Description
Description talk about developing a sociological understanding of the significance of family influence.
1
Developing a Sociological Understanding of the Significance of
Family Influence in Family Business: using moral economy
Donella Caspersz & Sheree Gregory
Abstract
In this paper we suggest that moral economy is a useful lens through which to develop
a sociological understanding of family influence on the work of family business. To
the best of our knowledge, there is no available literature that uses this approach in
studies of family influence on family business. In using a moral economy lens, we
suggest that family influence can be regarded as reflecting the moral norms and
sentiments of the family. By influencing the work of family business, these moral
norms and sentiments become everyday in having this effect. We provide findings to
support our argument that our approach is new and novel in family business studies.
Keywords: family business, family influence, moral economy, sociology of family
business
Introduction
Moral economy has a long and prestigious pedigree as an analytical framework
(Bolton and Laaser 2013). While originally developed as a critique of neoclassical
and modern economic analysis,
(M)oral economy studies the moral norms and sentiments that structure and
reinforce economic practices, both formal and informal, and the way in which
these are reinforced, compromised or overridden by economic pressures
(Sayer 2007: 262).
2
We argue that we can conceptualise family influence in family business by
drawing on the concept of moral economy. Our approach is informed by an argument
from Zachary (2011) who suggests that while the family in business should be
regarded as an economic system that sustains and provides for family members
(Winter, et al., 1998); research about the influence of the family on the work of the
family business has rarely conceptualised how the family influences the business. In
this paper we draw on the concept of moral economy to suggest that another way of
viewing family influence is to regard this as reflecting the moral norms and
sentiments of the family. We suggest that because these moral norms and sentiments
influence the work of family business everyday, they become institutionalised in the
work of family business. We thus refer to these as everyday morals that influence the
work of family business everyday.
The aim of this paper is to elaborate upon these ideas. By so doing, the paper
presents a new conceptualisation of family influence in family business. Rather than
drawing on managerial concepts or theories, the novelty of this conceptualisation is
that it draws upon a ‘sociological imagination’ to offer different ideas. The
significance of family business worldwide (Drucker 1995: 45), and in Australia where
family businesses account for two-thirds of firms (Smyrnios and Walker 2003),
justifies our interest in this field.
Conceptualising Family Influence
Polanyi (1944) sets the groundwork of a moral economy approach by highlighting the
interconnectedness between social, moral and economic dimensions in modern
market societies (Bolton and Laaser 2013). Polanyi refers to this as embeddedness,
which Block (2003) and (others, see Munck (2004) argue was one of the most
S
influential of Polanyi’s thoughts. They suggest that the indelible contribution made by
Polanyi to moral economy was to illustrate that markets can never be entirely ‘free’ in
their operation (that is free markets), because they are embedded in societies and
hence rely on (often invisible) exchange mechanisms that belong not solely to the
market, but intertwine with the social sphere. In reference to the period that he wrote
about (that is, Industrial Revolution, England) Polanyi subsequently argued that as a
result,
while the market spread and all around it was commodified, society at the
same time protected itself through a network of measures and policies [that]
was integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the
market relative to labor, land and money (Munck 2004: 252).
Referred to as the ‘counter-movement’, the source for this was the tensions that
emerged between the economic and socially embedded nature of the market (Block
2003). In summary, Polanyi’s concept of the counter-movement contends that, like a
pendulum, if market excesses encroach too much on societal desires, then society acts
to protect these socio-political desires over market interests.
Described by Polanyi (1944) as fostering an ‘active society’, Polanyi’s
account has been criticised for failing to describe how the counter-movement
develops (see Silver 2003; Webster 2008). Bolton and Laaser (2013) subsequently
argue that the work of another great theorist of moral economy ! E. P Thompson !
can be well drawn upon to understand this. Also set in the period of the Industrial
Revolution, the core of E. P Thompson’s ‘moral economy’ is his understanding of
customs as ‘historically contingent on traditions of people that connect them to each
other through social and ethical bonds’ (Bolton and Laaser 2013: 514). From this
perspective, agency or agentic action emerges when these customs are either
4
threatened or eroded and there is a ‘backlash’ to protect these. Silver (2003: 20) for
instance suggests that in the context of labour-led counter-movements, these are
triggered, ‘particularly by working classes that are being unmade by global economic
transformations as well as by those workers who had benefited from established
social compacts that are being abandoned from above’.
While useful, it is argued that both Polanyi and Thompson neglect the moral
dimension of everyday life (Bolton and Laaser 2013). Sayer (2005; 2007) describes
this as the significance of lay morality or a ‘bottom-up’ approach to moral economy
as opposed to a top-down description such as that of Polanyi and Thompson. Central
to Sayer’s approach is the importance of actors’ ‘fellow-feeling’ and ‘inter-
dependence’, meaning that well-being relies not just on material resources but also on
social dimensions of life (Nussbaum 2011). These reflect the on-going moral
evaluations that we hold about our ‘relations to others, about how people should treat
one another in ways conducive to well-being’ (Sayer 2005: 951). As Polanyi and E.P.
