differences. The team and one-boss

characteristics were found to be unworkable for al1 cases. Instead, differences

and similarities in farmer and successor generations resulted in different

succession patterns. Consequently each famer and successur was analyzed

for themes separately and cornpared. The ternis 'expander" and "conservatoP

were chosen because these terrns captured the focus on the farmer-successor

dyad and best delineate the succession patterns for this sample.

/4) Conclusion drawina and verfication.

Confirmation and validation of results have a different meaning in

qualitative research. Qualitative researchers seek trustworthiness and

authenticity of the data. Therefore, triangulation of data from different family

members and multiple methods of analysis gives confidence of the truthfulness

of these findings for these particular farm families by this specific researcher.

Triangulation also means convergence among investigators. Therefore, the

conclusions about each family were discussed with the interviewer who had met

each family in order to verify the results. Because this was a small sample,

similarities and differences within each category are described in detail thus

demonstrating the conclusions of this researcher about this particular sample.

16

Results

The findings differ from Salamon and her colleagues' (e.g. Davis-Brown &

Salamon, 1987; Rogers & Salamon, 1 983; Salamon, 1985; 1 992; Salamon, et

al., 1986; Salamon & O'Reilly, 1979) work in two important ways. Although

evidence of Salamon's (1985) two agricultural goals (that is, a farm continuity

commitment versus an optimizing profit commitment) were found, but unlike

Salamon, these agricultural goals did not differentiate the f a m families in this

sample. That is, many of the family members in this sample gave evidence of

having both the commitment to f am continuity and to optimizing profit. Second,

although there was support for Salamon's (1 985) two types of f a m families for a

quarter of this sample, the remainder could not be classified as either

entrepreneur or yeoman. Thus, the concepts of "expandef and "conservatoi'

are used in order to distinguish these findings from that of Salarnon and others

(e.g. Fairweather & Keating, 1994; Olsson, 1988; Pomeroy, 1986 cf.

Fairweather & Keating, 1994; Van der Ploegg, 1985; Walker, 1989).

Corn~arison With the Yeoman and Entre~reneur Tvpes

According to Salamon (1 985; 1992), entrepreneur families tended to

discuss farm goals in economic tems whereas yeoman families discussed farrn

goals according to lineage preservation. Many of the families in this study,

however, demonstrated a mix of both approaches. For example, this 63-year

old father discussed the fam in tems of profit-oriented goals that would typify

an entrepreneur. "My intention was to build a bigger operation, successful

17

operation right from the start. And have my boys cany over." He, hcnever,

described the kind of continuity goal that would typify a yeoman: "One of the

things I Say is if anyone ever sells this fann l'II corne back and haunt them".

In another family, a 59-year-old father discussed his attitude towards

keeping the fam in the family in this way:

Ta us it is of no importance at all. It is simply that these kids want to raise

their farnily on a farm and farming is about al1 our son knows . . . I think

financially we would have been better off to seIl it to a stranger. Son has

had to amortize, you know, it's going to cost a lot of money. And we won't

be getting any financial benefit from them taking it over really. WeJre

going to have a nice house to live in, but we would just as soon sold it, I

would have anyway. Get the cash for it and run.

This statement is consistent with what Salamon (1 985) classified as

entrepreneur goals where the land is discussed unsentimentally as a

commodity to be bought and sold. These parents, however, were making

sacrifices for the next generation that would fit instead with the goals of a

yeoman. Their 36-year-old successor gave another perspective that indicated

an agricultural goal of valuing continuity with the following statement:

This farm used to belong to my rnother's father so she tried pretty hard to

make sure it worked. This farm has more sentimental value to my mother

than it does to my father. So she wanted to see it stay in the family more

than my dad did, I think.

This mother had a yeoman-like attachment to the land that explains the

sacrifices they were making for the successor to fam. While the father did not

value continuity, the mother did. In this way, this family demonstrated both

yeoman and entrepreneur values towards relationship to the land. This

suggests that sometimes a faning goal is not shared by al! members of a

family (Fink, 1986), adding to intra-family stress (Davis-Brown & Salamon,

1 987).

Another example of different agriculture goals in the same family occurs

when members attribute the dificulties between senior farrner and successor to

a clash of styles. In one family, the mother stated that '(son) was a bigger risk

taker while (husband) wanted to protect the finances." This risk taking would fit

with an entrepreneur family (Salamon, 1985). Her husband also went on to

state the following:

Me and my dad got along because we had similar philosophies. We'd

been through the depression, we were both protective of the farm, we

were both afraid of debt.

Note the cautious approach to debt of the father that Salamon (1985) also found

to be characteristic of a yeoman farmer.

Expanders and Conservators

These examples dernonstrate why the input of several mernbers of a

family is needed to gain a fuller understanding of the famer-successor

relationship (Copeland & White, 1991 ). Consequently, the f a n family

19

succession patterns will be diswssed according to the senior farmer-successor

relationship. This is because the basis for succession patterns was whether

famers and successors could be described as expanders or conservators, and

whether these dyads shared a similar approach or viewed the fam in a

discrepant way.

In this sample, expanders were usually the founding generation, or the

generation that expanded and diversified their parents' fann. They were

generally characterized by entrepreneurial drive, ambition, vision, and high

needs for control. They tended to take more risks than conservators and would

borrow to expand the business. This approach is similar to the management

strategy of entrepreneurs described by Salamon (1 985). Expanders were not

distinguished from conservators in their agricultural goal of either reproducing a

famer, or optimizing profit. Twenty expanders could be identified in the older

generation; of these, however, only five discussed the farm in terms of a

business operation - - a strategy that should typify entrepreneurs amrding to

Salamon (1 985).

Expanders needed ownership and control and did not like working for

anyone else. They did not plan for retirement, but usually had it forced on them

by health problerns, accidents, or their successors. For example, one fanner

with health problems stated that "(we) really got think(ing) about involving the

kids when I got si& and (successor) graduated from high school." Expanders

were often leaders in their occupation and recognized by their wmmunity as

20

such. The 11 founders in this study can be described as expanders because

their drive and ambition founded the fam and, through a strong workethic and

careful management of resources, they established an operation that could

support two generations. The next generation made cumments Iike: 'this place

was nothing when rny parents bought it;" "he arrived in this country with $25 and

now has a place worth a million dollars." Once the farrn was established,

however. some founders operated more like conservators.

The conservators in Our sample achieved a good living through hard work

and a more cautious approach to debt and expansion. Hence they used their

own resources to expand, or they borrowed very little, and had a farm that could

be passed down to the next generation because there was little or no debt. If

they did expand the business, they did so on a small scale. Some conservators

stated that they had other values that placed family hanony above rnaking a lot

of money. This was also a characteristic of yeoman families (Salamon, 1985).

For example, one 47-year-old wnservator successor explained:

I'd Say that today in fanning, it's more important to get along first than to

have a big income. Like I think the family is the main strength of the farm.

The sister youJll Se talking to, they corne and help us with hay, and we

work together. I think you have to be a family first then a farm family

second. You still have to love everybody. Like my dad and I are more

Iike brothers than father-son.

Unlike the expanders, many conservators in this study had plans for

retirement or were ready to slow d o m when the next generation was waiting to

take control. This strategy is common in families that plan for continuity

(Salamon & O'Reilly, 1 979).

Farrn Succession Patterns

The combination of expander and conservator in senior and junior

generation form the basis of the Farrn Succession Patterns. These patterns

are: (1 ) senior farmer expander, successor expander; (2) senior faner

expander, successor conservator; (3) senior famer conservator, successor

expander; and (4) senior famer conservator, successor conservator. Each of

the four patterns had different intergenerational working relationships, different

strategies for negotiating roles during the transition, different succession

strategies, and different conflict issues. Whether the expander or conservator

was a famer or a successor had important implications for their succession

strateg y.

The expander - ex~ander succession ~attem.

There were ten families in this study where both the senior famer and the

successor shared an expander approach. Both generations valued fam

continuity, had high drive, vision, energy, and had a high need for control. Not

surprisingly, their initial working relationship was characterized by a power

struggle that needed resolution before they could work together. In these

dyads, the successor often pushed for control.

22

These families indicated that they valued continuity, the main difference

between these expander-expander families and Salamon's (1 985) description of

entrepreneurial families. Of the 33 individual members from these expander-

expander farnilies who filled out the F a n Transfer Measure, 29 agreed or

strongly agreed that their family valued keeping the farm in the family. In only

one family did the parents clearly state that it was not their intention for their

children to farm and that they had discouraged their children from faming.

The shared need for contra1 was often a barrier to effective partnerships

in expander families. It was dificult for the successor expander to be in a

situation with no control and difkult for the farmer expander to have to give up

control. The younger generation stated that problerns working with senior

farmers occurred because they were both "headstrongn, "stubbomn, or that

there were "too many chiefsn or there was "room for one boss only." One 35-

year-old successor best articulated this struggle with the older generation:

We argued a lot more the first five to six years than we do now. It was a

power struggle because who's going to be boss? When you're not, you

want to bel and when you are, you don't really care anymore.

Generally speaking, al1 36 successors in this study stated that differences

in opinion were often due to their wanting to try new ways, while the senior

farmer wanted to stick to old ways. In the expanderexpander operation,

however, these differences resulted in conflict that was described as a power

struggle. This power struggle continued frorn two to six years and was resolved

23

in one of three ways (1 ) the successor gaining legal ownership, (2) the parents

relinquishing some wntrol and giving some area of decisionmaking to the next

generation, and (3) the creation of a legal partnership that explained how the

final transfer would occur.

This power struggle is consistent with what Salamon and her colleagues

(1 986) have described as the acrimonious intergenerational succession pattern

found in their Yankee entrepreneurial families. In this way, these expander-

expander families are sirnilar to Salamon's (1 985) entrepreneur families.

Salamon and her colleagues (1 986) also found that the Yankee entrepreneur

famers worked better as "two linked, staunchly independent sole

proprietorshipn (p. 28). consistent with findings in this study as well. In the 10

expander-expander families, four successors had achieved ownership, four

families were operating as a corporation whereby senior famer and successor

had different areas of responsibility, and in two families, although they were

legally in a partnership, they were operating more as an informal joint venture

with separate areas of ownenhip.

These successors pushed for ownership early in their careers from their

mid-twenties to early thirties (average age was 28.5). Salamon and her

colleagues (1 986) found a similar pattern in Yankee entrepreneur families. In

this study. the next generation's push for ownership was sornetirnes precipitated

by their own life cycle issues. For example one 35-yearold son stated:

I found it hard because I didnJt own anything. I was just working here.

And I was 35 and had two kids and a wife and I didnJt own anything I had

worked for al1 these years.

All successors reported that gaining control resolved the power stniggle,

alleviated their frustration, and improved relationships with their parents. Al1

parents said it was diffkult to let go at first, but that they had corne to accept it.

Senior famers and successors noted that they both had to "mellow" in some

way to achieve a good working relationship. One 57-year-old father gave a

good illustration of what other fathen in a similar situation experienced. He

stated that:

(son) came home from college knowing it al1 and with the attitude that I

knew nothing. And I looked at him as wet behind the ears, knowing

nothing. It took a number of years of mellowing for us both in order to

work it out,

This father and son were now working as a team, with separate areas of

responsibility and mutual respect, resulting in a more successful operation than

they perhaps could have achieved on their own. The confiict appears to have

been resolved when the power stniggle was resolved.

The expander - conservator succession pattern.

There were 10 families where the farmer had expander values and the

successor took a conservator approach. To summarize their characteristics

the senior faner had a high need for control, but the successor did not; thus,

25

there was no power struggle in their working relationship. Even if the successor

was not necessarily satisfied with the situation, he did not make waves.

Nevertheless, upon succession, usually initiated by the parents, conflict did

occur.

The senior farmer, being an expander, had strong needs for control

whereas the successor, being a cunservator, was more likely not to challenge

or push for control. Consequently, there was no power stniggle in the working

relationship because none of these successors challenged the authority of the

faner. For example one 68-year-old famer described his relationship in the

fol lowing way:

I don't have any difficulties (working) with (son) because he's not a guy

who does a lot of talking. He'll never argue (with me). We may not agree

but we never argue.

Other farnilies also attributed good farmer-successor working relationships to

"successor is easy to get along with," or because successors had leamed that

'it was fruitless to argue." This contrasts with the expanderexpander

operations where there is a power struggle because the successor challenged

the authority of the senior farmer. The la& of a power stniggle in the working

relationship did not mean that there were no dificulties connected to the

transfer, or that successors were content with the situation. For example, in

one family, father and son both reported a good working relationship but the

relationship broke down and mediation was required to settle the transfer.

26

Conflict over transfer was reported by members in six of these families. It

is interesting to note that this conflid was reported by other members of the

family, not the senior famer. Perhaps the wnflict was not overt or perhaps not

acknowledged by the older man. In two of these families, the working

relationship was not problematic until decisions had to be made about transfer.

In most of these families, the parents initiated discussions about transfer

and be!iôvac! it ;vas thei: responsibility to devise a plan for succession before

discussing it with their offspring. For example in explaining his transfer

strategy, one 57-year-old farmer stated:

I think the proposal should corne from the father. Because he holds the

purse strings, he has the final Say. And I think if he can corne up with a

proposa1 that he can live with then they got ta work a proposa1 that the

kids c m live with. And I'm quite sure if (son) would Say '1 want this and 1

want that,' 1 think parents would get their backs up and Say 'no, it's ours.'

If it cornes from the son, that is the wrong way to go. From the top down.

This is consistent with the yeoman system of "sponsoredn succession where the

parents take a sequence of steps to prepare a successor to take over the

business rather than the entrepreneur strategy of the successors having to

prove themselves. It also fits with an expander's need for control; that is, to

decide when and how succession will occur. In farnilies who had worked out

such a transfer arrangement, both generations expressed satisfaction with their

working relationships and the transfer.

27

The conservator - ex~ander succession pattern.

Only two families included a farmer who was a conservator and a

successor who was an expander. In these families, the fam's expansion and

diversification were driven by the drive and ambition of the successor. The

senior generation recognized and supported the successor's abilities and the

pair had a satisfactory working relationship.

The conservator parents had a successful operation, but expansion and

diversification had been propelled by the expander characteristics of the

successor. These families may support Faiweather and Keating's (1 994)

finding that management style may change according to life-cycle influences

such as bringing on a successor. In one family, the successor started

expanding the business when he finished school and in a relatively short period

had quadnipled the cash flow, diversified the operation, and increased farm

holdings. In another family, the combination of the successor's entrepreneurial

talent with the parent's fiscal conservatism had resulted in a large diversified

operation with low debt. In other words, when both generations built on the

strengths of the other, both profited. These farrners and successors wzre

working as a tearn, with no conflict, or power stniggle reported.

Decision-making was shared by farmer and successor, and discussions

about transfer evolved. In both families, the famers invested more into the farm

because of the drive and ambition of their successors. Although these families

had an expander and a conservator, the dynamics were different from the

28

farmer expander, successor conservator style. This illustrates how the dynamic

changed depending upon which generation was expander or conservator. This

was also the srnallest category of styles, hence some cautions are warranted in

interpretation.

The conservator - conservator succession pattern.

Fourteen families represented this style. They were characterized by

consensual decisionmaking (often involving wives and daughter-in-laws) and

the absence of a power struggle. Both farmer and successor were satisfied with

their working relationship and shared a compatible philosophy of faming.

These families had low debt (or none) and had interests other than the fam. In

other words, many families in the wnservatorconservator families were similar

to the yeoman families described by Salamon (1 985).

Both generations in the wnservatorconservator operation tended to

describe their working relationship as "more like brother-brother than father-

son," or like a mariage where "you can't always get your way, if you do, you

won't have much of a relationship." Both generations expressed satisfsction

with their working relationship and when asked the secret of their success,

typically said "we think aliken, or "he has the same attitude towards maintenance

of equipment that 1 don. Others noted that they had similar attitudes about debt,

farm goals, and management. These responses are consistent with those of

yeoman families who had intergenerational cooperation and parental

responsibility for setting up the successor (Davis-Brown & Salamon, 1987).

29

The decisi~n tu transfer was more often described as one that evolved

over the years. There was no sense that the younger generation "pushedn for

ownership, nor was there a power stmggle. For example a 42-yearold son

stated:

There was no real decision (to transfer). Of Dad saying, 'well it's time I

sell.' Or brother saying, 'Dad I think I need to buy you outs. I don't think

there's anything like that. When you're working together as a unit you

talk about al1 kinds of stuff . . . and it was quite a few years before the

actual deed was done,

Decisions about how to transfer the fam were discussed openly, infomally

(often around the dinner table) and consensus was reached. One mother said it

was a situation where "both generations put ail their cards on the table, there

was no hidden agenda." A daughter-in-law also stated that the decision to

transfer 'was a gradua1 thing that just happened over the years . . . it sort of just

happened gradually. Again, it's always been an understanding."

Unlike the expanderexpander operations, partnerships worked well in

these families. Of the 14 families five were currently working in a partnership

relationship; four had transferred to the next generation; three were working as

an informa1 joint venture; and two were operating as a corporation. In three

families, the farm was Iefi to the successor in the will, and in three others it was

tumed over to the successor well below market value. Any dificulties with

these arrangements did not corne frorn the parents and fann successor, but

30

from an off-fann sibling who did not think it was fair. This is consistent with

Salamon and her colleagues (1 986) finding that Swedish yeoman families

experienced conflict with siblings over succession but had hannonious

intergenerational relationships.

In two families, the conflict over transfer was due to an off farm sibling

who thought the parents were not getting enough and the successor was getting

too much. In these situations, because all family members, including off-farm

siblings, had been informed of how the transfer was taking place, any potential

problems were dealt with openly. One sibling remarked that if no one had

known the details before the reading of the will, it would have been "a bad

scene." Because the parents couid articulate their reasons for how and why

they were transferring the farm as they were, family harmony was maintained.

In another farnily that reported conflict over transfer, the difFiculty concemed

land that had not been transferred from the grandparents' generation (the

grandfather was still faming) and uncertainty about how it was transferred in

his will.

In 10 of these families the older generation was ready to slow down when

the next generation was ready to take over responsibility. This was not

necessarily related to age of farmers. Some farmers in their early fifties said

they wanted to slow down; there were some other interests they wanted to

pursue, or they were ready to get out of the business decisions of the farm

when the next generation was ready ta take over. For example, in diswssing

31

the transfer with her husband. one 55-year-old conservator mother stated to her

husband

You did Say too at one time 'I'm ready to back off, I really like the work but

would like (son) to take over financial responsibility.' I think that was your

aspect of it and you and (son) talked about that a lot in the barn. before it

came on the table . . . I know you were getting very tired of the financial,

okay, physically you're getting older but you can do a lot of physiml work.

But you didnJt want the stress of wnning the business. And I think that's

what you were getting tired of.

In other cases, the father had suffered some accident or health-related

problems, or some event that had removed hirn from the farm temporarily.

Therefore, they needed their children to take on more responsibility. In the

families where the farmer was not ready to let go, three successors were under

age 25 and in the fourth the grandfather still held title to some land.

The conservator-conservator operations were not as large as the

expander-expander operations, a differenx alsc found by Salamon (1 985;

1992) between her yeoman and entrepreneur families. Decisions to transfer

may be based more on "heart" than on "headn. In many cases, parents

commented that if a lot of money in the bank was their primary wncem, they

would seIl the farm to a stranger. In order to accommodate the desire of the

next generation to fam, they had to make some sacrifices. In other words, they

put family goals ahead of individual goals, which is what Salamon (1 985; 1992)

also found in yeoman families.

There were some situations where there was a delicate balance between

the financial needs of the parents for retirement and the ability of the farrn to

generate income. These parents had not accumulated enough other assets

and needed income from the fam for their retirement. They had successors

who needed help from the parents to continue fatming. How to compensate the

older generation while not over-burdening the younger generation was

challenging. In some cases, the second generation built the parents a new

house on fam land. In six families, the parents had ownership but the farm was

bequeathed to the successor in their Will. In some cases, the successor

agreed to look after the financial needs of the parents in old age in exchange

for receiving the farm through the Will. As one 65-year-ald mother explained,

"we want to stay here as long as we are able. If we need nursing-home care,

then our son will provide that. If he doesn't, we still own the fam and could seIl

it." In short, this family demonstrated intergenerational cooperation in obtaining

group goals which, again, Salamon (1 985; 1992) found to be characteristic of

yeoman families.