Thompson suggest (Bolton and Laaser 2013) we meet, mediate and sometimes resist
the material demands made by a market economy. The notion of lay morality
embodies the practical and instrumental responses that we have to given situations,
not only as a community bonded by historical customs that E P Thompson would
argue form the groundwork for Polanyi’s counter-movement; but also as individuals
whose ‘care and concern, misery and merriment, bitching and bullying are revealed as
everyday interactional realities within work communities’ (Bolton and Laaser 2013:
516), in other words, the everyday concerns that can propel us into action.
We suggest that Sayer’s concept of lay morality within the genesis of the
moral economy framework is a powerful concept when applied to understanding
family influence in family business. On the one hand, lay morality when considered
S
as family influence is critical to the creation and operation of family businesses. For
instance, while pivotal in the formation of family business, research also suggests that
family influence can have a positive impact on family business (Habbershon,
Williams and MacMillan 2003) by creating higher efficiencies and generating
commercial success (Zahra, 2003). On the other hand, moral norms and sentiments
that are embedded in the social structure of the family (Steier, Chua and Chrisman
2009) (or a lay morality of norms, habits and rules that ‘structure and influence
economic practices of organizations’ (Sayer 2007, 2005)); can also exert an influence
that becomes almost counter-movement (Polanyi 1944) to the economic future of the
business. Research suggests that family influence can create competitive
disadvantages for family business (Carney, 2005) by skewing decision-making
towards family rather than business interests (Hall, Melin and Nordqvist 2001),
Family business leaders and managers can be influenced by family to prioritise family
over business interests (Schulz, Lubatkin, Dino and Buchholtz 2001; Chua, Chrisman
and Bergiel 2009), even if this is at the expense of increased business risk (Gomez-
Meja, Haynes, Nunez-Nicol, Jacobsen and Moyano-Fuentes 2007) or expansion and
growth (Daily and Dollinger 1993).
However, while recognising the power of applying the concept of lay morality
to understanding family influence in the work of family business, we propose that the
significance of this concept can be considered as the everyday morals of the family
that influence the business. That is, family influence is NOT motivated purely by the
‘norms and values’ as per Sayer’s lay morality (2007: 262) (or the custom and
practice as per E P Thompson); but also by principles, or behaviours that are the
manifestations of these principles, that are then used to judge the rightness or
wrongness of a particular action (Reber, Allen and Reber: 2009). In the work of
6
family business these principles are exercised in relation to the family not the
individual. In this context, we suggest that these principles include responsibility,
obligation, and care (Hall 2011) towards the family; and are enacted through
‘everyday’ behavioural practices (Hall 2011) such as attentiveness, and
responsiveness (Sevenhuijsen 2002) to family matters. Thus the practical embodiment
of everyday morals in the work of family business ensures that these continue to
guide family influence in the work of family business.
In Polanyian terms, this conceptualisation of family influence can be
conceptualised as triggering a counter-movement that renders
nonfinancial/noneconomic objectives aligned with the family equal to
financial/economic objectives for the family business. For instance, family influence
has been found to incline family firms to favour path-dependent traditions associated
with their family history (Nordqvist and Melin 2010), making them unwilling to alter
operational practices away from the principles that guide the family, thus cementing
the family principles in the continued influence of family in the business. Similarly,
the strong social ties which can be considered as one of the competitive advantages of
family firms (Cater and Schwab 2008) often creates closed networks in family
business that spurns the influence of ideas by non family both within and external to
the firm (Zahra, Hayton and Salvato 2004: 373; Zahra 2012) about new methods that
could lead to business efficiencies. Operational matters are subsequently guided by
family influence, which then reinforce the influence of family ideas in the business.
Both social ties and commitment to their historical traditions and values can further
influence family businesses to draw on ‘trusted’ networks of family and friends to
learn operational practices (Tsui-Auch 2003), rather than engage professional, non-
family advisors, again restricting the source of ideas about business operations to ‘the
7
family’, with the effect of reinforcing the authority of family ideas in business
operations. We summarise this conceptualization in Figure 1 to illustrate the
relationship between everyday morals and family influence on family business.
"#$%&' () *+'&,-., /0&.12 .3- 4./#1, #341%'35'
6., 70&.1#8,9
:.,'& ;<==>9
<==?@
'+'&,-.,
/0&.12
"./#1,
#3A1%'35' 03
4./#1, B%2#3'22
C'#340&5#3$ 600D
Confirming the uniqueness of our approach
To confirm the novelty and relevance of our approach, we conducted a literature
review of family business literature using Leximancer. We have used Leximancer
before to analyse literature reviews, such as that presented in this paper (Caspersz and
Olaru 2013; Caspersz and Thomas 2013). Leximancer is a content mapping tool that
illustrates frequency of themes by enumerating words within a discourse. This
analysis generates circles to depict the themes in the discourse. The larger the circle
the more prominent is the theme. The themes are further explained by the appearance
8
of ‘descriptors’ (or words) within the circle. The tool generates text to accompany
each descriptor (and each theme). The grey lines that appear between the themes and
descriptors indicate the association between these.
Using the Web of Science we searched ‘Family Business’ and ‘Research’ and
‘Theories’ to identify the most relevant articles, and refined this to the four journals
that Chrisman, Kellerman, Chan and Liano (2009: 10) argue account for a large
portion of the research in family business and are generally regarded to be among the
most appropriate outlets for family business studies: Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice (ET & P), Family Business Review (FBR), Journal of Business Venturing
(JBV), and Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM). As per Chrisman et al.,
(2009: 10) we set the range from 2005 to 2014, as 2005 was the first year that data
became available in the Web of Science for FBR. The search yielded a total of 67
articles. We arranged these in hierarchical order of citations from most to least, and
then placed these in journal folders. We used Leximancer to conduct an analysis of
these folders, see Figure 2.
9
Findings
Figure 2 shows that the main themes examined by the literature are those of business
family, members and social. The descriptors in the theme business suggest that the
focus is on understanding the operational matters associated with the business, such as
management, performance and succession. In the theme family, the descriptors
behavior, structure and relationships indicate that the literature has mostly examined
the behavior of family business, structure of the family in the business and
Figuie 2: Analysis using Leximancei
1u
relationships of the family in the business. While coming close to our interest, the
proximity of this to the themes of members and social clarify that the focus on the
family was in understanding the role family members played in the business, the
levels at which they worked, compensation, and how the family business managed the
process of their involvement; in summary, the emotional and physical involvement of
family members in the business. In the theme social the descriptors capital, resources
and context suggests that interest in the family (that is, the behavior, structure and
relationships) was related to how these could be a resource (of social capital) for the
business. In summary, as suggested earlier the preoccupation in the literature was to
understand the family business, rather than the family itself.
In terms of the journal folders (for example, FOLDER 1fbr = Family Business
Review) in FBR, the focus appears to be on understanding how generation(al) matters
such as succession and firm-dynamics (such as management and non family
members) influenced the business. For JBV (Journal of Business Venturing) the
preoccupation was on how to measure variables and models of family or how to
positively examine the intersection between family and business; JSBM (Journal of
Small Business Management) and ET&P (Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice) were
preoccupied with themes of entrepreneurship and the influence of social capital in
family or how the family acted as resource for the entrepreneurship in family business
Thus, from this analysis we are satisfied that the literature thus far has not considered
any of the concepts that we draw on. To confirm our thoughts, we undertook a content
analysis of the articles (see Table 1 in Appendix A) to identify the most commonly
used theoretical frameworks. As can be noted few analyses drew on the critical
management perspective that we have developed.
11
Conclusion and Future Research
By drawing on concepts from moral economy, we suggest that family influence is
better regarded as the influence of everyday morals in family business. These
everyday morals act in an almost counter-movement style to influence the work of
family business. However, the practice of this work can, in turn, reinforce the
everyday morals of the family. In developing this approach, we provide a
sociological understanding of family influence in the work of family business. This is
in contrast to current analyses, which assess the influence of the family in economic
terms, therefore disenabling a fuller understanding of this significant influence in an
entity that is pervasive across all societies. By adopting this conceptual lens however,
we suggest that we are able to better capture the complexity of family influence on
family business, that is rathe than examining the work of family business from the
perspective of the business entity, we instead have shifted our lens to exploring the
family itself.
Our future research will apply this framework to understanding the work and
labour issues of family business. This is a neglected area of research in this field
(Astrachan & Kolenko, 1994). However, given the significance of family business in
most economies worldwide and Australia itself, it is useful to develop an
understanding of how family influence as a lay morality effects the work and labour
of family business.
12
References
Atsrachan, J ., & Kolenko, T (1994) A Neglected Factor Explaining Family Business
Success: Human Resource Practices, Family Business Review, 7 (3): 251-262.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Meja, L. R. (2012) ‘Socioemotional Wealth in Family
Firms: Theoretical Dimensions, Assessments Approaches and Agenda for Future
Research’, Family Business Review, 25(3): 258-79.
Block, F. (2003) ‘Karl Polanyi and the writing of The Great Transformation’, Theory and
Society, 32: 275-306.
Bolton, S., and Laaser, K. (2013) ‘Work, Employment and Society through the Lens of Moral
Economy’, Work. Employment and Society, 27(3): 508-25.
Carney, M. (2005) ‘Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family-Controlled
Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 249-65.
Carr, J., Cole, M., Ring, J. and Blettner, D. (2011) ‘A Measure of Variations in Internal Social
Capital among Family Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6): 1207-227.
Caspersz, D. and Thomas, J. (2013) ‘Developing Positivity to Manage’, Family Business
Review, 0894486513505641, first published on October 1, 2013 as
doi:10.1177/0894486513505641.
Caspersz, D. and Olaru, D. (2013) ‘Why Do Students Differ in the Value they Place on Pro-
Social Activities?’, Journal of Sociology, Published online before print July 10, 2013,
doi: 10.1177/1440783313492239.
Cater, J., and Schwab, A. (2008) ‘Turnaround Strategies in Established Small Family Firms’,
Family Business Review, 21(1): 31–50.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. and Sharma, P. (2005) ‘Trends and Directions in the Development
of a Strategic Management Theory of the Family Firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29: 555–75.
Chrisman, J. J., Kellermans, F., Chan. K. and Liano, K. (2010) ‘Intellectual Foundations of
Current Research in Family Business: An identification and review of 25 influential
article’,. Family Business Review, 23: 9-26.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W. and Barnett, T. (2012) ‘Family Involvement,
Family Influence, and Family-Centered Non-Economic Goals in Small Firms’,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 36(2): 267-94.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J. and Bergiel, E.B. (2009) ‘An Agency Theoretical Analysis of the
Professionalized Family Firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 355-72.