Conclusion

These results expand the work on ethnic century fanners by Salamon and

her colleagues (e-g. Davis-Brown & Salamon, 1987; Rogers & Salamon, 1983;

Salamon, 1982: 1985; 1992; Salamon et al., 1986; Salamon 8 O'Reilly, 1979),

33

and add to the Iiterature on fam management family types (e-g. Fairweather &

Keating, 1994; Oisson, 1988; Pomeroy, 1986 cf. Fairweather & Keating, 1994;

Van der Ploegg, 1985; Walker, 1989). Although Davis-Brown and Salamon

(1 987) state that a fam operator and other family members may have different

farming styles, these results show how those styles have differing impacts on

intergenerational relationships and succession strategies. One of the most

important findings from this research is that partiwlar issues are analogous to

particular farm succession patterns. For the conservatorconservator

operations and the conservator-expander operations, succession unfolds in a

relatively harmonious manner. For the expanderexpander operations,

however, the power struggle needs to be resolved in order for succession to be

completed. In the expander-conservator operations, the la& of a power

stniggle did not mean that there was no confiict over transfer, nor that

successors were partiwlarly satisfied with the situation. In other words, the

absence of a power struggle in the expander-conservator operations is not

necessarily a good sign.

These results diFer from the findings by Salamon (1 985; 1992) in that

farm cornmitment of either continuity or profit did not differentiate our famer-

successor succession patterns. One reason for this rnay be due to sample

selection. This was a volunteer sample of families who had transferred or were

in the final process of transferring the farm. In short they were planning

continuity. Salamon, on the other hand, based her findings on fam families in a

34

particular geographic location. They were not selected for intention to transfer.

Consequently, the families in this study could have a higher value for continuity.

That is, any previous attitude against wntinuity would be changed to be

consistent with their current behavior demonstrating a value of wntinuity.

Another reason for these results may be that, as in the prairie families

interviewed by Bennett (1982), ethnic traditions had ceased to exert a strong

influence by the third generation. This would explain why some of the yeoman

and entrepreneur characteristics identified by Salamon (1 985; 1992) were found

in a quarter of this sample but not in the remainder. Perhaps another difference

is that, while Salamon (1 992) found strong wmmunity structures that

maintained ethnic identification and values in her sample, these structures may

not have been operating for my sample.

Some families did clearly demonstrate the characteristics of

entrepreneurs and yeomen. Perhaps the families in our study who did not

match these types fell into a category between the two. Salamon (1992)

describes her entrepreneur and yeoman families as "ideal typesn of wntrasting

extremes of the same categories of behavior, with no one individual in a farnily

wmmunity exhibiting every ideal characteristic. Thus, the results from our

study may provide a way of delineating more precisely those families in the

rniddle, a style perhaps more common on Canadian farms. Support for this idea

can be found in the work of Mumey (1 967) who noted that Canadian Great

Plains farmers are more conservative and cautious in investment and innovative

behavior than their American neighbors in adjoining regions of the Plains.

Some caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the data because

of the different interviewers used to collect data using different methods.

Rewgnizi~g this as an issue, steps were taken to discuss and verify the

findings with each interviewer. Another caution in interpretation of results is

that the perceptions of al1 family members was not obtained. Interviewing one

member of a family essentially provides an individual assessrnent of the family

and not family data (Le. Fisher, Kokes, Ransom, Phillips, & Rudd, 1 985).

lnterviewing more than one member provides a richer perspective, but

questions remain as to whether interviewing every member of the family would

change the results. 1 believe that the strategy of purposive sampling allowed

the most salient themes to be detected in the relationship between senior

farmers and their successors. Such wncems about sampling have been

identified in discussions of family research (e-g. Copeland & White, 1991 ; Daiy,

1992; Larsen & Olson, 1990) but remain essentially unresolved.

Despite these potential short comings, there are a number of implications

of this research for practitioners who work with farm families. First of all, the

dynamics are different depending on the combination of expander and

wnservator in the two generations. Rewgnizing each pattern would provide a

first step for determining what kind of intervention is needed to facilitate a

successful transfer. Second, confiict issues differ according to succession

36

pattern. This means that intementions will be more effective when they are

designed to diffuse the potential difficuities with succession inherent in a

particular succession pattern. For example, in an expanderexpander

operation, separate areas of ownership or control are needed to resolve the

power struggle. Providing opportunities to mediate this power struggle through

a third party might diffuse any destructive fallout due to unresolved conflict.

This would allow the strengths and abilities of the expanders to be harnessed in

ways that respect their needs for control and resolve the power struggle. In the

expander-conservator operation, what is needed is a push for control by the

successor. Although it is generally difficult for expander parents to let go of

control, the conservator successor has abilities that will balance the expander

parent for the bettement of the f a m business. In other words, interventions are

needed that would facilitate the expander parent to share power and bring

confiict into the open. Conservator farmers and successors may work as a

team, but may put family mmrnitments to continuity ahead of business

decisions and thus jeopardize the f a m business, as Rosenblatt (1 991 ) found in

his families facing econornic disaster. In the wnservatorconservator

operations, conflict tends to occur between siblings, requiring intervention in

intragenerational relationships.

A useful inquiry for future research would be to examine succession

"failures" in order to further understand how family dynamics effect the

succession process. Which of these family types would more likely experience

37

succession failure? I speculate that reasons for failure would be analogous to

family type. For the expander-expander operations, power struggles are likely

and, wnsequently, succession failure is also likely if the power struggle is not

resolved. The conservatorconservator operations might experience difficulty

due to placing "hearf' decisions before "head" decisions. For the expander-

conservator operations, failure wuld occur because there would be no

mechanisms to resolve the conflict that for the most part is unacknowledged by

the older generation.

The role of the spouse, particularly women, was not always clear in these

family styles. In a number of situations the spouse was absent, and in other

interviews they were present with some participating more than others. In many

cases, it seemed that the women acted as peace keepers and mediators of

disputes. In some families it appeared that the women took an active part in

decision-making, while in others they were silent. Further research is needed to

detennine if women's roles and influence differ according to succession pattern.

The literature on succession tends to focus on the problems and

difficulties unique to intergenerational relationships and succession. This

research demonstrates, however, that each combination of expanders and

conservators has particular strengths and weaknesses to handle these events.

This suggests that a more useful approach to research will be to shift the focus

from how working relationships and succession issues affect f am families to

how family relationships have an impact upon these issues.

38

References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).

Childladolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-

information correlations for situational specificity. Psvcholoaical Bulletin. 1 01,

21 3-232.

Agriculture Canada, (1 987). Familv farm forum report. Ottawa.

Anderson, R. M. & Rosenblatt, P. C. (1985). lntergenerational transfer of

f a m land. Journal of Rural Comrnunitv Psvcholoav. 6(1), 19-25.

Bennett, J. W. (1 982). Of time and the entemise: North American familv

f a m management in a wntext of resource maminality. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

Berg, B. L. (1 989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bray, J. H. (1995). Family assessrnent: Current issues in evaluating

families. Farnilv Relations, 44, 469477.

Colman, G. P. & Capener, H. (1 986). Faning: Another way of daing

bilsiness. New York's Food and Life Science Quarterlv. 16, 6-8.

Copeland, A. P. 8 White, K M. (1 991). Studvin~ families. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Daly. K. (1 992). The fit between qualitative research and characteristics

of families. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.) Qualitative methods in

familv research (pp. 3-1 1 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

39

Davis-Brown, K., & Salamon,

application of stress theory to f a m

373.

Fairweather, J. R. & Keating,

S. (1 987). Farm families in crisis: An

farnily research. Family Relations. 36, 368-

N. C. (1 994). Goals and management styles

of New Zealand Faners. A~ricultural Svsterns, 44, 181 -200.

Fink, D. A. (1 986). Open wuntrv. Iowa: Rural women. tradition and

chanqe. New York: State University of New York Press.

Fisher, L., Kokes, R. F., Ransom, D. C., Phillips, S. L., 8 Rudd, P (1985)

Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family data. Familv Process. 24,

21 3-224.

Gilgun, J. F. (1 992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in

qualitative family research. In J. F. Gilgun, K Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.),

Qualitative methods in farnilv research (pp. 22-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradiam dialoq. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hubenan, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis

methods. In N. K Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 428-444). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jaffe, D. J. (1 991). Workin~ with the ones you love: Strateaies for a

successful familv business. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

Keating, N. (1 994). Family, gender and sustainability: Studying the farrn

family (pp. 85-92). In J. M. Bryden (Ed). Towards sustainable rural

communities: The Guelph seminar series (pp. 85-92). Guelph: University

School of Rural Planning and Development-

Laband, D. N. & Lentz, B. F. (1 983). Occupational inheritance in

agriculture. American Journal of Aaricultural Economics. 65, 31 1-314.

Larsen, A. & Olson, D. H. (1 990). Capturing the complexity of family

systems: lntegrating family theory, farnily scores, and family analysis. In T. W.

Draper & A C. Marcos (Eds.) Familv variables: Conceptualization

measurement. and use (pp. 1947). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inauiw. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Marshall, V. W. (1984). Sarnplina issues in survevs of asina and

interaenerational relations. Gerontology Research Centre Publication Series,

Paper #84-2, Guelph: University of Guelph Gerontology Research Centre.

Mathison, S. (1 988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher. March,

12-1 7.

Miles, M. B., 8 Hubeman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analvsis: A

sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analvsis: An

expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mumey, G. A. (1 967). Comparative investrnent behavior of United States

and Canadian farmers. Canadian Journal of Aaricultural Economics. 15, 21 -27.

Olsson, R. (1 988). Management for success in modem agriculture.

Euro~ean Review of Aaricultural Economics. 15 (2/3), 239-259.

O'Toole, C. 8 Prud'homme. M. (1 983). Are young people faming?

Canadian Social Trends, Autumn.

Rogers, S. C., 8 Salamon, S. (1 983). Inheritance and social arganization

among family famers. Arnerican Ethnoloaist. 1 0, 529-550.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1 991 ). The interplay of family systems and business

systems in family farrns during economic recession. Familv Business Review,

IV(1), 45-57. -

Rosenblatt, P. C. & Anderson, R. M. (1981). Interaction in f a m families:

Tension and stress. In R. T. Coward & M. W. Smith Jr. (Eds.). The familv in

rural societv (pp. 147-4 66). Bolder, CO: Westview.

Russell, C. S., Griffin, C. L., Flinchbaugh, C. S.. Martin. M. J.. & Atilano,

R. B. (1 985). Coping strategies associated with intergenerational transfer of the

famil y farm. Rural Societv. 50(3), 56 1 -576.

Salamon, S. (1 982). Sibling solidarity as an operating strategy in Illinois

agriculture. Rural Socioloav, 47(2), 349-368.

Salamon, S. (1 984). Ethnic origin as explanation for local land ownership

patterns. In H. K Schwartzweller (Ed.), Focus on aariwlture: Research in rural

socioloav and develo~ment Vol 1 (pp. 161 -1 86). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Salamon, S. (1 985). Ethnic cammunities and the structure of agriculture.

Rural Socioloqv. 50(3), 323-340.

42

Salamon, S. (1 992). Prairie patrimonv: Farnilv. famina and communitv in

the midwest. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Salamon, S., Gengenbacher, K M., & Penas, 0. J. (1986). Family factors

affecting the intergenerational succession to farming. Human Oroanization,

45(1), 24-33. -

Salarnon, S., & O'Reilly, S. (1 979). Family land and development cycles

among Ill inois fanners. Rural Sociolow, 44(3), 525-542.

Schroeder, E. H., Fliegel, F. C., & Ven Es, J. C. (1985). Measurement of

the lifestyle dimensions of farming for small-scale farmers. Rural Socioloav,

50(3), 305322. -

Van der Ploeg, J. D. (1985). Patterns of farming logic, structuration of

labour and impact of externalization: Changing dairy farming in Northem Italy.

Socioloaia Ruralis. 25(3/4), 5-25.

Walker, 1. J. S. (1 989). Farm management strategies to family style.

Canadian Journal of Aaricultural Economics. 37, 747-754.

Weigel, R., Weigel, D. J., 8 Blundall. J. (1987). Stress, coping, and

satisfaction: Generation differences in farm families. Familv Relations. 36, 45-

48.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case studv research desian and methods. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Author Note

1 This project was part of a larger study entitled Planning and transitions in

a multi-familylmulti-generation fam business, funded by the Canadian F a n

Business Management Council, awarded to Wayne Howard, University of

Guelph; Janet Taylor, University of Guelph; Lome Owen, British Columbia

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; Remy Lambert. Universite Laval;

Colleen Crozier, Covico Business Consulting; Gary Bradshaw, Alberta

Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Mike Pylypchuk, Saskatchewan

Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and Cindy MacDonald, Newfoundland

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

2 Families were interviewed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Ontario and Newfoundland.

Vhe interviews were conducted by James Soldan, Colleen Crozier,

Cindy MacDonald, and Janet Taylor.

CHAPTER TWO

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding How Farm Families

Determine Faimess

Abstract

This exploratory research found strong support for global reciprocity as a

conceptual framework for understanding how families determine faimess in f a m

transfer. This finding is based on case studies of seventeen fam families who

had transferred the farm, or had made legal provisions to do so. Intewiews with

the older generation parents, the farm successor, and one of his off-farm

siblings were conducted to detemine how families determined whether or not

the transfer was fair. Speciiic attention was paid to the relationship among

conflict over transfer, closeness of sibling relationships, perception of faimess,

and the determination of faimess by global reciprocity. This resulted in five

scenarios: (1) one successor family, transfer fair, no conflict, close sibling

relationships; (2) multi potential successors, transfer fair, no conflict; close

sibling relationships; (3) multi potential successors, transfer fair, no conflict, not

close sibling relationships; (4) multi potential successors, transfer fair, conflict,

not close sibling relationships; and (5) multi potential successors, transfer not

fair, conflict, mixed sibling relationships. As predicted, the closeness of family

relationships was related to either a long-terni or short-term view of calculating

faimess. Several areas of perceived unfairness are discussed in ternis of

intervention and future research. These are excluding women as successors,

bringing in more than one successor, and differing rneanings of faimess within a

family.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW FARM

FAMILIES DETERMINE FAIRNESS

The (off-farm son) was saying, tvell, what's in this for me? You've got

to be fair about this. ' So we just sat down one day and said this (the

transfer) is how it is. He said, 'Okay, as long as 1 corne out with about

the same as my sisters are coming out with.' ... and the middle

daughter too, she had worked on the farm and she was figunng it (the

transfer) was a littie one-sided. She came here one day without her

husband. 1 think her husband was feelng if was very one-sided

because his father was doing something with his farm that was Mnd of

leaving him out And so she came down one day by herseif and we just

saiû this is how it is. And she said, 'Okay, 1 see it now. ' And she's been

fine.

This statement by a 70-year-old-mother captures the reaction of two of

her children about the arrangements that were made to transfer the farm to their

brother at a price well below market value. This illustrates some of the issues

many farm families face about achieving faimess for on-farm and off-fan

children when making succession and inheritance decisions. Most farm

successors, as this family quoted above, need a great deal of financial help

from their parents to gain an entrance into farming. Parental help may take the

form of a low-interest mortgage, a below-market sale of the property to the

successor, or an outright gift of the farm before death or through inheritance.

47

How to treat off-farm children in an equivalent manner so that al1 children

perceive that they are fairly treated becomes problernatic for families who have

valued equal treatment of their children, especially when an equal division of

the f a m will make it unprofitable. This issue is especially critical for farm

families where the bulk of the capital often consists of non-liquid assets such as

land and equipment. In families where there are not enough non-fam assets

equivalent to the value of the farm, the challenge is to ensure that al1 children

perceive they have been fairly treated. Failure to achieve faimess may result in

misunderstandings and family conflict. Consequently, it is not surprising that

achieving fairness between fam successor and off-farm siblings has been

identified as an important issue in family battles over succession.

Succession is not a single event but a process that exists over time,

beginning with the socialization of children into fanning and ending when the

next generation receives legal title to the land usually as middle-aged adults

(Symes, 1990). In between lies the family and farm life cycle with production

closely related to the life cycle of the family (Colman & Capener, 1986).

Bennett and Kohl (1 982) suggest that farming has three phases: an entry or

establishment phase, a growth and development phase, and an exit or

retirement phase, with each phase roughly parallel to the age of the farm

operation. The next generation farmers are developing their careers through

the entry and establishment phases as the parents are moving through the exit

stage. Inheritance may be the final entry point in some cases (Russell, Griffin,

48

Flinchbaugh, Martin, & Atilano, 1985). Due to this long process of succession

difficulties can arise at any stage and from various sources.

Salamon (1992) describes two critical sources of difficulty that may hinder

the cornpietion of succession. One source is the parents who control the initial

process involving decisions about distribution of estate, succession, and

investment of resources on or off farm. The other source is the next generation

siblings, who must cooperate to achieve parental goals for the farm. Each

source is critical at different times and in different ways to the completion of

succession. Salamon states that "an intergenerational transfer of the fam,

familand, and other resources is not finished until both sides of the family

equation, parents and siblings, have played out their parts" (p.163). The

parents arrange the transfer in a way they think is fair. If members of the sibling

side of the equation perceive that the transfer is unfair, trouble ensues

(Salamon, 1992; Titus, Rosenblatt, & Anderson, 1979).

Although fairness has been identified as an important issue in decisions

about estates and succession for farm families, very little is known about how

families think about fairness. This research was designed to explore how

families determine if the transfer is fair within a conceptual framework that takes

into acwunt the closeness of the relationships within the family.

Theoretical Perspectives

The l iterature from three areas provides the theoretical perspectives for

this research. These are the family fam and family business literature, adult

49

sibling relationships and inheritance literature, and the work on global

reciprocity. Research on family farrns and family business outlines the

problems families experience in determining a fair succession; the adult sibling

and inheritance Iiterature is important for understanding the relationship

between sibling closeness and cunflict over inheritance; and global reciprocity

(Norris & Tindale, 1994). provides a conceptual framework for understanding

fairness as an on-going process in the life of a family.

Farnilv fam succession issues for siblings.

Salamon (1992) concluded from her in-depth research on Illinois fam

families that how parents handle inheritance is most crucial to how well siblings

get along: what is good for the farm may not appear equitable to non-

successors. She delineated two succession patterns based on ethnic groups of

century fans, the yeoman and the entrepreneur. The yeoman had large

ramilies, valued continuity of the family farrn, encouraged their children to farm

and consequently had more heirs wmpeting for smaller estates. These families

designated a successor who entered farming with the advantage of being on

the home place. This resulted in jealousy and conflict among siblings because

the estate settlement favoured the successor. The entrepreneur families, on

the other hand, had few heirs, enwuraged their children to out-migrate, and the

successor underwent a rigorous proving of his or her ability to fam before

taking over. In these families al1 siblings received equal shares in the farm with

the understanding that they would seIl their shares to the successor. This

50

strategy resulted in an absence of sibling feuds over succession. The

importance of Salamon's work is that it showed how family size, valuing farm

continuity, and out-migration of siblings had an impact on sibling relationships

over estate settlement.

It is not surprising that farm families are more likely to experience conflict

over succession because beneficiaries rnay need to maintain the estate intact in

order to maintain profitability (Titus et al., 1979). These beneficiaries rnay

include the farm successor and his or her off-farm siblings. Salamon (1992)

identified three classes of f am siblings. namely (1 ) the successor to the farm

business, (2) non successor faners (male or fernale), and (3) non-farmers. A

fam family rnay be composed of any combination of these classes of siblings.

Each class of sibling rnay have competing needs and agendas. Furthemore,

siblings who do not get along rnay be placed in a position of close contact over

decision-making about emotionally laden issues. While siblings rnay have

strong feelings about keeping the home-fam. other feelings about parental

preference and sibling rivalry rnay threaten the continuation of the fam,

especially at the iime of intergenerational land transfer (Salamon, 1992).

Rosenblatt and his colleagues (Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, & Johnson,

1985) point out that in a family business the tension is often between rewarding

offspring who have been more involved in the business by giving them a bigger

share of the estate versus giving al1 offspring equal shares. Likewise, for farm

parents the basic dilemma is whether to treat al1 children equally or to favor a

51

successor to the fam instead (Salamon, 1992). An equal division of the farm

between farm successor and off-fam siblings, however, wuld render the fann

un profitable (Voyce, 1 994). Rosenblatt and his colleagues (1 985) argue that

issues of faimess are more intense in a family business situation because

relatives compare themselves with relatives. Consequently, one's status in the

family rnay be involved as weil as one's status at work.

In a study of 23 farm families, Anderson and Rosenblatt (1985) found that

there was tension among offspring due to conflicting'notions of faimess. One

notion is that fairness is achieved by treating al1 offspring equally; another is

that faimess is achieved by compensating offspring equitably according to their

personal involvement. Within f a m families, the successor and the off-fam

siblings rnay have canflicting notions of faimess. The farm successor rnay favor

an equitable compensation but the off-fann sibling rnay favor equal

compensation. Such different notions of faimess rnay also arise from people

who mamed into the family (Rosenblatt & Anderson, 1981 ).