Daily, C. and Dollinger, M. (1993) ‘Alternative Methodologies for Identifying Family versus
Non Family Managed Businesses’, Journal of Small Business Management, 31(2): 79-
1S
91.
Deakins, D, and Freel, M. (2012) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, (Sixth Edition), London,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Drucker, P. (1995) Managing in a Time of Great Change, London, BCA.
Gilligan, C. (1987) Moral Orientation and Moral Development, in E. Feder Kitay and D. T
Meyers (Eds) Women and Moral Theory, Totowa, N J Rowman and Littlefield.
Gomez-Meja, L.R., Haynes, K., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobsen, K. and Moyano-Fuentes, J.
(2007) ‘Family-Owned Firms: Risk Loving or Risk Averse?’, Administration Science
Quarterly, 52: 106-37.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and Castro, J. (2011) ‘The Bind that Ties:
Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms’, The Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1): 653–707.
Habbershon, T., Williams, M. & MacMillan, I.C. (2003) ‘A Unified Systems Perspective of
Family Firm Performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 451-65.
Hall, S. (2013). Exploring the ‘Ethical Everyday’: An Ethnography of the Ethics of Family
Consumption. Geoforum, 42 (6), 627-37.
Hall. A., Melin, L. and Nordqvist, M. (2001) ‘Entrepreneurship as Radical Change in the
Family Business: Exploring the Role of Cultural Patterns’, Family Business Review, 14
(3): 193-208.
Kittay, E. F. (1999) Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency, New York,
Routledge.
Lester, R. H. and Cannella, A. A. (2006) ‘Interorganizational Familiness: How Family Firms
Use Interlocking Directorates to Build Community-Level Social Capital’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 755-75.
Lou, J. and Caspersz, D. (2010) ‘The Applicability of Theory Perspectives to Understanding
Governance in Small to Medium Size Family Firms International’, Journal of
Management Case Studies, 13(1): 56-67.
Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W. and Vaughn, M. (2008) ‘Family Orientation: Individual-Level
Influences on Family Firm Outcomes’, Family Business Review, 21(2): 127-38.
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006) ‘Family Governance and Firm Performance:
Agency, Stewardship and Capabilities’, Family Business Review, 19(1): 73-87.
Munck, R. (2004) ‘Globalization, Labour and the ‘Polyani Problem’, Labour History, 45(3):
251-69.
Nare, L. (2011) ‘The Moral Economy of Domestic and Care Labour: Migrant Workers in
Naples, Italy’, Sociology, 54(3): 396-412.
Nicholson, N. (2008) ‘Evolutionary Psychology and Family Business: A New Synthesis for
Theory, Research and Practice’, Family Business Review, 21(1): 103-18.
14
Nicholson, N. (2003) Leadership in Family Business, London, London Business School.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach,
Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press.
Nordqvist, M. and Melin, L. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial families and family firms’,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22 (3–4): 211–39.
Pearson, A W., Carr, J. C. and Shaw, J. C. (2008) ‘Toward a Theory of Familiness: A Social
Capital Perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6): 949-69.
Polyani, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time, Boston, Beacon Press.
Reber, A., Allen, R. and Reber, S. (2009) The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, CREDO,
Available on line:
http://search.credoreference.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/content/title/penguinpsyc?
tab=entries
Sayer, A. (2005) The Moral Significance of Class, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sayer, A. (2006) Approaching Moral Economy, in N. Stehr et al., (Eds). The Moralization of
the Markets, New York, Transaction Books, 77-97.
Sayer, A. (2007) Moral Economy and Employment, in S. C. Bolton, & M. Houilihan (eds).
Searching for the Human in Human Resource Management: Theory, Practice and
Workplace Contexts, London, Palgrave, 21-40.
Sayer, A. (2007) ‘Moral Economy as Critique’, New Political Economy, 12(2): 261-70.
Schulz, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2001) ‘Agency Relationships
in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence’, Organization Science, 12(2): 99-116.
Scott, J. (1976) The Moral Economy of the Peasant, New Haven, CT., Yale University Press.
Sevenhuijsen, S. (2000) ‘Caring in the Third Way: The Relation Between Obligation,
Responsibility and Care in Third Way Discourse’, Critical Social Policy, 20(1): 5-37.
Silver, B. (2003) Forces of Labour. Workers Movements and Globalization Since 1870,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Smyrnios, K. X. and Walker, R. H. (2003) The Boyd Partners Australian Family and Private
Business Survey, Melbourne, RMIT University.
Stanley, L. (2010). ‘Emotions and Family Business Creation: An Extension and Implications’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6): 1085-92.
Steier, L., Chua, J. and Chrisman, J. (2009) ‘Embeddedness Perspectives of Economic Action
Within Family Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6): 1157-67.
Thompson, E. P. (1971) ‘The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
Century’, Past and Present, 50(1): 76-136.
Tonnies, F. (2001) Community and Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1S
Tsui-Auch, L.S. (2003) ‘Learning Strategies of Small and Medium-Sized Chinese Family
Firms: A Comparative Study of Two Suppliers in Singapore’, Management Learning,
34(2): 201-20
Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R., Haynes, G., and Danes, S (1998) ‘Tracking Family
Businesses and their Owners Over Time: Panel Attrition, Manager Departure, and
Business Demise’, Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 535-59.