In an exploratory study of conflict over inheritance, Titus and her

colleagues (1 979) found that disputes in 10 of their 14 cases were between

siblings. They suggest that this rnay be due to the principle generally accepted

in North America that people equidistant in kinship from the deceased have

equal daims on the estate, and children are most often the beneficiaries.

Various researchers have found that sibling rivalry and cornpetition exacerbate

tension in family business relationships during succession (e.g. Hedlund &

52

Berkowitz, 1979; Salamon, Gengenbacher, & Penas, 1386). What is known

about sibling relationships and rivalry in adulthood?

Adult sibling relationships.

The sibling relationship is a unique bond due not only to its long duration

but also because participants share a cornmon genetic, early social, and

cultural heritage (Goetting , 1 986). Although research on adult sibling

relationships is lirnited in cornparison to research on childhood sibling bonds

(see Goetting, 1986, and Seltzer, 1989 for reviews), some common themes

have emerged. Stocker, Lanthier and Fuman (1 997) found that sibling

relationships in early adulthood, were characterized by wannth, conflict, and

rivalry, a finding consistent with what is known about early childhood

relationships (Brody, Stoneman, & Burke, 1987; Dunn, 1983; Fuman &

Buhrmester, 1985; Stocker, Dunn, & Plomin, 1989; Stocker & McHale, 1992).

They also found that good adult sibling relationships were associated with a

high amount of contact, healthy psychological functioning, large age difference,

and smaller family size.

In a review of the adult sibling literature, Seltzer ( A 989) concluded that

siblings become ernotionally claser and psychologically more involved with one

another as they age, but the "nature of these relatiofiships is affected by sex,

marital status, geographic proximity, perceived similarities in values, and in

conwrrently experiencing life stagesn (p.1 I l ) . lndeed in middle and late

adulthood Bedford (1 989) found that paradoxically, sibling relationships irnprove

53

with age, but do not change significantly. That is, good relationships become

better, but poor relationships do not necessarily become good. How siblings

get along is important because it detemines their reaction to inheritance

issues. Research on reactions to inheritance is relevant for understanding farm

transfer because decisions conceming farm transfer also involve the treatment

of off-farm children through inheritance.

Studies of adult sibling relationships and inheritance suggest that it is not

the division of the estate equally or unequally that leads to conflict, but how well

the siblings got along before the parents' death. Researchers have found that

when siblings had a long history of conflict before the death of the parents, the

issue of inheritance provided another and sornetimes final forum for siblings to

experience conflict over parental preferences and faimess (Doka. 1992; Gold,

1989). Doka (1 992) and Gold (1989) found that siblings with long histories of

conflict wculd stniggle over small amounts even with well-defined Wills that

sornetimes resulted in a fracturing of sibling relationships. On the other hand,

siblings with little history of conflict were able to negotiate large legacies and

legal ambiguities with little difficulty. Doka (1 992) found that debates over

inheritance reflected a history of cbnflict and feelings of unfair treatment by the

family. Gold (1 989) also found that for siblings with a hostile type of

relationship, characterised by resentrnent, anger, and enmity, relationships

worsened usually over an event like a "dispute over an inheritance ... and stand

as inkamations of negative feelings that have lasted for a long tirnen (p.45).

54

These hostile sibling relationships were often attributed to parental favouritism

or rivalry that originated in childhood. There is evidence that such feelings are

more salient for members of a family business, and faming is one such family

business.

Friedman (1 985) notes that any situation that replicates a family situation

intensifies an individual's family issues. Working in a family business is one

such situation. This view was supported by Gersick, Lansberg, and Davis

(1 990) who investigated the role of family dynamics in the operation of six family

foundations. They found that conflict regarding grant-giving decisions was

often clear demonstrations of i inderlying efforts of family members to resolve

enduring family concems and needs. They report that in some cases, conflict

among siblings:

... reflected old battles of birth order and gender. In other cases, there

was a clear cornpetition under way for the position of 'head of the

family' in the younger generations. There were some cases of serious

estrangement, with near-continuous open cunflict on the board, or the

exclusion (voluntary or not) of some family members from the board (p.

364).

The relationship between the siblings in the business or foundation reflected

not only the history of their relationship within the family, but the business also

provided another avenue for siblings to "heal old wounds or put to rest old

grievancesn (Gersick, et al. 1990, p. 372). Similar results were found by

55

Handler (1 992) who interviewed 32 next generation family mernbers of 32 fimis

and found that certain aspects of the early sibling relationship carried over into

the sibling business association. For example, siblings who had a history of

accommodation rather than wnflict reported a team feeling within the business.

Sibling relationships that were characterised by a history of rivalry carried over

into the business relationship as well.

ln summary, families with sibling relationships that are characterised as

warm and close will perceive that the transfer is fair and will experience little

wnflict over the transfer. Families where sibling relationships are poor and

conflicted will perceive the transfer is not fair and the transfer will provide

another area for wnflid. The underlying stniggle is to achieve fair treatment in

the farnily. Global reciprocity provides a perspective that accaunts for

relationship closeness and how faimess is calculated and balanced over the life

course of a family.

Global reciprocity: The expectation of faimess.

The concept of global reciprocity was developed by Norris and Tindale

(1 994) to address the limitations of social exchange (e.g. Dowd, 1975; Dowd,

1980) and equity theories (Le. Wslster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978) in

describing how families balance inter-generational give-and-take over the life

course of the family. The idea is that individuals are seeking balance or equity

in their exchanges. In a critique of exchange theories Rossi (1 995) argues that

economic exchange models are not useful for understanding intergenerational

56

relationships, because rational decision-making models are not adequate to

explain intimate, ongoing, emotionally laden relationships. Rossi (1 995) also

argues that another theoretical model that considers "altruism and empathy as

primary motivators of family behaviof needs to be developed to understand

famiiy relationships instead of exchange theories (p.175). Norris and Tindale

(1994) argue that global reciprocity is such a concept. This is because global

reciprocity takes into account not only the caring and affectionate nature of

families but also the shared history of family relationships.

Global reciprocity theorists propose that close attachment bonds and

caring allow exchanges to be unbalanced at any point but over the life course of

the family, these exchanges will be balanced (Norris & Tindale, 1994). That is,

global reciprocity takes a long terni perspective on the balancing of exchanges.

This is because close relationships between parents and children and between

siblings, allow this long terni perspective, or global reciprocity, to prevail over

short-term inequities. As well, any transgression away from balance in

exchanges by individual members in close families are likely to be seen as

ternporary and forgivable because there is the expectation that balance will be

achieved over time (Tindale, Mitchell, & Norris, 1996; Tindale, Norris, Berman,

& Kuiack, 1994). The faimess of a single exchange is not determined in

isolation from the context of previous exchanges, but includes the confidence

that over time, exchanges will be balanced.

Not al1 families rnay have close relationships. Global reciprocity proposes

that families whose members report relationships that are not close rnay not

have this long-term view of familial reciprocity, and will not expect exchanges to

balance out in the future. Such families may require restitution immediately,

that is, they would require exchanges to be balanced on a short-ten reciprocity

basis. Conflict over succession may be a last chance to achieve balance in

what is perceived as having been unfairly treated ernotionally or financially. For

example, siblings who perceive they have been treated unfairly because they

are not the favorite (a lack of emotional fairness) may require financial

compensation (financial faimess) to achieve balance.

How do families determine faimess? The preceding discussion suggests

that there is a relationship among conflict over transfer, close relationships

between farm successor and off-farm siblings, and perceptions of faimess

calculated according to global reciprocity. Consequently, two specific

predictions have been derived that will be analyzed from a small sarnple of farm

families who have completed the transfer. These are: (1) Families who

perceive that the transfer is fair will report little or no conflict over the transfer

with fairness detemined by long t e n global reciprocity; and (2) canversely,

families who perceive that the transfer is unfair will report conflict over the

transfer, with faimess detemined by short-terni calculations of reciprocity.

Method

The data for this analysis were derived from a larger project entitled

Plannina and Transitions in a Multi-familvJMultiqeneration Farm Business that

was funded by the Canadian Farm Management ~ouncil'. The main objective

of the project was the development of training and resource materials that will

aid farm farnilies in working together and transferring the fam. The research

phase involved cornpiling case studies of Canadian farm families to identify

issues, problems, and effective "rules of thumb" in successful multi-family and

multi-generational farm business. This was not a national study, but a study of

volunteer cases selected with an atternpt at national coverage to identify as

wide as diversity in themes as possible (Berg, 1989).

Participants

Criteria for inclusion in the larger projed were that: (a) the f a n business

was financially successful enough, according to the family, to support two

generations; (b) the family had either completed the transfer or had decided to

transfer the farm land and business to a successor; and (c) had members of two

generations including an off-farm sibling of the second generation willing to be

interviewed. Although families varied according to size, for each family in this

sample at least one member of the parent generation, one successor, and one

off-fam sibling were interviewed. Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell (1 987)

concluded from a rneta-analysis of ratings of behavior by two infonnants, that

data from one informant is a reasonable estimate of what another informant of

59

the same type might give. Thus, in this study, parents. successor, and off-fann

sibling each represented a different type of f a n family member.

All 36 families were selected for this project who had decided to transfer

or had completed the transfer. For inclusion in this investigation on how they

determined fairness, it was necessary to select families who had finalized their

transfer decisions. This was done by grouping the 36 families according to

succession phase. Four groups were identified: (1 ) discussing transfer phase,

defined as families who had decided to transfer, were choosing a successor

and gathering information about transfer strategies; (2) setting up a structure

phase, defined as families who had chosen a successor and were deciding how

to transfer; (3) transfer legalized phase, defined as families with the transfer

structure set up and implemented (Le. through shares in corporation or

provisions in WiII); and (4) transfer completed phase, defined as families where

successor had legal ownership.

There were seven families in the discussing transfer phase, ten families in

the setting up a structure phase, nine families in the iegalized structure phase,

and 10 families had completed the transfer. Consequently, criteria for inclusion

in this study were the 19 families in the last two groups. For two families, the

data were incomplete, leaving 17 families for this study. These families were

chosen because their transfer decisions had been finalized.

There were three interviewers2. One interviewed thirteen farm families

from Ontario, the second interviewed one family in Newfoundland, and the third

60

interviewed two families in Saskatchewan and one farnily in Alberta. This

convenience sample was identified by the local Ministries of Agriculture and al1

individuals were within driving distance of the interviewers. The data were

wllected between January and April of 1996 when farmers, partiwlarly crop

farmers, had more tirne to participate.

There were 12 mothers and 16 fathers interviewed in the older

generation. In two of the families, the mother had died and in the remaining

families the mothers were unavailable, Seventeen sons and seven of their

wives were interviewed in the younger generation (Note: three sons were

single, one divorced, and the remaining wives either worked off-farm or were

unavailable for the interview). Thirteen sisters and four brothers provided the

off-farm perspective. These families ranged in size from two to eight children,

with an average family sibling size of four. The fathers ranged in age from 57 to

77 (M= 67, a. 5.50), and the sons were 20 to 47 (M= 36, 7.00). In three

of these families, the older generation was the first generation to fann, in 12

farnilies they were the second generation (in three of these 12 families the fam

came from the mothers' family), and in two families the older generation was the

third generation. Types of faming included five dairy, two hog, two poultry, four

vegetablehit, and four beeflcrop mixed.

Data Collection

Families were initially contacted by telephone or by letter. The consent of

only those family members who would be formally interviewed was required:

61

parents, successor, and one off-farm sibling. The choice of which off-fann

sibling would participate when there was more than one to choose from was

made by family members who were participating in this study. It is possible that

this method of selection screened out any "black sheep" (Marshall, 1984) that

may have k e n in these families and thus minimized the degree of conflict

reported by these families.

Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews took place in the homes for each

on-farm generation and over the telephone, in most instances, for the off-farrn

sibling. The data for this project comprised about half of the interview time for

the larger project. That is, about 1 112 hours per case when audiotaped and

about 4 hours per case when the interviewer took notes.

Measures

Data were collected using a semi-stmctured interview and answers from

two questions frorn the F a n Transfer Measure. The interview had three

parallel forms: one for the older generation; one for the younger generation

successor; and a separate one for the off-fan sibling. The interview probed

issues that had been raised in the literature as having an impact on sibling

relationships and fairness over the transfer. These were perception of faimess

of transfer, perception of family relationships, how faimess was detemined,

conflict over transfer, how the farm was transferred, provisions made for off-

farm siblings, and perceptions of the quality of sibling relationships.

Two questions were used from the Fam Transfer Measure (see Appendix

D), which consisted of questions that were scored on a 5-point Likert-scale.

This information was not for any quantitative analysis in this study but used in

combination with the interview data to gain an understanding of the perception

of family members. Participants indicated their agreement to statements about

faimess of transfer and conflict over transfer. Faimess of transfer was

measured on a dpoint Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree with statement

and 5 = strongly agree with the following statement: "In rny opinion. the farm

transfer is being (was) handled fairly." Perception of conflict caused by the

transfer was measured on a 5-point Likert scale by the on-farm successor and

one of his or her off-farm siblings. Each rated their agreement to this statement

with 1 = low agreement to statement and 5 = high agreement to staternent: "In

rny opinion, the farm transfer is causing (caused) wnflict in my family." Both

measures were developed for this study.

Data Analvsis

The purpose of this study was ta detemine how some families determine

what is fair. Consequently data were analyzed using qualitative methods

because as Yin (1 989) points out, 'how" questions are most appropriately

answered using qualitative methods. It is also appropriate for making sense of

data that are represented by words and not by numbers (Gilgun, 1992). There

are other reasons why qualitative methods were most appropriate for this farnily

research. First, is the nature of family data. Daly (1 992) points out that there is

63

a concordance between families as the primary locus for the construction of

their meaning and the assumptions of qualitative research that focus on

capturing that meaning. Second, there are few family canstructs that are clearly

captured by well established and widely accepted measures and this makes a

qualitative approach more appropriate (Copeland 8 White, 1991 ).

The level of analysis was essentially individual perceptions in the context

of the family. Data were collected from three people from each family

concerning their perceptions of the family. In this way, data were collected

individually or dyadically, but used to fom an understanding of the family

(Copeland & White, 1991 ). Obtaining data from more than one member of a

family not only strengthens one's information about a family but also increases

confidence in the conclusions (Copeland & White. 1991 ). This is also referred

to as triangulation.

Triangulation is a strategy that increases the validity of research findings

(Mathison, 1988), checks against researcher bias (Hubenan & Miles, 1994),

and increases the level of validity or 'trustworthiness" of the findings (Lincoln &

Guba. 1985). Mathison (1 988) points out that triangulation of measures and

informants can lead to three outcornes, namely convergence, inconsistency

among data, and contradiction. This leads to another dilemma in family

research, namel y, how to anal yze different assessments of a famil y

characteristic from members of the same family. Copeland and White (1 991 )

argue that each family member is accurately describing his or her own

64

subjective perspective on the target characteristic and disagreement between

family members has important theoretical implications. The goal is to capture

as much of the family reality as possible which is in keeping with postpositive

arguments that reality can never be fully apprehended, only approximated

(Guba, 1 990).

Confirmation and validation of results have a different rneaning in

qualitative research. Qualitative researchers instead seek trustworthiness and

authenticity of the data. Therefore, triangulation of data from different family

members and multiple methods of analysis gives confidence of the truthfulness

of these findings for these particular farrn families by this specific researcher.

McCracken (1 988) argues that qualitative research does not capture issues of

generalization. Instead, qualitative research tells us what some people think

and do, not how many of thern do it.

Reliability in qualitative research is achieved by describing the data

collection and analysis methods in enough detail to produce what Lincoln and

Guba (1 985) have described as an "audit trail." Although there is not a forrnal

audit trail for this study, details about data analysis are given to strengthen

confidence about the reliability of conclusions. Because this was a small

sample, similarities and differences within each category are described in detail

thus demonstrating the conclusions of this researcher about this particular

sample. Thus the idea of reliability for this study is that a later investigator

following the same procedures on the same sample would arrive at the same

65

findings and conclusion (Yin, 1984). Therefore the method section includes

thick descriptions of the methodological strategies used. Consequently data

analysis will be discussed under the four wmponents of data analysis

described by Miles and Huberman (1 984; 1994). These are; (1 ) data collection,

(2) data reduction and coding, (3) data display, and (4) conclusion drawing and

verification.

(1 ) Data collection.

The data were collected by three interviewers. The problem of

maintaining consistency when several interviewers coliect data was addressed

in the following ways: (1 ) Two of the interviewers used audio remrdings that

were transcribed verbatim. (2) The other interviewer took extensive notes that

were almost verbatim. She told the families that if they "talk slowly, I can get it

al1 dom." She then read the transcript back to thern to make sure it

represented their response to each question, making corrections where

necessary. She also made notes about her observations and impression of the

family. Recognizing the possible differences in quality and depth using different

collection rnethods and interviewers, the first author met with the interviewers

and discussed the results and interpretations for each family with the

interviewer who had met the family. This was done to reduce researcher error.

(2) Data reduction and coding.

This involves reducing the data through summaries, coding, finding

thernes and clustering within a framework on which the hypotheses were based.

66

The initial wding scheme was based upon the literature review guiding this

study, including conflict over transfer, closeness of sibling relationships,

differences between farm successor and ofi-farm sibling, and perceptions of

faimess calculated according to global reciprocity. These areas were used as a

starting point in analysis, a process described by Gilgun (1 992) as using

previous research to sensitize the researcher to issues. Consequently the data

were summarized for each family in the following way. The answers to the two

Farm Transfer Measures, (perception of faimess and perception of conflict that

were measured on a Likert scale), were listed for each participant according to

family. Families that were coded as having no conflict over the transfer were

families whose members scored no confl ict on the conflict measure. families

that had a member who reported conflict, were wded as a family with conflict.

Families where al1 members reported conflict were noted as such. Likewise, the

agreement or disagreement on perceptions of faimess was noted according to

family.

Next, the interview transcripts were read to determine how each family

achieved fairness and for evidence of global reciprocity. Because there was

input frorn at least three "positions" in each family (older generation, successor,

off-fann sibling and in many cases from the spouses of successors) differences

in their answers to questions and issues of agreement and disagreement

became an important part of the family profile. For example. some families

reported confIict over the transfer and all family members interviewed

67

mentioned the conflict. The interview data, however, provided the perception of

each member on the conflict, which made for a richer description. Other

families, on the other hand, consisted of members who al1 reported good family

relationships and no conflict over the transfer. Some families consisted of

individuals who gave answers that were not consistent with each other. These

convergent and divergent views were noted for each family.

(3) Data display.

Huberman and Miles (1 994) describe this process as an organized,

compressed assembly of information that is necessary for the researcher to

begin thinking about its rneaning to draw conclusions. With this method, the

data is focused enough to permit viewing of the full data set in one location to

answer the research questions. For this study, the data from each individual

member of the family was coded and condensed ont0 a sheet of paper for each

family under the following headings: how faimess achieved in the family in the

past, each individual's answer to the fairness measure (5point Likert Scale),

each individual's answer to the conflict measure (5-point Likert Scale), and

description of sibling relationships.

Families were sorted and grouped first according to their perceptions that

the transfer was fair. AH intewiewed members of 12 families indicated that the

transfer was fair, and the remaining five families had members who indicated

that they did not perceive that the transfer was fair, or indicated they were

"neutrai" on the Farm Transfer Measure. Next, the 12 families where al1

68

members indicated the transfer was fair were further grouped on perceptions of

conflict, resulting in 9 families where al1 members reported no conflict The

remaining five families had at least one member who reported that the transfer

was not fair and reported wnflict. The interview transcripts were read to

understand more fully similarities and differences in families conceming

faimess and conflict. These were noted and families were further grouped

according to similarities of themes concerning faimess and wnflict. During this

process, another theme emerged that further sorted these families. That is, the

number of potential successors was mentioned by some families as "making

succession decisions easier." The data was re-checked for this theme in the

following way. First, the number of siblings in each family was recbrded and

each sibling was wded according to Salamon's (1 992) three classes of fann

siblings, namely (1 ) the successor to the f a n business; (2) non successor

famers (male or fernale); and (3) non-famiers. Second, this sibling status data

was entered ont0 the data display for each family. Finally, the data were

compared and re-grouped incorporating the sibling status. Each example of a

category of interest was compared to other examples with differences and

simiiarities of meanings noted. This constant cornparison method sharpens the

categories resulting in the best fit to the data (Strauss, 1987).

(4) Conclusion drawina and verification.

The interviews were read to discover how families determined faimess,

This resulted in three groupings; perception of fairness and no wnflict, faimess

69

and conflict, and unfairness and conflict. To verify the trustworthiness of these

themes, careful note was made of the number of simiiarities in each category.