Zachary, R. (2011) ‘The Importance of the Family System in Family Business’, Journal of
Family Business Management, 1(1): 26-36.
Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C. and Salvato, C. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship in Firms: A Resource-
Based Analysis of the Effect of Organizational Culture’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 28(4): 363–82.
16
Appendix A
Table 1: Theories Identified in Literature Review of Family Business, 2005-2014
!"#$%&#' )'#* +$, %#'#-%."
/)01&.-!&$+'
Stiategic management view of family fiims
'|Tjhe ultimate aim of ieseaich about family business is to uevelop a
theoiy of the family fiim. two theoiies that contiibute to this aie RBv
anu agency theoiy' (Chiisman, Chua & Shaima, 2uuS, p. SS7, S66).
S
Resouice Baseu view (RBv)
'Iuentifying iesouices anu capabilities that make family fiims unique
anu allow them to uevelop family-baseu competitive auvantages'
(Chiisman, Chua & Shaima, 2uuS, p. S62-6S).
2
Agency Theoiy
'Agency costs aiise because of conflicts of inteiest anu asymmetiic
infoimation between two paities to a contiact' (Chiisman, Chua &
Shaima, 2uuS, p. S6u).
12
Stewaiuship Theoiy
'|Njany leaueis anu executives aspiie to highei puiposes at theii jobs -
they aie not self-seiving inuiviuuals, but often act with altiuism foi the
benefit of theii oiganization anu its stakeholueis' (Nillei & Le Bieton-
Nillei, 2uu6, p. 74).
2
'Familiness' concept
uiawing on Evolutionaiy Theoiy, Top management team anu Social
Capital Theoiy, RBv of the fiim anu systems theoiy, Social capital
theoiy, Family sociology, RBv of the fiim (Peaison, Caii & Shaw, 2uu8).
S
Family systems theoiy
Influenceu by Bowen, uiffeientiation of self, the uegiee to which one
can balance the piessuies of togetheiness anu inuiviuuation,
'emphasise balance between how inuiviuuals ielate to the family
system, anu the impacts of family systems on inuiviuuals' (Lumpkin,
Naitin & vaughn, 2uu8, p. 129).
1
Socioemotional wealth (SEW)
Anchoieu in the behaviouial tiauition within the management fielu,
'the SEW mouel suggests that family fiims aie typically motivateu by,
anu committeu to, the pieseivation of theii SEW, iefeiiing to
nonfinancial aspects oi "affective enuowments" of family owneis'
(Beiione, Ciuz & uomez-Neja, 2u12, p. 2).
1
Evolutionaiy Psychology (EP)
'In EP much inteiest has focuseu on oui poweiful noims of
iecipiocation as a cultuial univeisal anu oui capacity foi 'stiong
altiuism'' (Nicholson 2uu8, p. 1u7).
2
Social capital
Influenceu by Bouiuieu, 'emphasis on netwoik position, anu how
netwoik position influences the infoimation flows among inuiviuual
netwoik membeis, as well as inuiviuual-level benefits that acciue'
(Lestei & Cannella, 2uu6, p. 7S6).
2
doc_739705963.pdf
Description talk about developing a sociological understanding of the significance of family influence.
1
Developing a Sociological Understanding of the Significance of
Family Influence in Family Business: using moral economy
Donella Caspersz & Sheree Gregory
Abstract
In this paper we suggest that moral economy is a useful lens through which to develop
a sociological understanding of family influence on the work of family business. To
the best of our knowledge, there is no available literature that uses this approach in
studies of family influence on family business. In using a moral economy lens, we
suggest that family influence can be regarded as reflecting the moral norms and
sentiments of the family. By influencing the work of family business, these moral
norms and sentiments become everyday in having this effect. We provide findings to
support our argument that our approach is new and novel in family business studies.
Keywords: family business, family influence, moral economy, sociology of family
business
Introduction
Moral economy has a long and prestigious pedigree as an analytical framework
(Bolton and Laaser 2013). While originally developed as a critique of neoclassical
and modern economic analysis,
(M)oral economy studies the moral norms and sentiments that structure and
reinforce economic practices, both formal and informal, and the way in which
these are reinforced, compromised or overridden by economic pressures
(Sayer 2007: 262).
2
We argue that we can conceptualise family influence in family business by
drawing on the concept of moral economy. Our approach is informed by an argument
from Zachary (2011) who suggests that while the family in business should be
regarded as an economic system that sustains and provides for family members
(Winter, et al., 1998); research about the influence of the family on the work of the
family business has rarely conceptualised how the family influences the business. In
this paper we draw on the concept of moral economy to suggest that another way of
viewing family influence is to regard this as reflecting the moral norms and
sentiments of the family. We suggest that because these moral norms and sentiments
influence the work of family business everyday, they become institutionalised in the
work of family business. We thus refer to these as everyday morals that influence the
work of family business everyday.
The aim of this paper is to elaborate upon these ideas. By so doing, the paper
presents a new conceptualisation of family influence in family business. Rather than
drawing on managerial concepts or theories, the novelty of this conceptualisation is
that it draws upon a ‘sociological imagination’ to offer different ideas. The
significance of family business worldwide (Drucker 1995: 45), and in Australia where
family businesses account for two-thirds of firms (Smyrnios and Walker 2003),
justifies our interest in this field.