Several methods for generating meaning were used that were suggested by

Huberman and Miles (1994). These are: noting patterns and themes; clustering

by conceptual grouping; "counting" of data as a concrete way to compare data;

noting relations between data; and rnaking conceptual and theoreticai

coherence through cornparison with the Iiterature.

These processes for generating meaning resulted in themes that became

the following categories for understanding how families determined faimess:

(1 ) one successor family: transfer fair, no conflict, close sibling relationships;

(2) multi potential successon: transfer fair, no conflict, close sibling

relationships; (3) multi potential successors: transfer fair, no conflict, not close

sibling relationships; (4) multi potential successors: transfer fair, confiict. The

final category wntained the remaining five families: (5) more than one potential

successor: transfer not fair, conflict, not close sibling relationships.

Results

One Successor Familv: Transfer Fair. No Confiict. Close Sibl inp Relationshi~s

Four families had only one son who always wanted to farm, and non-farm

sisters who "always understoodn that their brother was going to be the famer.

The son showed an interest from an early age, an interest that was rewgnized

and encouraged by al1 family members. These families described relationships

that were close with no confiict reported by any member over the transfer.

70

Three of the families indicated that they helped the sisters with an education or

with the purchase of the first home. There was an understanding and

acceptance by ail family members that son would fann and that sisters would

get non-fam assets. It appears that having one son who was recognized as the

heir-apparent as a youngster made the transfer easier. This is reflected by one

mother who commented on how they achieved faimess in the transfer:

We have two children. It might have been different if we had two that

wanted to take over the fam. You have tu make proper provisions.

But our daughter said if son wants the farrn that is fine and he's the one

who is going to be making his living there ... And we've made provisions

for her in other ways. We have another property and she'll inherit it

and (son) gets the fann and anything that is left will be divided 50-50.

In al1 these families, the son got the f a n at a reduced price, or through

financing held by the parents at a lower interest rate, and the daughters got

non-fam assets. The off-fam siblings were not given anything that was

equivalent in monetary value to the farm successor. Although sisters indicated

that wbat they got was not equal to their brothers in monetary value, it was fair.

It was deemed fair by three families through a calculation of "sweat equity" a

concept consistent with the idea of global reciprocity. For example, one older

father stated:

We're not going to split it (the fam) three ways. No. Too many times

we've seen a son down the road, he never worked the farm, and he

71

gets the same pick as the fami son. I wonPt stand for th&. Why should

someone who spends his life on it get the same as someone who

doesn't?. . . l won't stand for that.

And another father stated that 'l've always said that (daughter) wouldn't expect

as much because she has never done anything towards the farm.' And his

daughter agrees with him by stating that:

Anything to do with the fam and the money that goes with i t I really

don't expect anything. My brother has put heart, soul, and blood into it.

1 mean, as far as I'm concemed that's it.

These families took into account the time the succeçsor put into the fam

in years past at a low wage and aie break he was getting on the pr ie of the

farm now es fair recompense for his earty labor. These comments indicate that

faimess was not oniy calailated by dollars and cents. but also calailated by the

work that goes into the fam. These families had the same view that sweat

equity was deserving of a break on the p r i e of the fam. Although al1 sisters

had done chores on the fam, #eir brothen had worked the farmer longer and

therefore were entitled to financial compensation. It appears that the formal

economy of the fan. (typically the men's domain)! versus the infornial

econorny. (typically women's household work) was used in calw lating sweat

equity by bath men and m m e n m this sarnple. AHbougti it has k e n noted that

this traditional division of tabor renders wonien's contribution to fam work

invisible and benefits men (Finch, 1983; Keating, Doherty, & Munro, 1987), this

was not a concem of any of these sisters in this group.

Each family described a history of close family relationships that support

the work by Gold (1989) and Doka (1 992) who found that siblings in close

relationships reported little conflict over inheritance. As well, they detemined

faimess in a way that supports the concepts of global reciprocity. That is, m i le

faimess will be unbalanced at any point, there is confidence that over the long

terni faimess will be balanced. This is illustrated by a sister when asked if the

transfer was fair stated:

When (brother) bought the farm we knew he didnJt buy it at market

value. He got a break because he put a lot of years into it ... .But d o m

the road I know that we'll get our piece of the action ... .He got his

rewards now kind of thing, and we'll get ours later.

This statement supports the idea of global reciprocity that past fairness

and expectations of future faimess allows exchanges of fairness to be currently

unbalanced. It appears that for both generations, the time and "sweat" put into

the fam was worth a financial break for the successor. A father stated that "to

carry (the fami) on, to me that is worth something," indicating that for him,

wntinuing the farm was worth a break on the price for his son.

These families were smailer; two farm sucœssors had one sister each,

one had two sisters, and the fourth successor had three sisters. All indicated

that they valued fann continuity. This is consistent with the research on adult

73

siblings that similarities in values (Seltzer, 1989) and smaller farnily size (Brody

et al., 1987; Dunn, 1983; Fuman 8 Buhrmester, 1985; Stocker et al, 1989;

Stocker & McHale, 1992) were related to gaod relationships among adult

siblings.

In summary, these findings support the prediction that when there are

close sibling relationships and a perception of faimess based on global

reciprocity, there is also little or no conflict reported over the transfer. These

families were similar in that there was one son who wanted to fam, sisters who

valued farm wntinuity and supported him farming, close family relationships,

agreement that the transfer was fair, and no conflict reported. As well, faimess

was determined consistent with the ideas of global reciprocity. That is, for

families with close relationships, exchanges may be currently unbalanced, but

there is confidence that balance will be achieved over the long tem.

Multi Potential Successors: Transfer Fair, No Conflict. Close Siblinq

Relationships

There were six families with more than one son and several sisters. Of

these, one family had two successors and another family had three successors.

Ali members agreed that the transfer was fair and al1 reported close sibling

relationships. There was a sense that the parents struggled to achieve

faimess, a finding consistent with previous research (Le. Rosenblatt et al.,

1985; Salamon, 1992; Voyce, 1994). Several families helped al1 their children

get started, either by providing an education or financial help with the purchase

74

of the first home. The idea was that the successor got a break on the farm to

start his faming career and off-fann siblings got an education to launch them on

their careers. One farm successor explained that:

They (siblings) don't get the farm and they donJt get the money and

they know that. They've al1 got four year (university) degree courses so

they'll find a job on their own.

In other words, getting a break on the farm was equivalent to getting an

education. Other families helped their off-fan children with the purchase of

their first home. Although these provisions for off-fam siblings were not equal

in monetary value with the provisions made for farm successor, it appeared that

these families took a view consistent with global reciprocity that fairness would

be balanced over time. It appears that these calculations also took into account

the future. For example, one family indicated that in exchange for getting a

break on the fan , the successor would take care of the parents if needed.

They felt this was only fair for getting a break on the fan .

These families also gave examples how "sweat equity" was used to

calculate the fairness of the transfer similar to the one-successor families. One

sister stated:

I knew how hard my brothers and parents worked on the farm and 1 felt

if anyone was going to work that hard they deserved to have it and I

didn't wish or feel that I should have any stake or share in it

whatsoever.

A brother indicated that he had wanted to fam, but his older brother had

"got there first." This brother recognized that the high land prices during the

1980s made it economically impossible to buy more land to enable him ta fann

and recognized that the f a n could not support three families. He plans to

hobby fam someday. He also described good sibling relationships.

In summary, these farnilies provide support for the hypothesis that families

who report close sibling relationships, a perception of faimess of transfer

calculated through global reciprocity will also report little or no conflict over

transfer.

Multi Potential Successors: Transfer Fair. No Conflict. Not Close Siblinq

Relationships

There was one family where relationships were described by both siblings

as not close, perceptions that the transfer was fair, and no conflict. This result

is inconsistent with our predictions, and those findings of Gold (1 989) and Doka

(1 992) who found that relationships that are not close are Iikely to experience

conflict over transfer. The family with less close sibling relationships has not

experienced conflict over the transfer plans; indeed its members appeared not

to are. An analysis of the data revealed that this farm was providing a minimal

living and current market conditions were difficult. There may not be anything

to fight about, a point alluded to by the parents. When discussing how to make

the transfer fair, the dad stated: "it depends on how you look at it. Son could

clean up if this tums into development property. But if it's going to stay

76

agriculture, he could lose his shirt." Perhaps there is an absence of conflict in

this family where relationships are not close because the future is uncertain.

The farm is on the outskirts of town and if sold for development at a large price,

the curent perception that the transfer has been handled fairly might change to

being unfair. The data from this family also supports the idea of global

reciprocity because members indicate that faimess is an ongoing process

dependent on the future value of the land.

Multi Potential Successors: Transfer Fair. Conflict. Not Close Siblinq

Relationsh ips

In two farnilies there had been conflict over the transfer decisions and

sibling relationships were described by members in one family as a mixture of

close and less close. Conflict had been referred to by al1 farnily rnembers

interviewed, and in both families, the farm successor and his wife had the most

to Say about it. As well, in one family, sibling relationships were described as

mixed with both close and not close members. In the other family the farm

successor and off-farm sibling reported that al1 sibling relationships were not

close. This finding is consistent with the predicted relationship between conflict

and less close sibling relationships but not the hypothesized relationship

between these variables and perception of fairness. This finding, however,

supports the findings of Gold (1 989) and Doka (1 992) that poor sibling

relationships predict conflict over an inheritance.

The conflict in one family was with an off-farm brother who wanted his "fair

share." He felt the farm was worth more than twice its value and thought he

was being unfairiy treated. His sister who was interviewed believed her off-fam

brother was influenced by his spouse. Conflict continued to the point where the

successor was prepared to leave the fam. For this family wnflict was resolved

when the farm was put up for sale and the offers to purchase established the

value well below the expectation of the off-fann brother. This reality-check

allowed the transfer to proceed but the sister who was interviewed had some

concerns that her off-farm brother might cause some problems when the estate

was disbursed upon the death of her parents. Members of this family reported

both close and not close sibling relationships. Although the family members

interviewed perceived the transfer as fair, it is not clear that the off-farm brother,

who was not interviewed, would agree with this perception. The successor also

stated that he thought his brother was unhappy with the transfer arrangements.

In the other family that experienced confl ict, the wnflict originated

between the father and his daughter-in-law over another issue. This resulted in

a breakdown cf the relationship between father and successor that had an

impact on transfer decisions. The tuming point occurred when the successor

was ready to leave the fann and move to another Province. A mediator was

used to resolve the dispute.

The father and off-farrn brother felt the transfer was fair because the

successor paid close to market value and the estate was divided equally. The

78

successor stated that it was fair but he qualified his statement by stating that

whether he would still believe it was fair 10 years from now would depend upon

his eamings. He also stated that he preferred how his wife's family transferred

their farm because the successor got a break. Sibling relationships in this

family were described as not close. It appears that when sibling relationships

are not close, the farm is transferred dose to market value, and the estate is

divided equally amongst the siblings whether on-farm or off-fan, family

members are likely to perceive it as fair.

All members of both families reported conflict and that the transfer was

fair. An assessment of fair did not preclude cunflict but less close sibling

relationships did. For the second family, however, the conflict had little to do

with sibling relationships, but poor fariner-successor relationship. For both

families, the successor was prepared to walk away from the fam. This forced

the conflict to be resolved, thus allowing the transfer to be completed. Members

of both families expressed some uneasiness about how fair it would appear in

the future. This supports the idea of global reciprocity that balancing fairness is

an ongoing process within the family. More specifically, families that are not

close do not have the confidence and expectation that faimess will be achieved

in the future, but they will re-evaluate faimess at different points in the family life

cycle. There is a sense that they will continually evaluate faimess. This differs

from families with close relationships who take a long-terni approach of global

reciprocity demonstrated by confidence that arrangements made for off-fann

siblings are fair.

Multi Potential Successors: Transfer Not Fair, Conflict. Mixed Siblinq

Relationships

There were five families where at least one family member indicated that

the transfer was not fair. In al1 five families, this was a view of the off-fann

sister, a view also shared by two of the five successors. The older generation,

on the other hand, thought the transfer was fair. A complicating issue for three

families was that they had more than one successor faming on the family farm.

Conflict was identified between d-Herent members and for different reasons and

will be elaborated for each of the five families.

For one family with three brothers working the family farm, confiict was

between one fam successor and the only sister. The sister wanted to farm but,

unlike her brothers, was not given the opportunity to do so. This is consistent

with research on wornen's farm work in western Canada by Keating and Munro

(1 988) who found that younger women saw significantly more barriers to their

involvement in farm work than younger men. Although provisions were made

for this sister financially through the estate of her parents, this was not fair

compensation, in her view. It appears that she takes a more short-term view of

balancing exchanges. For example, she explains

1 know what dad has provided (in the Will) and I'rn not sure I

understand it. My brothers get the fan.. . . 1 would treat each child the

80

same. We al1 grew up on the fam, I worked for free and wasn't

compensated. They were. In my dad's eyes that's what they would do.

After a while when I started to look back, I wondered (why) am I doing it

for free. I know that my brothers have worked hard on the farm, and I

understand that they get more, but (1) don't think it's fair.

This sister doesn't balance the work of her brothers on the farrn, while she has

worked off-farm, with the compensation that they are receiving. She believes

that the fam should be split equally even if it became unprofitable. She wants

her 'fair share." This finding is consistent with the predicted hypothesis,

following from short-term reciprocity that families who have relationships that

are not close rnay not have a long-term view of familial global reciprocity. Thus

they may require restitution calculated on a short-term basis. This sister does

not cansider the sweat equity of her brothers in her calwlations of fairness.

Her brother, on the other hand, indicated that the fam has expanded since he

came back from university and that she had no part in that. 80th siblings

indicated that they were close as children, but are not close now as adults.

In the second family, conflict occurred between two farm successors

where the land had been split 50-50. This family had experienced conflict since

the early 1 980s1 involving the sister-in-laws and they no longer spent Christmas

together with the parents. According to the brother interviewed, the beginning

of the end of his working relationship with his brother began when his dad and

brother purchased highcost land in the 1980s to accommodate two successors

81

faming. He stated that while "Dad usually made head decisions, he made a

heart decision in supporting the purchase of the highast land." The desires of

this father to have both sons farrning may have been more of an emotional

decision than a sound business decision. This is consistent with the findings by

Rosenblatt (1 991 ) for f a n families with serious economic difficulty. Rosenblatt

(1 991 ) found that for six of the 24 families in the sampie, serious economic

hardship and stress was caused by accomrnodating a successor at the expense

of the fann business.

In the third farnily, the sister was ambivalent about the faimess of the

transfer, and was farrning full-time but not on her parents' farm. The major

expansion of her parents' farm occurred when she and her oldest brother left

and started their own operations. Her younger brothers were working the family

farrn. She indicated that timing determines fairness. She states:

the ones (brother and herself) who went out on their own (started their

own farrn) ... were a Iittle more, shall I Say disadvantaged in some ways

but advantaged in others. Because we had to make our own business

decisions and live with them, good or bad. And I don't feel that maybe

rny younger brothers have had that benefit so that when my parents

pass on we'll really see (if it was fair).

Whether she was advantaged or disadvantaged will be detennined in the future

when her parents are gone and her younger brothers are left with the

responsibility of running the farm. This indicates that conclusions about

82

faimess will be made later, thus supporting the notion derived from global

reciprocity that balancing exchanges is not an immediate decision, as indicated

by exchange or equity theories, but an ongoing process in the life of a family.

In the fourth family the father indicated that "what (1 think) is fair may not

be fair to al1 the rest of them. In fact, it won? be." His 35-year-old-daughter is

ambivalent about whether she has been fairly treated. In this family, the

successor gets the farm, the brother who worked there for a year (5 years ago)

and quit, got some land, and the sisters will inherit the fumiture. She may have

mixed feelings about it because, as a teen, she was the only daughter who

worked as hard as her brothers on the farm. She seemed to struggle with

balancing the exchanges. She went to college, her brother did not. He stayed

home and worked the fam and put 15 more years of work into i t She goes on

to explain that timing is important:

If my father had died when my brother was 20 years old and I had been

working the same amount of hours as him, then I would have not ever

have expected that fam to be solely his.

This sister was faming on a small swle with her husband holding an off-fam

job to support the family. Clearly she chose faming as an occupation and,

unlike the previous family where the sister would like to farm but was not

allowed to because of her gender, this sister was given an opportunity to farm

with her brother. She declined because she did not think they could work well

together. She had managed to find a way to fam with no help from her family.

83

She indicates that her husband does not think the way her father is handling

succession is fair, because in his family the fam was divided equally. Different

notions of faimess from people who have rnarried into farm families have been

identified by Rosenblatt and Anderson (1 981 ) as a factor underlying inheritance

disputes.

In the fifth family, there was also only one successor farming and he was

given the fam along with the farm debt. Although al1 siblings, including himself.

share in the inheritance equally, he is not sure he is getting a good deal. He

states:

If you look at the capital thing, I guess it's not fair to them (siblings) but

if you look at the debt load, I'm really getting taken to the cleaners,

because I also inherited a debt load which is quite substantial.

Basically, I got given the farm but also I've (been) overloaded with debt.

It's almost not solid. So unless I can pull it out, l'II get nothing. l'II have

worked al1 my life for nothing and they'll (siblings) have worked al1 their

lives, got their pensions and their inheritance. They've al1 got good

jobs too.

For this brother, whether he has been treated fairly will depend on how

things tum out in the future in comparison with his siblings. Fair also depends

on how one calculates it, capital value versus debt value.

Sibling relationships in these five families were described by members as

either not close, or a mixture of members who were close and not close, with

84

only one family where members described close sibling relationships. It is not

clear whether the relationships became less close because of the feelings of

unfaimess over the transfer or visa versa. These families have more siblings

than the one-successor-transfer-fair-no-conflict group. One family has three

siblings, two have four, one has five and one has eight. This is consistent with

research that found that good adult sibling relationships were associated with

smaller family size (Brody et al., 1987; Dunn, 1983; F u n a n & Buhnester,

1985; Stocker et al., 1989; Stocker & McHale, 1992).

What emerges frorn this analysis for al1 five families is that there is a

relationship among conflict, perceptions of unfairness and lack of closeness in

sibling relationships consistent with the hypothesis. As well, there is uncertainty

about fairness in the future. That is, whether the transfer is fair will be

deterrnined later, consistent with the ideas of global reciprocity that families with

poor relationships will take a short terni approach in detenining fairness and

not have the confidence that fairness will be balanced out in the future. Indeed,

the sense is that fairness concems are wntinually being evaluated.

Discussion

The first prediction that families whose members report little or no conflict,

close sibling relationships and perceptions that the transfer is fair with faimess

determined by long term global reciprocity, are supported by data from nine

families. This finding is not surprising because it supports the literature review.

The second prediction that families whose members report conflict and less

85

close sibling relationships will perceive that the transfer is unfair with fairness

detemined by short-term calculations of reciprocity, is supported by data from

five families. T,he data from the five families that support the second prediction,

however, reveal the complex relationships between these variables. The

importance of this research is that it shows that the relationships between the

variables of conflict, sibling relationships and fairness are more complex than

the literature review suggested. Although three families did not confimi the

predictions, their data also suggests cornplexities that will be discussed in t e n s

of issues pewliar to family research. The theoretical importance of this

research is that it delineates more precisely how fairness is detemined for

close and not close sibling relationships consistent with the ideas of global

reciprocity. This research also raises questions about the complex meanings of

the constructs under consideration, namely, conflict, closeness of sibling

relationships, and faimess, each of which will be discussed in detail.

Data from the eight families whose members report conflict, less close

sibling relationships and perceptions that the transfer is unfair, show that not

only are the relationships behrveen these variables more complex than

anticipated, but this also suggests that there may be issues with the construct

"conflict" for some members of these families that may have affected the results.

One misunderstanding about conflict is pinpointing where conffict

originates. The conflict measure came from the question on the Farm Transfer

Measure and clearly asked participants to rate their agreement to the

86

statement, 'In my opinion the fam transfer is causing wnfiict in my family." The

purpose of this question was to discover if the transfer "caused" conflict in the

family. This appears to be a relatively straightforward question. The interview

data, on the other hand, indicates for some farnilies that the conflict rated as

being caused by the transfer, actually originated before the transfer process

began. For these families earlier conflict appears to have contaminated the

transfer process and transfer decisions became part of an ongoing dispute.

While this shows the different kinds of information that can be obtained from a

quantitative rneasure versus a qualitative measure, it also raises important

questions. Can we conclude that the transfer caused conflict? For some

families the quantitative rneasure says yes but the interview data says maybe

not. The farm family literature does not always make this distinction between

transfer conflict as on-going canflict versus conflict caused by transfer. This

may be an important distinction for interventions by farm professionals.

Transfer conflict that is part of an earlier dispute would require the earlier issue

to be resolved, before the transfer issues can be addressed. Conflict that

originates with the transfer, would require the transfer issues to be resolved.

What is needed is data on the ability of the family to resolve conflict to

determine if conflict over transfer is wnflict recycled from an earlier issue. The

succession literature notes that farm transfer is a stressful time and can lead to

conflict. Maybe it does for families who are conflicted anyway. Perhaps

families that reported no conflict were those farnilies who could resolve conflict

87

in a way that kept it from contaminating the next issue. This distinction is

important.

The second wncern with conflict is that families were not asked questions

about future confidence that there would be no conflict over the transfer. This

issue is raised by two families where the transfer is perceived to be fair, but

cantrary ta our prediction, conflict is reported. For these famiiies the wnfiict

became a catalyst for the parents to work out the transfer in a way that

eventually became fair. In both cases, the successors were ready to walk away

from the farm. Whether this heads off wnflict after the parents have died, is

still questionable, a cancern raised by one off-farm sister. A useful line of

questioning would be about how confident family members were that their

conflict resolved the issue of faimess once and for ail. This would have

provided information about their confidence about issues being resolved

conclusively.

The third issue with conflict concerns problems unique to family research.

Although the literature review suggests relationships between close sibling

relationships and conflict, the research raises some questions about how

comparable are these families within a group on these variables. There was no

measure conceming the level of conflict that wuld compare one family with

another. For example, family conflict ranges from mild disagreement to physical

altercations with significant negative affect (Markman & Notarius, 1987; Straus,

1979). As well, two siblings in each family were interviewed and by not

88

interviewing al1 members some important information may have been missed.

For example, in one family, the brother who was perceived as the cause of

conflict was not interviewed. He may perceive the transfer as unfair, and this

would change the category bis family is placed in, but there was no access to

that information. This is a shortcornhg of qualitative research that does not

include the view of al1 members of each family.

There is a similar issue with defining close and not close sibling

relationships. In some families there clearly is a sense that these members are

close. In other families, members described a mixture of close and not close

relationships within the family. In the interview data, some families appear to

have worse relationships than others, yet this was not quantified. These

variables were treated as arbitrary, when in reality they are on a continuum.

The three families that do not confirm the predictions may represent different

levels of these variables or different categories of fami!ies. This was a small

sample size and further work is needed on a larger sample ta confirm or

disconfin these findings.

The constnict "fairness" may have different rneanings to different family

members. The intent of this research was whether family members perceived

the transfer as being handled fairly. The interviews, however, revealed that the

origin of the perception of fairness appeared to have little connection ta how the

fam and estate are divided. For example, in some families, perceptions of

unfaimess appeared to originate with being treated unequally because of

89

gender. In three families, a sister wanted to farm, two were faming their own

operationç, and the third was not. For them, the path into faming was more

difficult than it was for a brother who was expected to fann because he was

male, a conclusion consistent with the work of Keating and Munro (1988). This

is what is unfair. It is noteworthy that it is off-farm sisters who want to farm who

diswss the transfer as unfair. Their feelings may have more to do with not

having the same opportunity to fam as their brothers because of gender.

There are more obstacles into faming for women in spite of a doubling of

women faning on their own from 1970 to 1980 (Kalabacber, 1982 cf. Keating &

Munro, 1988). This is also an era where the farm roles of women are being

debated (Keating & Munro, 1988). Past feelings of unfairness due to gender

may become recycled in battles over the transfer. This is consistent with

findings by Gersick and his colleagues (1 990) that conflict among siblings may

be a rehash of old battles of gender. In one family, one sister was ambivalent,

recognizing her brothers contribution. but also acknowledging her unfair

treatment in cornparison. There also appeared to be spouses that feel

arrangements are unfair, which may influence the response of the off-farm

sisters. These different notions of faimess from people who have married into

farm families is identified by Rosenblatt and Anderson (1 981) as a factor

underlying inheritance disputes. Their perceptions may have more to do with

feeling unfairly treated in not having equai opportunity ta farm rathcr than being

unfairly treated in how the transfer is handled.

90

Conclusions about whether the transfer is fair may be based on ernotions,

with little basis on the "facts" of the transfer. Battles over fairness may have

more to do with being unfairly treated in the past and, as Gersick et al. (1 990)

pointed out, may be a last chance to right old wrongs in the family. For

exarnple, to receive a fair share of the inheritance rnay require more of actual

equity to balance a la& of psychological equity. The case of the family with two

sons farming and having an acrimonious relationship indicates that there is

more involved than Dad buying high-prked land to enable his sons to f a n .

Does one son feel that Dad favors the other son? Is there a history of Dad

sacrificing for one son and not for the other? If so, it is not surprising that the

wnfiict is so emotionally laden as demonstrated by their not having Christmas

dinner together as a family. Until the past wrongs are somehow righted, the

prospects of resolving this confiict are slim. A more in-depth interview of al1

family members would be required to answer these questions and determine the

underlying issues in this canflict.

There are theoretical implications that can be drawn for the ideas of

global reciprocity. For the nine families that describe good sibling relationships,

fairness and no conflict, there is a sense that the question of fairness has been

determined and does not need to be re-evaluated. Members of these families

do not use qualifiers when they speak about fairness and do not hesitate to

state that the transfer is fair.

relationships, perceptions of

This cuntrasts with the five families with less close

unfaimess, and confiict. Members of these

91

families hedge their answers when asked if the transfer was fair with statements

like 'faimess depends on how it tums out in the future," "that's a hard one (to

answer)," and "my husband doesn't think so." In these five families. three

sisters and two successors checked off "neutraln on the faimess question of the

Farm Transfer Measure. In another family the successor checked off "fair" in

the Farm Transfer Measure, but when asked in the interview about whether the

transfer was fair replied "not exactly." This perhaps indicates some

ambivalence about fairness. This ambivalence is what separates the close

relationship category from the not close relationship category, consistent with

the ideas of global reciprocity that families with close and not close

relationships will calculate faimess differently. What this research adds to that

literature is how global reciprocity is utilized to cornpute faimess.

Sweat equity is a marker of how faimess is wmputed. Regardless of how

many successors, farm families used sweat equity to calculated faimess

depending on the perceived closeness of sibling relationships. In families

where the transfer is perceived as fair and relationships are described as close,

al1 members acknowledged the contribution of the f a n successor through

sweat equity, as deserving a break on the fam. For families where there are

perceptions of unfaimess and relationships are described as not close, the work

of the successor does not seem to count as being deserving of a break. The

sweat equity of the successor is not considered. This fits with the ideas of

global reciprocity where families that are not as close do not take a long-terni

approach to calculating faimess, but want their "fair share" now.

This exploratory research raises a number of questions for future

research. First, this research is based on a small sample to investigate how

families think about and determine fairness. These were families who had

completed the transfer, hence data is lacking about families where the transfer

process broke dom. Second. a more in depth analysis of sibling relationships

among farm families, particularly those siblings who fami together is needed.

The adult sibling research narmalizes sibling relationships in terms of lesser

contact. geographic proximity, and issues around parental favoritism as being

less important as adults age. These concepts, however, do not apply to adult

siblings farming together where close proximity and much contact are the norm.

The issues of proximity and parental favoritism may be a ticking time-bomb that

erupts as farm succession and inheritance battles. Third, another area that

needs work is how in-laws impact conceptions of fairness. Some in-laws

referred to how the famis in their own families of origin were being divided as a

benchmark as to how some of these families they had married into were

dividing them. How much of an impact does this make? 1 can speculate that

being unfairly treated in one's family of origin farm transfer could make one

more sensitive to one's spouse being unfairly treated in a similar situation.

There are implications for professionals working in an advisory capacity to

farm families. First. for families where there is more than one potential

93

successor, extra care needs to be taken in planning the transfer and keeping

off-farm siblings infomed. Second, women as farm successors have been

overlooked because of gender and this can lead to difficulties later. Sisters

may have the same emotional attachment to farming as a way of life and

commitment to continuity as their successor brothers. When these feelings are

overlooked in the quest for the male successor, wnfl id may ensue. Third,

careful attention needs to be made to the ability of the family to resolve conflicts

instead of recycling old business into new areas. F a n advisors need to assess

whether the transfer conflict is indeed about the transfer or about some earlier

unresolved issue. Fourth, farm advisors need to pay close attention to the

meaning of fairness for each sibling. A fair succession may mean more than

monetary faimess. More important for farm advisors is to detemine from al1

family members if the transfer is fair. Although al1 parents in this sample state

that the transfer is fair, some of their children did not think so and these families

experienced conflict.

These interviews provide insight into the ways a srnall sample of farm

families detemine if fam successor and off-fan siblings are treated fairly.

This research points out that the relationship between the constructs of

fairness, conflict, and sibling relationships are not simple but cornplex.

References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).

Childladolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-

information correlations for situationai specificity. Psvcholoaical Bulletin. 1 0 1 ,

21 3-232.

Anderson, R. M., & Rosenblatt, P. C. (1 985). lntergenerational transfer

of farm land. Journal of Rural Communitv Psvcholoav. 6(1), 19-25.

Bedford, V. H. (1 989). Ambivalence in adult sibling relationships.

Journal of Familv Issues. 10(2), 21 1-224.

Bennett, J. W., & Kohl, S. B. (1982). Fans and families in North

American Agriculture. In J. W. Bennett (Ed.), Of time and the enterprise: North

American familv farm manaaement in a cbntext of resource marainality (pp.

1 1 1-1 il ). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Berg, B. L. (1 989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

(2" ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Child temperament,

matemal difierential behavior and sibling relationships. Develo~mental

P S V C ~ O ~ O ~ ~ V . 23, 354-362.

Colman, G. P. 8 Capener, H. (1986). Faning: Another way of doing

business. New York's Food and Life Science Quarterlv. 16, 6-8.

Copeland, A P. & White, K M. (1991). Studyina families. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

95

Daly, K (1 992). The fit between qualitative research and characteristics

of families. In J. F. Gilgun, K Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in

familv research (pp. 3-1 1 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Doka, K J. (i992). The monkey's paw: The role of inheritance in the

resolution of grief. Death Studies, 16, 45-58.

Dowd, J. (1975). Aging as exchange: A preface to a theory. Journal of

Gerontoloav. 30, 584-594.

Dowd, J. (1 980). Stratification amona the aried. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks-Cole.

Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child

Develooment. 54, 787-81 1.

Finch, J. (1983). Married to the iob: Wives' incomaration in men's work.

London: George Allen 8 Unwin.

Friedman, E. H. (1 985). Generation to aeneration: Familv ~rocess in

church and svnaciogue. New York: Guilford.

Fuman, W., & Buhmester, D. (1 985). Children's perceptions of the

qualities of sibling relationships. Child Develo~rnent. 56, 448-461.

Gersick, K. E., Lansberg, I., & Davis, J. A. (1 990). The impact of family

dynamics on structure and process in family foundations. Familv Business

Review. 3(4), 357-374.

Gilgun, J. F. (1 992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in

qualitative family research. In J. F. Gilgun, K Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.),

Qualitative methods in familv research (pp.22-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goetting, A (1 986). The developmental tasks of siblingship over the life

cycle. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv. 48(4), 703-714.

Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology.

lntemational Journal of Aqina and Human Develo~ment. 28, 37-51.

Guba, E. G. (1 990). The paradiam dialoq. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Handler, W. C. (1 992). The succession experience of the next

generation. Familv Business Review. 5(3), 382-307.

Hedlund, D., & Berkowitz, A. (1979). The incidence of social-

psychological stress in farm families. lntemational Journal of Socioloav of the

Familv. 9, (July-December), 233-243.

Hubeman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1 994). Data management and analysis

methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 428444). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Keating, N. C., Doherty, M., 8 Munro, B. (1 987). The whole economy:

Resource allocation of Alberta farrn women and men. Canadian Home

Economics Journal. 37(3), 135-1 39.

Keating, N. C., & Munro, B. (1 988). Farm womenlfarm work. Sex Roles,

19(3/4), 1 55-1 68. -

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1 985). Naturalistic inquirv. Beverly Hiils, CA:

Sage.

Markman, H. J., & Notarius, C. 1. (1 987). Coding marital and family

interaction: Curent status. ln T. Jacob (Ed.), Familv interaction and

psvcho~atholoqv: Theories. methods. and findinas (pp. 329-390). New York:

Plenum Press,

Marshall, V. W. (1984). Sam~lina issues in survevs of aaina and

interaenerational relations. Gerontology Research Centre Publication Series

Paper #84-2 Guelph: University of Guelph Gerontology Research Centre.

Mathison, S. (1 988). Why triangulate? Educationai Researcher. March,

12-1 7.

McCracken, G. (1988). The iona interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberrnan, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analvsis: A

sourcebook of new rnethods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Hubenan, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analvsis: An

expanded sourcebook (2" ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Norris, J. E., & Tindale, J. A. (1 994). Amona aenerations: The cycle of

adult relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1 991). The interplay of family system and business

system in family farms during econornic recession. Familv Business Review,

IV(1 ), 45-57. -

Rosenblatt, P. C., & Anderson, R. M. (1981). Interaction in farm families:

Tension and stress. In R. T. Coward & W. M. Smith Jr. (Eds.), The familv in

rural societv (pp. 147-1 66). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rosenblatt, P. C., deMik, L., Anderson, R. M., & Johnson, P. A. (1985).

The familv in business: Understandinri and dealinci with the challenges

entremeneurial families face. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rossi, A. S. (1 995). Commentary: Wanted: Alternative theory and

analysis modes. In V. L. Bengtson, K Wamer Schaie, 8 L. M. Burton (Eds.),

Adult intemenerational relations: Effects of societal chanae (pp. 264-276). New

York: Springer.

Russell, C. S., Griffin, C. L., Flinchbaugh, C. S., Martin, M. J., 8 Atilano,

R. B. (1 985). Coping strategies associated with intergenerational transfer of the

farnily fam. Rural Socioloav. 50(3), 561 -576.

Salamon, S. (1 992). Prairie patrimonv: Familv. famina. & communitv in

the midwest. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Salamon, S., Gengenbacher, K M., & Penas, D. J. (1 986). Family factors

affecting the intergenerational succession to farming. Human Oraanization,

45(1), 24-33. -

Seltzer, M. M. (1989). The three R s of life cycle sibships: Rivalries,

reconstruction, and relationships. American Behavioral Scientist. 33(1), 107-

115.

Stocker, C., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1989). Sibling relationships: Links

with child ternperarnent, matemal behavior, and family structure. Child

Developrnent. 60, 71 5-727.

Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., & Furman, W. (1 997). Sibling

relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Familv Psvcholoav. 1 1 (2), 21 0-221.

Stocker, C., & McHale, S. (1992). The nature and family correlates of

preadolescents' perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationshi~s, 9, 180-1 95.

Straus, M. A (1 979). Measuring intrafamily canflict and violence: The

conflid tactics (C.T.) scales. Journal of Marriaae and the Familv, 41, 75-88.

Strauss, A. L. (1 987). Qualitative analvsis for social scientists.

Cam bridge University Press.

Symes, D. G. (1 990). Bridging the generations: Succession and

inheritance in a changing world. Socioloaia Ruralis. 30(3/4), 280-291.

Tindale, J., Mitchell, B., & Norris, J. (1 996). Global reciprocitv: Examining

relationship quality between parents and their vounci adult children. Presented

at the annual meeting of the Learned Societies of Canada, St. Catharines,

Ontario.

Tindale, J., Norris, J., Berman, R., & Kuiack, S. (1 994)., lnteraenerational

confiict and the prevention of abuse açiainst older oersons. Ottawa: HeaIth

Canada.

Titus, S. L., Rosenblatt, P. C., & Anderson, R. M. (1979). Family cunflict

over inheritance of property. The Familv Coordinator. Julv, 337-346.

Voyce, M. (1 994). Testamamentary freedom, patriarchy and inheritance

of the famiy farm in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis. 34(1), 71 -83.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equitv: Theorv and

research. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon.

Yin, R. K (1 984). Case studv research desian and methods. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case studv research design and methods (2nd ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Author Note

1 This project was part of a larger study entitled Planning and transitions

in a rnulti-farnilylmulti-generation fam business, funded by the Canadian Farrn

Business Management Council, awarded to Wayne Howard, University of

Guelph; Janet Taylor, University of Guelph; Lome Owen, British Columbia

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; Remy Lambert, Universite Laval;

Colleen Crozier, Covico Business Consulting; Gary Bradshaw, Alberta

Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Mike Pylypchuk, Saskatchewan

Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and Cindy MacDonald, Newfoundland

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

2 Data were collected by Colleen Crozier, Cindy MacDonald, and Janet

Taylor.

CHAPTER THREE

Sibling Relationships, Faimess, and ConRict Over Trançfer of the

Fam

Abs tract

This study examines the role of family dynamics, faimess, and conflict over the

transfer of the family farm from the perspective of the farm successor and one

off-fan sibling. The f a n successor and one off-fann sibling from 36 f a m

families, completed measures on perception of conflict over transfer. fairness of

transfer, rules of fairness, and the Family of Origin Scale (FOS). These scores

from the fann successor and the off-farm sibling were combined in order to

obtain relational family data. Using a multiple regression analysis, strong

support was found for the hypothesis that lower scores on the FOS,

disagreement on fairness of transfer. and disagreement on rules of faimess

were predictive of conflict over transfer. Implications are discussed in terms of

interventions with farm families.

SIBLING REL-ATIONSHIPS AND CONFLICT OVER THE

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF THE FARM

Fam families are likely to experience conflicl over the transfer of the f a m

because there is an occupational implication for the next generation,

beneficiaries may need to maintain the estate intact in order to maintain

profitability, and emotional ties to the land may be very strong (Titus,

Rosenblatt, & Anderson, 1979). Succession of the younger generation is a

process that is intractably linked to the retirement of the older generation, often

taking as long as 20 years to complete. Succession is not cornpleted, however,

until the parents retire from active involvement in the business and the next

generation gains legal ownership, which often occurs through inheritance

(Symes, 1990). At that time the support of siblings for the brother or sister who

farms is critical for the successful completion of succession. For example, when

non-farm siblings inherit land shares, the famer is dependent upon their

commitment to continuity, that is, to their placing f a n needs before personal

financial demands (Salamon, 1982). It is therefore not surprising that

succession has a high potential for sibling conflict (Salamon, Gengenbacher, &

Penas, 1986).

In an exploratory study of 14 families with disputes over inheritance, Titus

and her colleagues (1 979) found that perceptions of unfairness were the

underlying source of conflict for the younger generation. This was often due to

family members using different standards to determine whether the inheritance

1 O5

was fair. Rosenblatt and his colleagues (Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, 8

Johnson, 1985) point out that, in a family business, fairness wncerns are more

intense when members compare themselves with other relatives because status

in the family may be involved as well as status at work. What is known about

fairness and farm transfer?

In an analysis of 59 family businesses, Rosenblatt et al. (1 985) found that

the tension for parents was often between rewarding offspring who have been

more involved in the business by giving them a bigger share of the estate

versus giving al1 offspring equal shares regardless of their involvernent in the

business. Although a fair division of the estate may be achieved by dividing it

accarding to principles of equality or equity, either method rnay cause conflict.

The sibling who believes that an equal division is fair may perceive an equitable

division as unfair. Conversely, the sibling who thinks that faimess iç achieved

by an equitable division based on participation in the workload may likely

perceive an equal division as unfair. This issue is particularly critical for f a m

families where the bulk of the capital is often composed of non-liquid assets

such as land and equiprnent. In such situations to give children equal shares

wuld render the fam no! viable (Voyce, 1994).

Dyer (1986) analyzed succession in 40 family businesses and found that

a key factor that enabled a smooth succession was a similar perception of

faimess among family memben. This did not mean that each member received

equal treatment, but rather that al1 family members recognized that differences

1 O6

in stock or assets were a fundion of some cn'teria, such as experience,

expertise or commitrnent, that ail recognized as valid. Dyer (1986) found that a

conflicted succesion ocairred in families where members lacked shared goals

and feft that they had k e n treated unfairly. In short, the basis on whidi the

estate was divided was not an important predictor of conflid Instead, the

mticai issue was the agreement of family memben that succession was

handled fairiy.

Families present special challenges to the researcher. Daly (1992) points

out that families are one of the most closed and private of ail social groups.

This means that some family information will be inaccessible regardles of

research method. Historically, most of the farm research has k e n condudeci

by researchets with disciplinary mots in agriculture, focusing on the operation

of farms, the ownership of assets. and the financial performance of the

business. Data were usually gathered through interviews and surveys with the

farmer. While this approach is valid for inveçtigating the business aspect of the

fam, this 'one person speaks for alln methodology does not capture the

mrnplexity of farm family relationships (Keating, 1994). Research is needed

that focuses on more than one member of a family as the unit of analysis

(Keating, 1994). Indeed. Fisher and his colleagues (Fisher, Kokes, Ransorn,

Phillips & Rudd, 1985) argue that information produœd by individuai family

mernbers provides individual data about families, not family data.