Conceptualising Family Influence
Polanyi (1944) sets the groundwork of a moral economy approach by highlighting the
interconnectedness between social, moral and economic dimensions in modern
market societies (Bolton and Laaser 2013). Polanyi refers to this as embeddedness,
which Block (2003) and (others, see Munck (2004) argue was one of the most
S
influential of Polanyi’s thoughts. They suggest that the indelible contribution made by
Polanyi to moral economy was to illustrate that markets can never be entirely ‘free’ in
their operation (that is free markets), because they are embedded in societies and
hence rely on (often invisible) exchange mechanisms that belong not solely to the
market, but intertwine with the social sphere. In reference to the period that he wrote
about (that is, Industrial Revolution, England) Polanyi subsequently argued that as a
result,
while the market spread and all around it was commodified, society at the
same time protected itself through a network of measures and policies [that]
was integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the
market relative to labor, land and money (Munck 2004: 252).
Referred to as the ‘counter-movement’, the source for this was the tensions that
emerged between the economic and socially embedded nature of the market (Block
2003). In summary, Polanyi’s concept of the counter-movement contends that, like a
pendulum, if market excesses encroach too much on societal desires, then society acts
to protect these socio-political desires over market interests.
Described by Polanyi (1944) as fostering an ‘active society’, Polanyi’s
account has been criticised for failing to describe how the counter-movement
develops (see Silver 2003; Webster 2008). Bolton and Laaser (2013) subsequently
argue that the work of another great theorist of moral economy ! E. P Thompson !
can be well drawn upon to understand this. Also set in the period of the Industrial
Revolution, the core of E. P Thompson’s ‘moral economy’ is his understanding of
customs as ‘historically contingent on traditions of people that connect them to each
other through social and ethical bonds’ (Bolton and Laaser 2013: 514). From this
perspective, agency or agentic action emerges when these customs are either
4
threatened or eroded and there is a ‘backlash’ to protect these. Silver (2003: 20) for
instance suggests that in the context of labour-led counter-movements, these are
triggered, ‘particularly by working classes that are being unmade by global economic
transformations as well as by those workers who had benefited from established
social compacts that are being abandoned from above’.
While useful, it is argued that both Polanyi and Thompson neglect the moral
dimension of everyday life (Bolton and Laaser 2013). Sayer (2005; 2007) describes
this as the significance of lay morality or a ‘bottom-up’ approach to moral economy
as opposed to a top-down description such as that of Polanyi and Thompson. Central
to Sayer’s approach is the importance of actors’ ‘fellow-feeling’ and ‘inter-
dependence’, meaning that well-being relies not just on material resources but also on
social dimensions of life (Nussbaum 2011). These reflect the on-going moral
evaluations that we hold about our ‘relations to others, about how people should treat
one another in ways conducive to well-being’ (Sayer 2005: 951). As Polanyi and E.P.
Thompson suggest (Bolton and Laaser 2013) we meet, mediate and sometimes resist
the material demands made by a market economy. The notion of lay morality
embodies the practical and instrumental responses that we have to given situations,
not only as a community bonded by historical customs that E P Thompson would
argue form the groundwork for Polanyi’s counter-movement; but also as individuals
whose ‘care and concern, misery and merriment, bitching and bullying are revealed as
everyday interactional realities within work communities’ (Bolton and Laaser 2013:
516), in other words, the everyday concerns that can propel us into action.
We suggest that Sayer’s concept of lay morality within the genesis of the
moral economy framework is a powerful concept when applied to understanding
family influence in family business. On the one hand, lay morality when considered
S
as family influence is critical to the creation and operation of family businesses. For
instance, while pivotal in the formation of family business, research also suggests that
family influence can have a positive impact on family business (Habbershon,
Williams and MacMillan 2003) by creating higher efficiencies and generating
commercial success (Zahra, 2003). On the other hand, moral norms and sentiments
that are embedded in the social structure of the family (Steier, Chua and Chrisman
2009) (or a lay morality of norms, habits and rules that ‘structure and influence
economic practices of organizations’ (Sayer 2007, 2005)); can also exert an influence
that becomes almost counter-movement (Polanyi 1944) to the economic future of the
business. Research suggests that family influence can create competitive
disadvantages for family business (Carney, 2005) by skewing decision-making
towards family rather than business interests (Hall, Melin and Nordqvist 2001),
Family business leaders and managers can be influenced by family to prioritise family
over business interests (Schulz, Lubatkin, Dino and Buchholtz 2001; Chua, Chrisman
and Bergiel 2009), even if this is at the expense of increased business risk (Gomez-
Meja, Haynes, Nunez-Nicol, Jacobsen and Moyano-Fuentes 2007) or expansion and
growth (Daily and Dollinger 1993).
However, while recognising the power of applying the concept of lay morality
to understanding family influence in the work of family business, we propose that the
significance of this concept can be considered as the everyday morals of the family
that influence the business. That is, family influence is NOT motivated purely by the
‘norms and values’ as per Sayer’s lay morality (2007: 262) (or the custom and
practice as per E P Thompson); but also by principles, or behaviours that are the
manifestations of these principles, that are then used to judge the rightness or
wrongness of a particular action (Reber, Allen and Reber: 2009). In the work of
6
family business these principles are exercised in relation to the family not the
individual. In this context, we suggest that these principles include responsibility,
obligation, and care (Hall 2011) towards the family; and are enacted through
‘everyday’ behavioural practices (Hall 2011) such as attentiveness, and
responsiveness (Sevenhuijsen 2002) to family matters. Thus the practical embodiment
of everyday morals in the work of family business ensures that these continue to
guide family influence in the work of family business.
In Polanyian terms, this conceptualisation of family influence can be
conceptualised as triggering a counter-movement that renders
nonfinancial/noneconomic objectives aligned with the family equal to
financial/economic objectives for the family business. For instance, family influence
has been found to incline family firms to favour path-dependent traditions associated
with their family history (Nordqvist and Melin 2010), making them unwilling to alter
operational practices away from the principles that guide the family, thus cementing
the family principles in the continued influence of family in the business. Similarly,
the strong social ties which can be considered as one of the competitive advantages of
family firms (Cater and Schwab 2008) often creates closed networks in family
business that spurns the influence of ideas by non family both within and external to
the firm (Zahra, Hayton and Salvato 2004: 373; Zahra 2012) about new methods that
could lead to business efficiencies. Operational matters are subsequently guided by
family influence, which then reinforce the influence of family ideas in the business.
Both social ties and commitment to their historical traditions and values can further
influence family businesses to draw on ‘trusted’ networks of family and friends to
learn operational practices (Tsui-Auch 2003), rather than engage professional, non-
family advisors, again restricting the source of ideas about business operations to ‘the
7
family’, with the effect of reinforcing the authority of family ideas in business
operations. We summarise this conceptualization in Figure 1 to illustrate the
relationship between everyday morals and family influence on family business.
"#$%&' () *+'&,-., /0&.12 .3- 4./#1, #341%'35'
6., 70&.1#8,9
:.,'& ;<==>9
<==?@
'+'&,-.,
/0&.12
"./#1,
#3A1%'35' 03
4./#1, B%2#3'22
C'#340&5#3$ 600D
Confirming the uniqueness of our approach
To confirm the novelty and relevance of our approach, we conducted a literature
review of family business literature using Leximancer. We have used Leximancer
before to analyse literature reviews, such as that presented in this paper (Caspersz and
Olaru 2013; Caspersz and Thomas 2013). Leximancer is a content mapping tool that
illustrates frequency of themes by enumerating words within a discourse. This
analysis generates circles to depict the themes in the discourse. The larger the circle
the more prominent is the theme. The themes are further explained by the appearance
8
of ‘descriptors’ (or words) within the circle. The tool generates text to accompany
each descriptor (and each theme). The grey lines that appear between the themes and
descriptors indicate the association between these.
Using the Web of Science we searched ‘Family Business’ and ‘Research’ and
‘Theories’ to identify the most relevant articles, and refined this to the four journals
that Chrisman, Kellerman, Chan and Liano (2009: 10) argue account for a large
portion of the research in family business and are generally regarded to be among the
most appropriate outlets for family business studies: Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice (ET & P), Family Business Review (FBR), Journal of Business Venturing
(JBV), and Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM). As per Chrisman et al.,
(2009: 10) we set the range from 2005 to 2014, as 2005 was the first year that data
became available in the Web of Science for FBR. The search yielded a total of 67
articles. We arranged these in hierarchical order of citations from most to least, and
then placed these in journal folders. We used Leximancer to conduct an analysis of
these folders, see Figure 2.
9
Findings
Figure 2 shows that the main themes examined by the literature are those of business
family, members and social. The descriptors in the theme business suggest that the
focus is on understanding the operational matters associated with the business, such as
management, performance and succession. In the theme family, the descriptors
behavior, structure and relationships indicate that the literature has mostly examined
the behavior of family business, structure of the family in the business and
Figuie 2: Analysis using Leximancei
1u
relationships of the family in the business. While coming close to our interest, the
proximity of this to the themes of members and social clarify that the focus on the
family was in understanding the role family members played in the business, the
levels at which they worked, compensation, and how the family business managed the
process of their involvement; in summary, the emotional and physical involvement of
family members in the business. In the theme social the descriptors capital, resources
and context suggests that interest in the family (that is, the behavior, structure and
relationships) was related to how these could be a resource (of social capital) for the
business. In summary, as suggested earlier the preoccupation in the literature was to
understand the family business, rather than the family itself.
In terms of the journal folders (for example, FOLDER 1fbr = Family Business
Review) in FBR, the focus appears to be on understanding how generation(al) matters
such as succession and firm-dynamics (such as management and non family
members) influenced the business. For JBV (Journal of Business Venturing) the
preoccupation was on how to measure variables and models of family or how to
positively examine the intersection between family and business; JSBM (Journal of
Small Business Management) and ET&P (Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice) were
preoccupied with themes of entrepreneurship and the influence of social capital in
family or how the family acted as resource for the entrepreneurship in family business
Thus, from this analysis we are satisfied that the literature thus far has not considered
any of the concepts that we draw on. To confirm our thoughts, we undertook a content
analysis of the articles (see Table 1 in Appendix A) to identify the most commonly
used theoretical frameworks. As can be noted few analyses drew on the critical
management perspective that we have developed.