In a review of the literature on family assessment, Bray (1 995) notes that

a central issue for family assessment is deciding which parts of the family need

to be evaluated. This is referred to as determining the appropriate unit of

analysis for assessment. On one hand, obtaining data from more than one

member of a farnily strengthens one's information about a family (Copeland &

White, 1991). On the other hand, Coyne (1 987) argues that collecting data

from all members of a family introduces a host of conceptual and

methodological problems. In some situations, assessing various family dyads

and triads may be more appropriate than examining the family as a whole (see

Bray, 1 995, for a review).

These considerations provide the rationale for this research approach to

assess fairness frorn the perspective of two siblings within each family. First,

faimess has been identified as an important issue in decisions about estates

and succession for family businesses, but there is very little research on

faimess and conflict over succession in farm families. Second, adult sibling

relationships is the fucus because conflict over succession usually occurs when

the next generation, the sibling generation, takes over (Le. Salamon, et al.,

1986). Third, the dyad of farm successor and one off-fam sibling per family

was chosen because data from one informant of the same type are a

reasonable estimate of what another informant of the same type rnight give

(Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Fourth, this approach provides

data about the family from the principle players in confiict over faimess over

fann transfer, namely the farm successor and an off-fam sibling.

Research from business and family areas of study has been drawn from

to develop a wider perspective for understanding the issues and difficulties that

fam families may experience over faimess in succession. In particular, work on

inheritance, adult sibling, family business and family fam Iiterature guided my

thinking.

Adult Siblina Relationships and lnheritance

F amilies pass through periods of change in the composition, structure,

and function over the life cycle. Death of parents or the transfer of ownership

and control of the family fam business from one generation to the other is such

a period. Swogger (1991) noted that when such events occur, relationships

among siblings often intensify and may change unpredictably. The transfer of

the farm is stressful because it represents such a family transition. Therefore,

the inheritance literature provides another perspective for understanding

succession issues in a family f a n business.

For parents, the decision about how to divide the estate fairly is often a

decision betwaen an equal division among children, or an unequal division that

favors the child who is farming. Although an unequal division of the fam may

refiect emnomic necessity, it may reflect other reasons. Titus et al. (1979)

provide an example of an unequal division of a family fam with a son and

daughter both active in farming. Although the daughter did not receive an equal

i O9

share of the fam and felt she was treated unfairly, she acknowledged that the

division of the property reflected her parent's valuing of sons over daughters.

In this situation, feelings of unfaimess by the daughter may not only be about

an unfair division of the fan , but also concem a history of unfair treatrnent by

the parents. Tne research on inheritance suggests that it is not the division of

the estate equally or unequally that leads to wnflict, but how well the siblings

got along before the parent's death.

Doka (1 992), in interviews with 12 adults who had lost their parents, found

that neither the amount of money, nor the presence or absence of a Will,

determined sibling conflict over an inheritance. Instead, the prior relationship

quality of the siblings predicted difficulties with inheritance. That is, when

relationships had a long history of conflict before death, the issue of inheritance

provided another and sometimes final forum for siblings to experience wnflict

over parental preferences and faimess. Siblings with long histories of wnflict

would stniggle over smail amounts even with well-defined Wills. In two cases

the death of a parent resulted in a fracturing of sibling relationships. On the

other hand, siblings with little history of conflict were able to negotiate large

legacies and legal ambiguities with little dificulty.

Further support for this point can be found in Gold's (1 989) work on

sibling relationships in old age. Gold developed a typology of sibling

relationships that was based on emotional closeness. She found that parental

death and division of parental property did not evoke envy and resentment in

i l 0

siblings who had an intimate, or wngenial relationship. Siblings in an intimate

relationship were characterised by Gold as having psychological closeness

based on "mutual love, concern, empathy, protection, understanding, and

durability" (p.42). Sibl ings in a congenial relationship felt strong friendship and

caring but did not develop the capacity for empathy that intimate siblings

shared. On the other end of the continuum were siblings with a hostile type of

relationship that were characterised by resentment, anger, and enmity. These

hostile relationships were usually precipitated by an event like a "dispute over

an inheritance ... and stand as incarnations of negative feelings that have lasted

for a long tirne" (p.45). These hostile sibling relationships were often attributed

to parental favoritism or rivalry that originated in childhood.

Other researchers have developed typologies reflecting degrees of

closeness of adult sibling relationships, that, while not identical, bear some

resemblance to one another (Cicirelli, 1985; Bank 8 Kahn, 1982; Gold, 1989;

Matthews, Werkner, 8 Delaney, 1989). Regardless of how sibling relationships

are classified, they begin and are nourished within the family of origin.

AduIt Siblina Relationships and Familv of Oriqin

Sibling rivalry has been connected to parental favouritism and poor early

parent-child relationships (e.g. Bryant, 1982; Ihinger, 1975). It tends to diminish

in intensity as people get older (Cicirelli, 1982), but may be reactivated under

stressful farnily situations (Tonti, 1988). When it does occur in adulthood,

however, it appears to be nourished by a continuation of family of origin

interaction patterns from childhood (Ross & Milgram, 1 982).

The influence of the farnily of origin on current relationship functioning is

the basis of many family therapy interventions (i.e. Bowen, 1978; Framo, 1976;

Boszonenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1973). The general idea is that current adult

relationship issues are often prefigured and established in the earlier families of

origin (see Simon, Stierlin & Wynne, 1985 for a brief review). Working in

proximity to one's parents in a family fann where, stnicturally, the parent is the

boss and the child is subordinate, is a replication of the childhood family of

origin pattern- If the childhood pattern is parental favoritism and strained sibling

relationships, then working in the f a n family business would exasperate sibling

rivalry. It would also make it diffiwlt for adult children to acknowledge and

express the full range of emotians that are part of parenwhild relations.

Friedman (1 991 ) States:

Sibling relationships in adulthood are most effective, most conducive to

collaboration, when driven by the needs of the siblings acting as

autonomous adults, not as children still vying for parental approval and

attention (p. 10).

There is a gap, however, between family of origin theory and empirical

validation of those concepts. One problem is that the concepts of family health

and normality cannot be defined simply or unequivocally for families (Simon et

al., 1985; Walsh, 1994). Furthemore, there is some debate about whether an

112

insider or outsider assessment of health and nomiality should be considered.

M i l e an individual's assessrnent of his or her family of origin may not be a

measure of its actual health, Gavin and Warnboldt (1992) argue that the

individual's assessment may be a more proximal determinant of the rating than

a professional perception of the health of the family. This is because how

family members perceive their family environment is important in understanding

their behavior (Spiegel & Wissler, 1983).

Some empirical support for this notion has been found using the Family of

Origin Scale (FOS) (Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran, & Fine, 1 985). This

measure was designed ta measure self-perceived levels of the social-emotional

climate in one's family of origin. A number of studies using the FOS on widely

differing samples have found that the total score discriminates between perçons

with various fons of curent psychapathology and those with no evident

pathology (see Ryan, Kawash, Fine, & Powel, 1994, for a review). As well, the

FOS has been show to discriminate between: a college student population and

prison inmates (Mangmm, 1988); adult children of alcoholics and a contrasting

group of university students (Capps, Searight, Russo, Temple, & Rogers, 1993);

and adults in psychotherapy versus nonpatients (Lee, Gordon, & O'Deil, 1989).

Research has linked people with more positive FOS scores with healthier

functioning in their cuvent families (Canfield, Hovestadt, & Fenell, 1992), a

more positive perception of marriage, an increased tendency to use rational

thinking (Fine & Hovestadt, 1984), and more open communication (Wilwxon &

173

Hovestadt, 1983). In short, positive scores on the FOS have k e n correlated

with some family issues that research has found to be important in facilitating

farrn transfer, namely communication and decision-making (Bratton &

Berkowitz, 1 976; Hedlund & Berkowitz, 1979).

While the FOS was originally developed to measure overall perceived

healtb in the family of origin, exactly what aspect of the family this instrument

measures has been debated. Lee, Gordon and O'Dell(1989) argued that the

FOS measures one factor that, although it accounted for 65% of the variance,

provided little information. On the other hand, other researchers (Le. Gavin &

Wamboldt. 1992; Mazer, Omar, Hovestadt, & Brashear, 1990) argued that the

main factor that the FOS measures provides valuable information. This factor

has been described as the 'psychological constnict that allows for the

expression of one's views, opinions, and feelings, even though they may differ

frorn those of parents and other farnily members" (Mazer et al.. 1990 p. 426).

Gavin and Wamboldt (1 992) described this factor as tapping a persans

affective posture toward their families of origin - an overall rating of goodness

or badness affect. Ryan and his colleagues (1994) also assessed the construct

validity of the FOS and concluded that the total score was a measure of the

degree of wamtNclosenesslpositive affect generally expressed in the family.

MacDonald (1 992) provides sorne evidence for the importance of warrnth

in a family. He argues that warrnth is a developmental constnict that evolved to

facilitate cohesive farniiy relationships and parental investment in children. In

114

an analysis of the literature, MacDonald shows that parental wamth is

associated with reciprocated positive interaction, whereas lack of parental

warmth is associated with negative, hostile family relationships, delinquency,

and aggression (see MacDonald, 1992 for a review). Furthemore, high levels

of parental control are tolerated by children if the control is accampanied by

parental wanth. This research on the importance of wannth supports the

underlying construct of warmth rneasured by the FOS.

Frorn these diverse studies on adult siblings, inheritance, and family

relationships, some conclusions can be drawn and extrapolated to family

relationships and adult sibling conflid over faimess of the transfer. First, there

is a connection between close sibling relationships and family warmth. That is,

sibling relationships that are perceived as close and warm have developed and

have been sustained in a farnily of origin that is perceived as close and warrn.

Second, individuals in relationships that are close and warm are able to resolve

wnflict. The justice motive model provides another link that demonstrates that

relationship closeness is the basis on which fairness is detemined.

The Justice Motive Model: The Perception of Fairness

Lerner (1 980; 1987) has argued that an individual's sense of faimess is

based on perceived entitlernent in a particular situation. This perceived

entitlement, or "whon is entitled to "what" from "whom," is detemined by rules of

faimess (Desmarais & Lemer, 1994; Lemer, 1981 ; Levanthal, 1980). Four such

rules of faimess have been identified: (1 ) faimess according to need, where

115

person's input into the family farm business. That is, the person who worked

more on the farm would therefore contribute more and would consequently be

entitled to receive more. Siblings with unit relationships may also perceive that

faimess is achieved when each reœives an equal share regardless of input

into the business.

The least close relationship is described as a non-unit relationship.

Siblings in a non-unit relationship perceive the other as different in important

ways requiring self-promoting strategies to win (Desmarais 8 Lemer, 1989).

Consequently, siblings in nonvnit relationships have a more critical view of the

other, and would be characterised by little sharing, competition and conflict.

This is similar to Gold's (1989) description of hostile sibling relationships that

were characterised with resentment, anger and enmity. Non-unit siblings wiil

perceive that faimess is achieved when the winner in a dispute receives the

maximum outcorne.

Lerner and his colleagues (Desrnarais & Lemer, 1989 Lemer, 1981 ;

Lemer, Miller, & Holmes, 1976) found some support for their mode1 for adult

siblings caring for an elderly parent. They found that children in a nonunit

relation with their sibling perceived one another as cdntributing less to the

welfare of their parents than they each claimed for themselves and perceived

that their sibling was considerably less satisfied with helping their parents.

They also had a more critical view of the other and felt that contributions to their

parents' welfare were not shared fairly.

117

Desmaraiç and Lemer (1 989) found those in close relations will

experience al1 three of the relationship styles on various occasions, one will

predominate. Furthemore, they found that relationships can be characterised

by either having trust and affection (identity relationship style) or lack of trust

using self-protection strategies (unit or nonunit) and these styles predicted rule

of fairness. On the other hand, a family may be composed of multiple dyadic

relationships that utilise different rules of faimess by individual family members.

The following conclusions can be made based on the inheritance, adult

sibling, family business, family farm literature, and the justice motive modei:

(1 ) although perceptions of unfaimess underlie conflict over transfer, it is sibling

disagreement that the transfer is fair may that leads to wnflict; (2) a close and

warm sibling relationship reflects closeness and warmth of the family of origin

and is related to conflict; (3) there may be different rules of fairness operating

within a family that may underlie conflict, but low family warmth is still a stronger

predictor.

These predictions were tested using the following hypothesis. From the

perspective of the younger generation siblings, higher levels of conflict are

predicted when: (1 ) the f a n successor and off-farm sibling in each family have

different rules for assessing fairness; (2) the farm successor and off-fam sibling

in each family do not agree that the transfer is fair; (3) when the fam successor

and off-fam sibling perceive that their family of origin has lower levels of

wannth and closeness.

The hypothesis was tested using data that were combined from two

members of each farnily to obtain a score for each family. This is relational

family data because scores are not a reflection of individual family members,

but instead are descriptive of the combined products of individual family

members (Fisher et al., 1985). Fisher and his colleagues (1985) argue that

most farnily research based on data produced by individual family members,

with no reference to the perceptions of other members, produces analysis at the

individual not the family level. Although researchers (Le. Copeland & White,

1991 ; Gilgun, 1992) state that at times individual data are appropriate for

understanding families, the literature reviewed for this research suggests that

agreement and disagreement of farm successor and off-farm siblings provides

important theoretical information that would be missing from an individual level

analysis. Specifically, the agreement and disagreement of f a n successor and

one off-farm sibling on niles of faimess and perception of fairness of farrn

transfer are important variables needed to test the hypothesis.

Method

The data for this analysis were obtained from a larger project entitled

Plannina and Transitions in a Multi-familvMulti-generation Farm Business that

was funded by the Canadian Farm Management ~ounc i l ' ~~ . The main objective

of the project was the developrnent of training and resource materials that will

aid farm families in working together and transferring the fam. The research

phase involved compiling case studies of Canadian farm families to identiw

issues, problems, and effective "niles of thumb" in successful rnulti-family and

multi-generational farm business. This was not a national study, but a study of

volunteer cases selected with an atternpt at national average to identify as

wide a diversity in themes as possible (Berg, 1989).

Participants

Criteria for inclusion in this project were that: (a) the farm business was

financially successful enough, according to the family, to support two

generations; (b) the farnily had either wmpleted the transfer or had decided to

transfer the farm land and business to a successor; and (c) had a farm

successor and one of his or her off-farm siblings willing to participate. Since

families differ widely in size, the focus was on one successor and one off-fan

sibling, regardless of family size. The family decided which off-farm sibling

would participate when there were more than one to choose from. Achenbach,

et al. (1 987) concluded from a meta-analysis of ratings of behavior by two

informants, that information from one informant is a reasonable estimate of what

another informant of the same type might give.

The faim successors (35 sons, 1 daughter) ranged in age from 20 to 47

(M = 33, 6.35). The off-fann siblings (25 sisters and 11 brothers) ranged in

age from 25 to 46 (M= 35.6, SD 6.2). These siblings came from families of hivo

siblings, to 12, with an average family sibling size of 4.5.

Variables

The dependent variable was the sibling perception of conflict caused by

the transfer. The independent variables were (1 ) agreement on rules of

faimess, (2) agreement on faimess of transfer, and (3) the Family of Origin

Scale (FOS). These scores were obtained from the farm successor and one of

his or her off-farm siblings individually, and then combined to form relational

family data from which statements about the family can be made. The rationale

for how each relational family score was obtained is described for each

variable.

Conflict.

Perceptions of conflict caused by the transfer were obtained from the

individual conflict score of farm successor and the individual conflict score of

the off-farm sibling from the Fam Transfer Measure (see Appendix D). Each

rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale to this statement with 1 = low

agreement to statement (indicating low conflict) and 5 = high agreement to

statement (indicating high conflict): 'ln my opinion, the farm transfer is causing

(caused) conflict in rny family." This measure was developed for this study.

A family conflict score was obtained by averaging the score of the f a n

successor and the off-fam sibling for each family. This resulted in a single

canflict score per family. Fisher and his colleagues (1 985) point out that while

121

the arithmetic mean of two or more individual scores to obtain a family score is

a convenient and wnceptually simple measure, some cautions are warrantad.

These cautions are: the discrepancy between family members rnay be lost; the

average score may represent regression to the mean which reduces score

variance; and the average score may not be conceptually meaningful. Fisher

and his colleagues (1 985) point out that large family size reduces the influence

of deviant family members' scores on the final family score. Because only two

family members contribute to the final family score in this research, there is

confidence that regression to the mean and reduction of score variance is

minimal.

Another method to evaluate whether a mean score is an adequate

substitute for individual scores is to compute both the correlation coefficient and

paired samples t-test (Copeland 8 White, 1991 ; Larsen & Olson, 1990). The

correlation coefficient provides information regarding the strength of the

relationship between farm successor and off-farm sibling on the cunflict

measure, and the paired samples t-test answers whether fam successors as a

whole are different from off-fami siblings as a whole (Larsen & Olson, 1990).

Copeland and White (1991 ) point out that using a paired samples t-test within

each family provides a more sensitive test of differences in scores within the

same family than a simple t-test. Schumm, Jurich, Bollman and Bugaighis

(1985) suggested that a cutoff of greater than 1 =.30 indicates higher dyad

agreement. Larsen and Olson (1990) suggest that an averaged score is

122

appropriate if the individual correlations are high, and a paired samples t-test is

low. Therefore the conflict score of the fam successor and the off-fam sibling

were compared using a paired t-test. The correlation coefficient was high (1 =

.57) and there was no significant difference between farm successor and off-

farm sibling @ = 1.50 n-S.) indicating that an average score is a desirable

method for obtaining a family score for this particular sample.

Aareement on rules of fairness.

Each fam successor and off-fam sibling chose one of four rules that

reflected how they usually detemined faimess in their family (see Appendix E).

These descriptions were developed for this study and based on research of

relationship styles and niles of faimess (see Lemer, et al., 1989 for a review).

Although Lemer and his colleagues (i.e. 1989) argue that what rule of faimess

is utilized depends on the particular situation, they also state that a particular

relationship style will predominate. Because succession is not a single event

but a complex process that extends over many years of the family, we did not

ask about faimess specific to succession, but rather rated a more global

assessrnent of how farnilies determined faimess. These categorical variables

were coded 1 = need, 2 = equal, 3 = equitable, and 4 = cornpetitive.

To obtain the family score on rules of fairness, we compared the rule of

fairness the farm successor used and the mle the off-farm sibling used to

detemine faimess. This was scored as 1 = where both picked the same rule,

and O = where they picked different rules. This method of obtaining a farnily

123

score fits with the hypotheses because it delineates agreement or disagreement

on rules of fairness wtiich is the variable of interest, This method was also

chosen because research indicates that it is disagreement within families on

rule of faimess rather than any pafticular rule of faimess that is an important

predictor of conflict (i.e. Dyer, 1 986; Rosenblatt, et al, 1 985).

Agreement on faimess of transfer.

Faimess of transfer scores were obtained from a 5point Likert scale on

the Farm Transfer Measure (see Appendix D). This was scored with 1 =

strongly disagree with statement (transfer is unfair) and 5 = strongly agree with

the following statement (transfer is fair): "In my opinion, the fam transfer is

being (was) handled fairly." This measure was developed for this study.

Agreement on faimess of transfer score was obtained by comparing the

fairness of transfer score of the fam successor and the off-farm sibling per

farnily. This was done to obtain an agreemenüdisagreement score per family.

If bath the f a n successor and the off-fann sibling agreed or strongly agreed

that the transfer was fair, a code of 1 was assigned; if fam successot and off-

farrn sibling disagreed (or one agreed and the other was neutral) that the

transfer was fair, a code of O was assigned. (Note: none of the participant

pairs agreed that the transfer was unfair.) Because we were interested in

agreement or disagreement on perception faimess, this method of obtaining a

family score fits with the hypothesis.

Perception of familv warmth.

The Farnily of Origin Scale (FOS) (Hovestadt, et al. 1985) is a self-report

instrument devised to measure perceptions of the wamthcoldness affect

dimension in the family of origin. The short form of the FOS was used because

it has been found to have high concurrent validity with the total FOS full-scale

score k(130) = -94. g < .O011 (see Ryan, Powel, Kawash 8 Fine, 1995). The

full-scale FOS has test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.73 using the Speaman

Brown formula (Shorkey & Whiteman, 1977). The total FOS score has been

shown to be a useful measure of wamth-mldness affect dimension in the farnily

of origin (Ryan et al., 1994). The fam successor and his or her off-farm sibling

were asked to rate each statement about their family during their childhood

years. The FOS employs a 5-point Likert format and has a range of scores from

15 to 75, where a high score indicaies more warmth and closeness. An

individual FOS score was obtained for the farm successor and the off-farrn

si bl ing because it was hypothesized that high levels of famil y wamth predict

low levels of conflict-

The sibling FOS score was derived by averaging the farrn successor and

off-fann sibling scores for each farnily. This resulted in a single FOS score per

family. Because only two family members contribute to the final family score in

this research, there is confidence that regression to the mean and reduction of

score variance is minimal (Fisher et al., 1985).

The correlation coefficient and paired samples t-test were computed to

detemine whether a mean score was an adequate substitute for individual

scores (Copeland & White, 1991 ; Larsen 8 Olson, 1 990). The correlation

coeffîcient provides information regarding the strength of the relationship

between farm successor and off-fam sibling on the conflict measure, and the

paired samples t-test answers whether f a m successors as a whole are different

from off-farm siblings as a whole (Larsen & Olson, 1990). Copeland and White

(1 991 ) point out that using a paired samples 1 test within each family provides a

more sensitive test of differences in scores within the same family than a simple

t-test. Schumm et al. (1 985) suggested that a cutoff of greater than =.30

indicates higher dyad agreement. Larsen and Olson (1 990) suggest that an

averaged score is appropriate if the individual correlations are high, and a

paired samples t-test is low. Therefore the FOS of the fam successor and the

off-farm sibling were compared using a paired t-test. The correlation coefficient

was high (L = -46) and there were no significant differences between farm

successors and off-farm siblings (f = -6 m . ) indicating that an average score

was a desirable method for obtaining a family score for this particular sample.

Results

Preliminarv Analvsis

A preliminary analysis was run to detemine if there were significant

differences between the fam successor and off-farm sibling on the rule of

faimess chosen. There was no significant difference between farm successor

126

and off-fam sibling on rules of faimess. The equal rule of faimess was chosen

by 47% of farm successors and 52% of off-farm siblings. The equitable rule of

faimess was chosen by 51 % of farm successors and 42% of off-farm siblings.

Need as the basis of faimess was chosen by 2% of farm successors, and 6% of

off-fam siblings.

Relational Familv Level Analvsis

This analysis was done to examine within-farnily differences affecting

faimess and conflict over the transfer using relational farnily data. The means

for the four variables are shown in Table 1. The scores for agreement on niles

of faimess and agreement on fair were both coded as O = no agreement and 1

= agreement. The rnean score (M = -48, SD -51 ) indicates that there were lower

agreement on rules of fairness within the families. The mean agreement on fair

score shows a high agreement that the transfer is fair (M = -71, -46). (Note:

there was not a farnily where the siblings agreed that the transfer was unfair;

they either: (1 ) agreed it was fair; (2) one perceived it was fair and the other did

not perceive it was fair; or (3) one perceived it was fair and the other was

neutral). The mean and standard deviation the FOS (M = 56.61, a 7.67), indicate that this sample is wmposed of families with high levels of wanth and

closeness.

A multiple regression analysis was carried out because it allows the

independent inclusion of continuous and dichotomous variables that were

entered into an equation to predict conflict. One dependent variable and three

127

independent (predictor) variables that represented a score per family were

entered into the equation to detemine the predictive effect of the three

independent variables on conflict. The dependent variab!e, wnflict over

transfer, was obtained by averaging the score on the confiict measure for fam

successor and off-farm sibling per family. Two dichotomous independent

variables, agreement on niles of faimess and agreement on fair, were entered

as dummy variables. The independent variable, FOS, was derived by

averaging the FOS scores for f a n successor and FOS scores for off-fam

sibling in each family.

The correlation matrix (see Table 2) reveals that each independent

variable showed a strong statistically significant relationship to conflict. The

FOS showed a significant correlation with sibling agreement on the transfer

being fair (g = -01) but not with sibling agreement on rules of faimess. Also, the

sibling agreement on rules of faimess was not correlated with sibling agreement

that the transfer was fair. The Multiple Regression Analysis Surnmary (see

Table 3) shows that the variable agreement on transfer being fair drops out as a

statistically significant part of the equation. This may be due to the high

correlation between agreement an transfer being fair with the FOS.

Strong overall support was found for the hypothesis. The linear

combination of the independent variables of agreement on rules of fairness,

agreement on fair, and FOS was predictive of conflict m2 = -43. E = 6.70, Q =

.002) explaining about 43% of the variance with the adjusted variance about

128

36% (see Table 3). In this model, the FOS and agreement on niles of faimess

accaunt for more of the variance than sibling agreement on fairness. There was

little multicollinearity as the tolerance for agreement on rules of faimess is -957,

agreement on fair is -826, and the FOS is -805-

Discussion and Implications

Some cautions are warranted in interpretation of these findings because

the study involved a small volunteer sample. Nevertheless, the strong

statistical support for the hypotheçis, using relational family data, provides a

framework for understanding fairness concerns in family fann transfer.

Specifically. higher levels of wnflict are predicted when the siblings in each

family have different rules of fairness, when fann successors and off-fann

siblings perceive that their family of origin has lower levels of warmth, and the

farm successor and off-farm siblings do not agree that the transfer is fair. We

predicted that the FOS would account for a slightly larger part of the equation.

Surprisingly, agreement on niles of faimess accounted for a larger part of the

equation in the analysis.

The FOS, which measures family wamth and closeness, accounts for a

large part of the variance. The FOS scores were compared to the samples

used by Ryan and his colleagues (1 994; 1995). The mean and standard

deviation scores indicate that my sample is composed of higher functioning

families that are more homogeneous than the samples used by Ryan and his

wlleagues (1 994; 1995). Specifically, the mean and standard deviation of FOS

129

for this sample are 56.61 and 7.67, with the mean higher than the Ryan et al.

(1 995) samples using the short f a n (46.4 and 45.9) and the standard deviation

lower than the Ryan et al. sample (1 5.0 and 13.5 respectively). This score is

also higher than that found by Ryan and his wlleagues (1 994) study that

compared a nonclinical sample and a clinical sample using the long fom of the

FOS. Their nonclinical mean (M = 136.2) is comparable to a mean score of 51

on the short fom.

Families that score lower on the FOS report more conflict over transfer

and those that score higher on the FOS report less conflict. This is not

surprising. Other research using the FOS has found that people with increased

FOS scores are more likely to be more open to communication (Wilcoxon &

Hovestadt, 1983) and have an increased tendency to use rational thinking (Fine

& Hovestadt, 1984). This makes sense because how families communkate and

work out difficulties are key to confiict resolution.

This finding indirectly supports research on communication in farm

families that found that open communication befween generations was a

mediating factor in successful farm transfer (Bratton & Berkowitz, 1976;

Hedlund & Berkowitz, 1979). On the other hand, families that do not keep the

farm in the family tend to report poor communication (Bratton & Berkowitz,

1976). The importance of my research is that it delineates the connection

between family wannth with conflict over transfer, thereby linking quality of

communication with the emotional tone of the family. Families that have warrn

130

and close relationships have better communication and are better able to

resolve conflict.

It is surprising that the sibling agreement on transfer being fair was not

statistically supported as a strong part of the regression equations. Because

this variable is strongly correlated with the FOS, the variance is absorbed by

the FOS. This suggests that families that are close are also more likely ta be

able to resolve conflict and likely to perceive the transfer is fair.

The variable, agreement on niles of faimess, is also a statistically

significant part of the regression equation. This expands on the research by

Lemer and his colleagues (1 989) but also suggest some cautions in

understanding faimess. The Justice Motive Model provides a theoretical link

between relationship quality and rule of fairness. In this study the variables,

agreement on rules of faimess and agreement that the transfer is fair, were not

correlated with each other and, of the two variables, only the variable,

agreement on faimess, was correlated with the FOS. This suggests that the

perception of faimess does not depend on agreement with the rule of fairness

used. This is punling. If two people agree on the rule of fairness, would they

not also agree that the transfer is faip The intuitive answer to this question

would be yes; however, these findings Say no.

This result, however, raises two questions about how the variable, rule of

faimess was measured. First, a global rule that the farm successor and off-farm

sibling used to detemine faimess was sought, instead of a specific nile on how

131

to divide the fam fairly. The faimess of transfer measure, on the other hand,

referred specifically to the farm transfer (Le. Is the transfer fair?). There could

be a difference between a global perception of nile of faimess generally used in

the family, and a specific rule of faimess applied to the fam transfer. These

findings highlight the wrnplexity of faimess in farm transfer that warrants further

research.

Second, farrn successor and off-farm sibling could agree on a nile, but

their parents may have actually divided the fam assets through a rule different

from their children. This may explain why perceptions of fair and agreement on

noms were not wrrelated with each other. It is not know what rule of faimess

the parents used to divide the farm but our findings suggest if successor and

off-farm sibling do not use the same rule of fairness, there is more likely to be

confl kt.

These findings support Dyer's (1 986) qualitative analysis of succession in

40 farnily businesses. He concluded that agreement among family members on

rules of faimess was a key factor that enabled a smooth succession. This study

also supports the qualitative work by Titus and her colleagues (1979) who found

that problems with unfaimess resulted when family members used different

standards to determine if the inheritance was fair. The importance of the current

study is that it shows that agreement on niles of fairness and agreement on

fairness are separate variables that should not be mistaken for each other.

The literature on faimess in f a n transfer often focuses on equal versus

equitable division. This research shows that dividing equally or unequally do

not in itself detemine whether the succeeding generation will experience

wnflict. Instead, it is the agreement on rules of faimess and relationship

closeness that are important supporting Gold (1 989) and Doka (1992) who

found that close relationships are key to having little or no confiict over an

inheritance. It appears that if adult siblings feel their family is close and w a n

they are likely to agree that the transfer is fair and work out any problems with

succession. Siblings who perceive their family as less close and warm, will

Iikely perceive the transfer as unfair and succession will provide another

battleground.

The debate on which unit of analysis (Le. individual, dyad, family) best

reflects "family" data continues (see Bray, 1995 for a review). Some of the

debate appears to be concemed with capturing the 'truth" of a family. \Pie

obtained a family score by combining the scores from two members of each

family. Does this mnstitute a family score that represents the reality of that

family? It can be argued that the individual's assessrnent of the reality of his or

her family foms the basis for their interaction with that family (Spiegel &

Wissler, 1983). lndeed Bray (1 995) points out that there is no consensus about

the definition of healthy or dysfunctional family relationships or even the key

processes that need to be assessed.

There is no question that the methods used to wllect family data define

and limit the statements that can be generated from those data (Haley, 1982).

The results in this study are based on data computed from the perception of two

individuals about faimess, conflict, rules of faimess and family wamth in their

family. Gavin and Wamboldt (1 992) argue that the assessrnent of an individual

member of a family may be a more proximal deteninant of the rating than a

professional perception of the health of the family. This is because how family

rnembers perceive their family environment is important in understanding their

behavior. Thus, by combining the fam successor and off-fam sibling scores

per family, conclusions are based on the perception of the tw6 principal players

in fairness and conflict over transfer.

There are a number of implications for f a n family members as well as

various professionals who advise farrn families about succession. lnstead of

focusing on equal or equitable divisions, interventions that facilitate open family

discussion to reach consensus on fairness seem warranted. This is becausê

agreement on fairness is related to less conflict. Close relationships are also

related to sither iittle or no conflict or the ability to resolve conflict satisfactorily.

Perhaps at the stage of succession the best farrn advisors and professionals

muld do is ta enhance open communication and conflict resolution skills in

order to foster better relationships.

This research provides an initial and important step in understanding the

relationship between faimess, family relationships, and confiict over farm

1 34

transfer for adult siblings. Future research on a larger sample size is needed to

corroborate these findings. Because this sample is composed of families that

were identified as successfully transferring the farm. a sample of families where

the transfer process has broken down would be useful in further expanding our

understanding of the role of faimess, wnflict, and family relationships over

succession. Would such families have less family worth, little agreement on

rules of fairness, and disagreement on fairness of transfer? These results

suggest the answer is yes to this question.

Although these findings are based on families that scored as well

functioning on the family of origin scale, there was variability in the conflict

measures. Families who are w a n and close are not immune to conflict, but

ratlier that they have the ability to resolve it. At the very least, this findings

underscores the importance of teaching conflict resolution skills as a primary

goal when working with farm farnilies through transfer. It also shows that

conflict in itself is not a sign of difficult farnily relationships, but that the nature of

family relationships determines the outwme of conflict.

References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).

Childladolescent behavioral and emotional problerns: Implications of cross-

information carrelations for situational specificity. Psvcholoaical Bulletin. 101,

21 3-232.

Bank, S. P., 8 Kahn, M. D. (1982). The siblina bond. New York: Basic

Books.

Berg, B. L. (1 989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

(2"4 ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boszomenyi-Nagy, I. & Spark, G. M. (1973). Invisible lovalties.

Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row.

Bowen, M. (1 978). Familv therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason

Aronson.

Bratton, C. A., & Berkowih, A. D. (1976). lntergenerational transfer of the

fam business. New York's Food and Life Science Quarterlv, 9(2), 7-9.

Bray, J. H. (1 995). Family assessment: Curent issues in evaluating

families. Family Relations, 44, 469477.

Bryant, B. K (1 982). Sibling relationships in rniddle childhood. In M. E.

Lamb & B. Suttan-Smith (Eds.), Siblina Re1a:ionships: Their Nature and

Sianificance Across the Life Span (pp. 87-1 21). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Canfield, B. S., Hovestadt, A. J., & Fennell, D. L. (1992). Family-of-origin

influences upon perceptions of current farnily functioning. Familv Theraw, 19,

5540.

Capps, S. C., Searight, H. R., Russo, J. R., Temple, L. E., & Rogers, B. J.

(1 993). The farnily-of-origin scale: Discriminant validity with adult children of

alcoholics. The Arnerican Journal of Familv Therapv. 21, 274-277.

Cicirelli, V. C. (1982). Sibling influence throughout the life span. In M. E.

Lamb & B. SuttonSmith (Eds.), Siblina relationships: Their nature and

sianificance across the Iifespan (pp. 267-284). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Cicirelli, V. G. (1 985). Sibling relationships throughout the life cycle. In L.

L'Abate (Ed.), The handbook of familv DSVC~OIOQV and thera~y. Vol. 1 (pp 177-

21 4). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Copeland, A P. & White, K M. (1 991 ). Studvina families. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Coyne, J. C. (1 987). Some issues in the assessrnent of farnily patterns.

Journal of Farnilv Psvcholoav. 1, 51 -57.

Daly, K. (1 992). The fit between qualitative research and characteristids

of families. In J. F. Gilbun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.) Qualitative methods in

familv research (pp.3-11). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Desmarais, S., & Lemer, M. J. (1 989). A new look at equity and outcornes

as deteminants of satisfaction in close personal relationships. Social Justice

Research. 3(2), 105-1 19.

Desmarais, S., & Lemer, M. J. (1 994). Entitlements in close relationships:

A justice-motive analysis. In M. J. Lemer & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and

the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 43433). New York:

Plenum.

Doka, K. J. (1992). The monkey's paw: The role of inheritance in the

resolution of grief. Death Studies, 16, 45-58.

Dyer, W. G. (1 986). Cultural change in family firrns: Antici~atina and

manaaina business and familv transitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fine, M., & Hovestadt, A. J. (1984). Perceptions of mariage and

rationality by levels of perceived health in the family of origin. Journal of Marital

and Family Thera~v. 10(2), 193-1 95.

Fisher, L., Kokes, R. F., Ransom, D. C., Phillips, S. L., & Rudd, P. (1 985).

Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family data. Family Process. 24,

21 3-224.

Frarno, J. L. (1 976). Family of origin as a therapeutic resource for adults

in marital and family therapy: You cm and should go home again. Family

Process, 15, 193-21 0.

Friedman, S. D. (1 991 ). Sibling relationships and intergenerational

succession in family firms. Family Business Review. 4(1), 3-20.

138

Gavin, L. A., 8 Wamboldt, F. S. (1 992). A reconsideration of the family-

of-origin scale. Journal of Marital and Familv Therapv, 18(2), 179-1 88.

Gilgun, J. F.(1992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in

qualitative family research. In J. F. Gilbun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.)

Qualitative methods in farnilv research (pp.22-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology.

lntemational Journal of Agina and Human Development, 28(1), 37-51.

Haley, J. (1 982). Family experiments: A new type of experimentation.

Familv Process. 1, 265-293.

Hedlund, D. 8 Berkowitz, A. (1979). The incidence of social-

psychological stress in fam families. lntemational Journal of Socioloav of the

Farnilv. 9(July-Dec.) 233-243.

Hovestadt, A J., Anderson, W. T., Piercy, F. P., Cochran, S. W., 8 Fine,

M. (1 985). A farnilyor-origin scale. Journal of Marital and Familv Thera~v,

1 1 (3), 287-297. -

Ihinger, M. (1975). The referee role and noms of equity: A contribution

toward a theory of sibling conflict. Joumal of Marriaae and the Familv, 37, 515-

524.

Keating, N. C. (1 994). Family, gender and sustainability: Studying the

fam family. In J. M. Bryden (Ed.) Towards sustainable rural communities: The

Guelph seminar series (pp. 85-92). Guelph: University School of Rural

Planning and Development.

139

LarrenA&OIsonD. ti.(1990). ~ m g t h e c c r n p k a t y O j f a m a t y

~ : W e p t i n g ~ ~ t h e o r y . f a n i - i y s m e s . a n d ~ ~ - kiT.W.

oraper & A C. Marcos (Eds.). Fami* vanab)es: cmœDtdi;ration.

measremerd.anduse(pp. 1947). tJewaPymmSage.

Lee.RE.GordonN.G..&<TDell. J.W.(1989!. Thevalidityaiduseof

the familyd-in seale. Jounal of Marital ad Famib TheraDv. lyl). 19-27.

Lemer. M. J. (lm). The belgf in a iust wcxid: A deiusion.

Plenum Press: New York

Lemer. S. C. (1981). Theplçbce motive in human relations: Some

thoughtsonwhatweI<nowandneedtoknowaboutluçbce. I n M J. LemergS.

C. Lemer (Eds.). The justice müve in -al behavior: Ada~ting to times of

scamihf and dmwe (pp. 1 1 -35). Plenum Press: New York

Lemer. M. J. (1987). lntegating çoàetal and psychological niles of

entitlement The basic task of each &al actor and fundamental proôiem for

the social sciences. Social Justice Research. 1, 107-1 25.

Lemer, M., Miller. D., & Holmes. J. (1976). Desewing and the

emergence of fomiç of justice. In L Berkowitt & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in

emmental social ~svcholow (Vol. 9): Equitv theory: Toward a ~eneral theorv

of &al interaction- New York Acadernic Press.

Lemer, M. J., Somers, D. G., Reid, D. W. & Tiemey, M. C. (1989). A

social dilemma: Egocentncally biased cognitions among filial caregivers. In S.

Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social ~svcholoav of aaina: The Claremont

svm~osium on applied social ps~choloav (pp. 5380). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory: New

approaches to the study of faimess in social relationships. In K J. Gergen, M.

S. Greenberg, 8 R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchanae theorv (pp. 27-55). New

York: Wiley.

MacDonald, K (1992). Wamth as a developrnental constnict: An

evolutionary analysis. Child Developmenl. 63, 753-773.

Mangrum, 0. (1 988). Constnict validation of the family-uf-origin scale: A

factor analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1 988)

Dissertation Abstracts International. 49, 4600.

Matthews, S. H., Werkner, J. E., & Delaney, P. J. (1989). Relative

contributions of help by employed and unemployed sisters to their elderly

parents. Journal of Gerontolo~v: Social Sciences, 44, S36S44.

Mazer, G. E., Mangnim, O. L., Hovestadt, A. J., & Brashear, R. L. (1990).

Further validation of the family of origin scale: A factor analysis. Journal of

Marital and Familv Theraov, 16(4), 423-426.

Rosenblatt, P. C., deMik, L., Anderson, R. M., & Johnson, P. A. (1985).

The family in business: Understandina and dealincr with the challençies

entremeneurial families face. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ross, H. G., & Milgram, J. 1. (1 982). Important variables in adult sibling

relationships: A qualitative study. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutîon-Smith (Eds.),

141

Sibling relationships: Their nature and siqnificance across the lifespan (pp. 225-

249). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ryan, B. A., Kawash, G. F., Fine, M. & Powel, B. (1994). The family of

origin scale: A construct validation study. Contemporarv Familv Therapy, 1 6(2),

145-1 59.

Ryan, B. A., Powel, B., Kawash, G. F., 8 Fine. M. (1 995). Parallel short

foms of the family of origin scale: Evidence of their reliability and validity.

Journal of Psvchopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 17(3), 283-291.

Salamon, S. (1 982). Sibling solidanty as an operating strategy in Illinois

agriculture. Rural Socioloav. 47(2), 344368.

Salamon, S., Gengenbacher, K M., 8 Penas, D. J. (1 986). Family factors

affecting the intergenerational succession to fanning. Human Omanization,

45(1), 24-33. -

Schumm, W. R., Jurich, A P.. Bollrnan, S. R., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1985).

His and her mamage revisited. Journal of Farnilv Issues. 6, 221-227.

Shorkey, C. T. 8 Whiteman, V. L. (1 977). Development of the rational

behavior inventory: Initial validity and reliability. Educational and Psycholo~ical

Measurement. 35. 527-534.

Simon, F. B., Stierlin, H. & Wynne, L. C. (1 985). The l anwa~e of family

t h e r a ~ ~ : A svçtemic vocabulaw and sourcebook New Ycrk Family Process

Press.

Spiegel, D., & Wissler, T. (1 983). Perceptions of family environment

among psychiatric patients and their wives. Familv Process. 22: 537-547.

Swogger, G. (1 991 ). Assessing the successor generation in family

business. Familv Business Review. 4(4), 39741 1.

Symes, D. G. (1990). Brïdging the generations: Succession and

inheritance in a changing world. Socioloaia Ruralis. 30(3/4), 280-291.

Titus, S. L., Rosenblatt, P. C., & Anderson, R. M. (1979). Family conflict

over inheritance of property. The Familv Coordinator, Julv, 337-346.

Tonti, M. (1 988). Relationships among adult siblings who care for their

aged parents. In M. D. Kahn & K. G. Lewis (Eds.), Siblinas in therapv: Life span

and clinical issues (pp. 41 7-434). New York: Norton.

Voyce, M. (1 994). Testamentary freedom, patriarchy and inheritance of

the family farm in Australia. Sociolonia Ruralis. 34(1), 71 83.

Walsh, F. (1 994). Healthy family fundioning: Conceptual and research

developments. Familv Business Review. 7(2), 1 75-1 98.

Wilcoxon, S. A., & Hovestadt, A J. (1983). Perceived health and

similarity of family of origin experiences as predictors of dyadic adjustment for

married couples. Journal of Marital and Familv Therapv. 9, 431 -434.

Author Note

1 This project was part of a larger study entitled Planning and transitions in

a rnulti-familylmulti-generation farm business, funded by the Canadian Fam

Business Management Council, awarded to Wayne Howard, University of

Guelph; Janet Taylor, University of Guelph; Lome Owen, British Columbia

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; Remy Lambert, Universite Laval;

Colleen Crozier, Covico Business Consulting; Gary Bradshaw, Alberta

Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Mike Pylypchuk, Saskatchewan

Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and Cindy MacDonald, Newfoundland

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

2 Data were collected by James Soldan, Colleen Crozier, Cindy

MacDonald, and Janet Taylor.

CHAPTER FOUR

Final Conclusion and Afterthoughts

FINAL CONCLUSION AND AFTERTHOUGHTS

This research was undertaken to explore some specific issues that were

identified as problematic for families during fam transfer. This work contributes

to the literature in a number of ways. First, it addresses some methodologicai

shartwmings of farm research. Second, it advances theory about three areas

defined as problematic for succession. These are: the primary work team of

farmer-successor, which is the linchpin of succession; the family detemination

of faimess; and the relationship between faimess, family wamth. and confiict

from the perspective of the successor and one off-fam sibling.

Each chapter uses various ways to obtain a family level analysis. This is

because considerable research is based one person acting as a spokesperson

for the family. This "one person speaks for alln approach essentially provides

individual data, rather than family data. Consequently the level of analysis for

chapter one was individual perceptions about the farmer-successor dyad within

the context of the family. In this way, data were collected from individuals or

dyads, but used to form an understanding of the farmer and successor

relationship. In chapter two the level of analysis was individual perceptions of

how families determine fairness. Data were allected from at least three people

from two generations in each family and used for a family level analysis.

Chapter three collected rneasures from the fami successor and one off-fann

sibling in order to form relational family data.

This msthod of wllecting data from various individuals from each farnily

provides a more complete picture of the family. Questions remain whether

interviewing al1 members of a family would have changed the results in any

important way. My sense is that the depth would change, but not the content.

For example, in one family the parents mentioned that they had asked a friend

to find a buyer for the farm. This was their only comment about a situation their

successor, daughter-in-law, and daughter described as a difficult farnily time

that nearly derailed the transfer. Indeed, the successor and his wife had a great

deal to Say about that situation. If the parents only had been interviewed, 1

would have wncluded that the transfer had gone smoothly. Their children gave

detaiis of conflict leading up to the farm going up for sale; a conflict that was not

even mentioned by their parents. lnterviewing more members of this family

would have provided more details and depth of understanding about those

events, but not likely change the results substantially. This triangulation of

perceptions about an issue in the family increases confidence in the findings

and provides a richer understanding of the impact of this event on the family.

Previous researchers on farm transfer have show that different family

members wn facilitate or hinder succession at different points along the way.

The intergenerational relationship between parents and successor is critical for

the early stages in transfer decision-making. The sibling relationship is critical

for the completion of succession, particularly if the successor needs the support

of the off-farm siblings. Therefore, the first chapter examines the famer-

147

successor working relationship, and this was influenced by the indepth and

comprehensive work done by Sonya Salamon with Illinois Great Plains farm

families. Her work was based on ethnic groups of century farmers and I was

curious about how these would apply to Canadian farm families.

Case studies revealed patterns consistent with the Salamon typology for a

quarter of the families, but two approaches to farm management were identified;

the expander and the conservator. These captured the differences among the

fann families in this sample. The combination of these two approaches in the

older famer and younger successor comprise four famier-successor

succession patterns. Different succession patterns, or fam management

patterns have been identified by other researchers. Perhaps eacb hzs

assigned different labels that essentially describe the same thing. An analysis

of research that describes these different types would be useful. The value of

these typologies lies in the recognition that not ail farmers approach farming

and succession in the same way. This acknowledges that different types of

farm families require different interventions by fann advisors and professionais.

Faimess has been discussed in the literature as an important issue

affecting farm succession, yet little quantitative or qualitative research has been

clone on this issue. Chapters two and three were designed to address the

paucity of research in this area. Chapter two is a qualitative analysis of the

process families go through to arrange a fair transfer that was analyzed within

the concept of global reciprocity. The literature frorn three non-fam areas was

148

applied to this question in order to develop a conceptual framework for

understanding faimess concerns. These areas are the adult sibling literature

relationship, inheritanœ literature, and the work on global reciprocity. The adult

sibling and inheritance literature provided important information for

understanding the relationship between sibling closeness and conflict over

inheritance. The strong support for global reciprocity suggests it is a useful

framework for understanding fairness as an on-going process in the life of a

family .

What emerges from the analysis in chapter two is that the relationship

between sibling closeness, faimess, and conflict was more complex than 1

anticipated from reading the literature. While the non-fan literature provided

valuable insights that were usefully applied to fam families, the results suggest

some gaps. The research on adult sibling relationships normalizes sibling

relationships in terms of lesser contact, geographic proximity, and issues

around parental favoritism as being less important as adults age. This

describes the relationships of "city folk," not the reality of adult siblings working

and living in proximity on the family farm. More work is needed in this area.

Chapter three used a quantitative analysis to understand faimess

wncerns specifically from the perception of the younger generation successor

and off-fann sibling. This is because faimess concerns have been identified as

problematic for the younger generation and tend to underlie sibling conflict over

farm transfer. Literature from four non-fam areas was used to develop the

149

hypothesis. These areas are the adult sibling and inheritanœ research, the

research on the Family of Origin Scale, and the Justice Motive Model. The

adult sibling and inheritance research show a relationship between sibling

closeness and little wnflict over inheritance. The work on the Farnily of Origin

Scale indicates that it taps into an underlying feeling of wanth and positive

affect that is associated with perceived health in the family of origin. The

Justice Motive Model links relationship closeness with niles of faimess. Some

problems with the Justice Motive Model and how it was used is discussed in

chapter three. The idea that there are different ways to calculate faimess

depending on relationship quality is appealing. Capturing these notions

through measures is another matter. The importance of this research is that it

links family wannth to agreement on faimess and similar niles of faimess.

What is surprising is that agreement and rules were not correlated with each

other. I conclude that faimess is more of a process than an event. A more

detailed qualitative analysis of fairness of the family (a global indicator),

fairness of the transfer (specific indicator), and confidence about fair treatment

in the future (future indicator) would provide more understanding about this

complex issue. The qualitative analysis done in chapter two provides a first

step in delineating some of these concems about faimess.

The intention of this work was not to explore al1 issues, but to more

closely focus on some issues that had been identified as critical and in need of

further development. Of course, there are pieces missing. In hindsight, one

i 50

omission is a separate study on the role of women in this process. Women

were involved in the interviews; they were not the focus.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Chapter Three

Confl ict (range 1 - 5)

Agreement on Rules of Faimess (range O - 1 )

Agreement Transfer Fair (range O - 1 )

Family of Origin Scale (range 15 -

Std. Deviation

Table 2

Correlations of Variables Predictina Conflict Over Transfer of the Farm for

Chapter Three

1 . Conflict - - -. 37 -. 39 -.438 (-01) (-01) (.007)

2. Agreement Rules of Fairness

3. Agreement Transfer Fair

4. Family of Origin Scale

Table 3

Summarv of Multiple Reqression Analvsis for Chapter Three

Variable 8 SE B B

Agreement Rules of Faimess

Agreement Transfer Fair

Family of Origin Scale

Note: = -43 Adjusted = -36

*p= .O5

Appendix A

Interview Schedule for Older Generation

"We are interested in identifying issues, problems, and effective 'mles of thumb'

in successful multi-familylmulti-generation fam businesses. More precisely, the

factors that affect the decision to enter or exit farming andlor make the transition

frorn full-time to part-time farming. What have you 'leamed the hard w a 4 that

muld be of help to other f a n families."

Farm and Familv Demoaraphic (Note: get this information from whichever

generation you think best.)

A. Farm Characteristics

"Can you describe your current operation:

Enterprise

Acres in

crops

pasture

owned

rented

Livestock #

How would you classi@ your operation?

State-of-art technology

Good but proven technology

Low technology

"Now we need some information on the two generations taking part in this

survey. Note: when we refer to parents, we are refemng to you.

Two ~enerations of F a n Familv takinçr part in this survev:

List the first name, age, and gender of both generations and indicate highest

level of education received (Le. elementary school, some high school,

completed high school, some college, college diploma, university degree,

grad or professional degree). Note: Place an X beside the two members of

the second generation that will be interviewed in this study.

First Name Age M or F. Highest Education Level

1. To what extent are members of this two generation family employed on and

off the farrn: Consider custom work to be on-farrn work. Estimate weeks

worked per year and average hours worked per week.

On farm employmenti Off-farm employment wkslyear. avge. hrs./wk.

The older generation

The next generation

Are other family members employed on the farrn who are not part of this

survey (Le. cousins, nephews, etc.) How many and how many hoursfweek,

weeksl year.

2. Credit and Finance (note: it may be more cornfortable to ask question 2 & 3

at the end of the interview

How would you classify your curent level of long-terni debt:

none

low

medium

high

VVho is it with?

3. We would like some financial information about your operation. This

information is confidentiai.

a) estimated value of assets: $

b) estirnated debt

operating

long term

c) gross farm sales

d) net farm income (last years - is it typical?)

e) tata! family income (last years - is it typical?)

(off farm work)

B- Personal Characteristics

1. Year started farming

2. How did you get started?

Do both corne from farm families?

3. How many generations has the farm been in the family?

Note: at this point, one of the parents could be asked to fiIl in the

questionnaire (perhaps in another room - it is up to them) while the other

1 57

answers these questions. When that is cornpleted they can switch places.

This way we get both perspectives. It is up to you - some families may

wish to answer together and that is okay. lndicate which way you have done

it.

Decision to brinq the next aeneration into the farm

4. Some farnilies know that they want to pass on the f a n to the next

generation when their children are very Young. Other families wait and see

who is capable. There are different strategies. How would you classify

yourself? Your family?

5. How important is it to you to keep the farm in the family?

6. Who will take over the fann after you? How did you decide that? Who was

part of the decision? (Note if farm transferred - when did it happen, how

did you decide, what was the process, who initiated etc.)

7. What is the curent iegal status of the farm (Le. partnership, corporation,

etc.) and when did that happen?

8. What would you advise other farm families to do in similar situations (who

are thinking of working on the family farm, who are deciding who should take

over)?

Workina Tociether

9. There are benefits to working with family members, and there also can be

dificulties. Are there things you have learned the "hard way" about working

together that you wish you knew before?

158

I O . Who makes the decisions about the fam? Who makes most of the

decisions? 1s this satisfactory for you? Your children?

Il. If you and your children have a difference of opinion concerning a major

decision. how do you resolve it? (Le. talk it out, argue, shout, avoid. gang-

up) Does this way work to your satisfaction?

12.What have you leamed the hard way about decision-making that would

benefit some other family?

Transfer the Farm

13. Have you discussed transfening the f a n with your children? Why or why

not? (Note: if f a n transferred, ask :"How did you decide how to transfer the

farm and how did you go about doing that?)

14. Has a structure been set up for transferring the farm? Why or why not?

(Note: if f a n transferred, ask: What structure was put in place to transfer

the farm?)

15. Farmers with more than one potential heir make different provisions in their

wills. What do you think is the best plan for your family and why?

16. What are your plans for retirement? When?

Who have you discussed this with?

Familv Relationshi~s - non work

17. What kinds of things does your family do together?

18. How do you manage the boundary between work and family? For example

do you talk about business at family gatherings?

159

19. There are probably some important questions we have not thought about. If

you were going to advise another family who were about to take over the

fam, what would be most important for them to know, from your experience?

What would you do the same and what would you do different.

"Next we would like you to fiIl out a questionnaire. This should tzke about 15

minutes."

Appendix B

Interview Schedule for Fam Successor

"We are interested in identifying issues, problems, and effective 'mies of thumbJ

in successful multi-family/rnulti-generation farm businesses. More precisely, the

factors that affect the decision ta enter or exit farming and/or make the transition

from full-time to part-time farming. What have you "leamed the hard way" that

could be of help to other fam families."

Farm and Famiiv Demoara~hic (Note: get this information from one generation

only

B. Personal Characteristics

1. Your age: Your spouse's age:

2. Year started farming (Note: off-farm sibling: Year left the farm and why):

3. Credit and Finance

How would you classify your current level of long-term debt:

none

low

medium

high

Who is it with?

4. We would like some financiel information about your operation. This

information is confidential.

a) estimated value of assets: $

161

b) estimated debt

operat ing

long terrn

c) gross fam sales

d) net f a n incorne (last years - is it typical?)

e) total famiiy incorne (last years - is it typical?)

(off f a n work?)

5. When did you start farming and how did you get started?

Decision to work or not work on the farm

6. Some families know that they want to pass on the farm to the next

generation when their children are very Young. Other families wait and see

who is capable. There are different strategies. How would you classify

yourself? Your family?

7. When did you decide to work (or not work) on the fam?

8. How important is it to you to keep the fann in the family?

9. How was it decided who should take over? Who was part of the decision?

1 O. What would you advise other farm farnilies to do in similar situations (who

are thinking of working on the family farm, who are deciding who should take

over)?

Workincl Toaether

11. There are benefits to working with farnily members, and there also can be

difficulties. Are there things you have leamed the "hard way" about working

together that you wish you knew before?

12.VVho makes the decisions about the farm? Who makes most of the

decisions? Is this satisfactory for you? Your parents?

13. If you and your parents have a difference of opinion concerning â major

decision, how do you resolve it? (Le. talk it out, argue, shout, avoid, gang-

up) Does this way work to your satisfaction?

14. What have you leamed the hard way about decision-making that woufd

benefit some other family?

Transfer the Farm

15. Have you discussed transferring the farm with your parents? Why or why

not? (Note: if farm transferred, find the process they went through)

16. Has a structure been set up for transferring the fam? Why or why not?

(Note: if fam transferred, ask: What structure was put in place to transfer

the fam?)

17. Farmers with more than one potential heir make different provisions in their

wills. What do you think is the best plan for your family?

18.Do you feel the transfer of the farm is being done (was done) in a fair

manner'? How does your farnily determine what is fair?

19. In your opinion, what would have to happen to make it more fair'?

20. Do you think ail family members feel it is (felt it was handled) being handled

fairly?

21. What are your parent's plans for retirement? When?

Familv Relationships - non work

22. What kinds of things does your family do together?

23. Would you like this to chance?

Siblinçi Relationships

24.How would you describe your relationships with your siblings now? As

children and adolescents?

25. Which sibling did you feel closest to growing up? Who do you feel closest

to now?

26. Which çibling are you least close to now?

27.There are probably some important questions we have not thought about. If

you were going to advise another family who were about to take over the

farm, what would be most important for them to know, from your experience?

What would you do the same and what would you do different.

Next we would like you to fiIl out 4 questionnaires. This should take about 15 -

20 minutes."

Appendix C Interview Schedule for Off Fam Siblinq

"We are interested in identifying issues, problems, and effective 'niles of thumb'

in successful mu1 ti-fami lyfmu lti-generation farm businesses. More precisel y, the

factors that affect the decision to enter or exit farrning andlor make the transition

from full-tirne to part-time farming. What have you "leamed the hard way" that

could be of help to other farm families."

Personal C haraderistics

1. Your age

2. Did you ever consider famiiig as an occupation?

If answer "yesn - did your family know this, who did you talk to etc.

If answer "non ask Why not?

3. Year left the farm and why.

4. Some families know that they want to pass on the farm to the next

generation when their children are very Young. Other families wait and see

who is capable. There are different strategies. How would you classify

your family?

5. How important is it to you that the farm is kept in the family?

6. How was it decided who should take over the farm? Who was part of the

decision?

7. What would you advise other farm families to do in similar situations (who

are thinking of working on the family fam, who are deciding who should take

over)? Would you do it the same way as your family or would you do it

differently?

Workinci Tocrether

There are benefits to working with family members, and there also can be

diffÏculties. Are there things you have leamed the "hard way" about working

together that you wish you knew before? (assuming they worked together

as kids and teens on the fann).

Fanners with more than one potential heir make different provisions in their

wills. What do you think is the best plan for your family?

10. Do you feel the transfer of the farm is being done (was done) in a fair

manner? HOW does your family determine what is fair?

1 1. ln your opinion, what would have to happen to make it more fair?

12. Do you think al1 family members feel it is (felt it was handled) being handled

fair1 y?

Familv Relationships - non work

13. What kinds of things does your family do together?

14. Wouid you like this to change?

Siblinçr Relationships

15-How would you describe your relationships with your siblings now? As

children and adolescents?

l6.\l\n-iich sibling did you feel closest to growing up? Who do you feel closest

to now?

1 7. Which sibling are you least close to n o m

18.There are probably some important questions we have not thought about. If

you were going to advise another family who were about to take over the

fann, what would be most important for them to know, from your experience?

What would you do the same and what would you do different.

Next we would like you to fiil out 4 questionnaires. This should take about 15 -

20 minutes."

Appendix D

Farrn Transfer Measures

Using the following scale, circle the appropriate letter. Please respond to each

statement.

Strongly Agree Neutra1 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

(1) In my opinion, decisions about the

fam transfer were (are) easy to

handle. sa a n d

(2) Our family values keeping the

farm in the family. sa a n d

(3) In my opinion, the farrn transfer

is being (was) handied fairly. sa a n d

(4) In my opinion, the farm transfer

is causing (caused) confiict in

my family.

Appendix E

The Assessrnent of Faimess Questionnaire

Parents want to treat their children fairly. There are many ways, however, to

detemine what is fair and just in a family. Each family has their own way of

doing things and no way is right or wrong. Read each paragraph and ansver

the question below.

1. In my farnily the person with the least resources is the one we think should

get the rnost In this way, faimess is achieved when the person with the

least is raised to the level of the others.

2. In my family, each child gets an equal share. If we give to one, we give to

ali. In this way faimess is achieved when goods are distributed equally.

3. In n y family, the child who contributes the most, receives the most. In other

words, we believe that the child who contributes the most to the fann,

receives the most reward. We think that child has eamed the right to get

more.

4. In my farnily, we believe that who ever "wins the battien should get the

rewards. ln other words, whoever can make the best case gets the prize.

A) Which paragraph best describes the principle you usually use in deterrnining

what is fair: #

IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED - LIMAGE. lnc = 1653 East Main Street - -. , , Rochesîer. NY 14609 USA -- --= Phone: 71 61482-0300 -- -- - - Fax: 71 6/208-5989

O tW3. Applied Image. Inc. Al1 Rights Reserved