11
Conclusion and Future Research
By drawing on concepts from moral economy, we suggest that family influence is
better regarded as the influence of everyday morals in family business. These
everyday morals act in an almost counter-movement style to influence the work of
family business. However, the practice of this work can, in turn, reinforce the
everyday morals of the family. In developing this approach, we provide a
sociological understanding of family influence in the work of family business. This is
in contrast to current analyses, which assess the influence of the family in economic
terms, therefore disenabling a fuller understanding of this significant influence in an
entity that is pervasive across all societies. By adopting this conceptual lens however,
we suggest that we are able to better capture the complexity of family influence on
family business, that is rathe than examining the work of family business from the
perspective of the business entity, we instead have shifted our lens to exploring the
family itself.
Our future research will apply this framework to understanding the work and
labour issues of family business. This is a neglected area of research in this field
(Astrachan & Kolenko, 1994). However, given the significance of family business in
most economies worldwide and Australia itself, it is useful to develop an
understanding of how family influence as a lay morality effects the work and labour
of family business.
12
References
Atsrachan, J ., & Kolenko, T (1994) A Neglected Factor Explaining Family Business
Success: Human Resource Practices, Family Business Review, 7 (3): 251-262.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Meja, L. R. (2012) ‘Socioemotional Wealth in Family
Firms: Theoretical Dimensions, Assessments Approaches and Agenda for Future
Research’, Family Business Review, 25(3): 258-79.
Block, F. (2003) ‘Karl Polanyi and the writing of The Great Transformation’, Theory and
Society, 32: 275-306.
Bolton, S., and Laaser, K. (2013) ‘Work, Employment and Society through the Lens of Moral
Economy’, Work. Employment and Society, 27(3): 508-25.
Carney, M. (2005) ‘Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family-Controlled
Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 249-65.
Carr, J., Cole, M., Ring, J. and Blettner, D. (2011) ‘A Measure of Variations in Internal Social
Capital among Family Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6): 1207-227.
Caspersz, D. and Thomas, J. (2013) ‘Developing Positivity to Manage’, Family Business
Review, 0894486513505641, first published on October 1, 2013 as
doi:10.1177/0894486513505641.
Caspersz, D. and Olaru, D. (2013) ‘Why Do Students Differ in the Value they Place on Pro-
Social Activities?’, Journal of Sociology, Published online before print July 10, 2013,
doi: 10.1177/1440783313492239.
Cater, J., and Schwab, A. (2008) ‘Turnaround Strategies in Established Small Family Firms’,
Family Business Review, 21(1): 31–50.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. and Sharma, P. (2005) ‘Trends and Directions in the Development
of a Strategic Management Theory of the Family Firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29: 555–75.
Chrisman, J. J., Kellermans, F., Chan. K. and Liano, K. (2010) ‘Intellectual Foundations of
Current Research in Family Business: An identification and review of 25 influential
article’,. Family Business Review, 23: 9-26.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W. and Barnett, T. (2012) ‘Family Involvement,
Family Influence, and Family-Centered Non-Economic Goals in Small Firms’,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 36(2): 267-94.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J. and Bergiel, E.B. (2009) ‘An Agency Theoretical Analysis of the
Professionalized Family Firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 355-72.
Daily, C. and Dollinger, M. (1993) ‘Alternative Methodologies for Identifying Family versus
Non Family Managed Businesses’, Journal of Small Business Management, 31(2): 79-
1S
91.
Deakins, D, and Freel, M. (2012) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, (Sixth Edition), London,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Drucker, P. (1995) Managing in a Time of Great Change, London, BCA.
Gilligan, C. (1987) Moral Orientation and Moral Development, in E. Feder Kitay and D. T
Meyers (Eds) Women and Moral Theory, Totowa, N J Rowman and Littlefield.
Gomez-Meja, L.R., Haynes, K., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobsen, K. and Moyano-Fuentes, J.
(2007) ‘Family-Owned Firms: Risk Loving or Risk Averse?’, Administration Science
Quarterly, 52: 106-37.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and Castro, J. (2011) ‘The Bind that Ties:
Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms’, The Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1): 653–707.
Habbershon, T., Williams, M. & MacMillan, I.C. (2003) ‘A Unified Systems Perspective of
Family Firm Performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 451-65.
Hall, S. (2013). Exploring the ‘Ethical Everyday’: An Ethnography of the Ethics of Family
Consumption. Geoforum, 42 (6), 627-37.
Hall. A., Melin, L. and Nordqvist, M. (2001) ‘Entrepreneurship as Radical Change in the
Family Business: Exploring the Role of Cultural Patterns’, Family Business Review, 14
(3): 193-208.
Kittay, E. F. (1999) Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency, New York,
Routledge.
Lester, R. H. and Cannella, A. A. (2006) ‘Interorganizational Familiness: How Family Firms
Use Interlocking Directorates to Build Community-Level Social Capital’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 755-75.
Lou, J. and Caspersz, D. (2010) ‘The Applicability of Theory Perspectives to Understanding
Governance in Small to Medium Size Family Firms International’, Journal of
Management Case Studies, 13(1): 56-67.
Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W. and Vaughn, M. (2008) ‘Family Orientation: Individual-Level
Influences on Family Firm Outcomes’, Family Business Review, 21(2): 127-38.
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006) ‘Family Governance and Firm Performance:
Agency, Stewardship and Capabilities’, Family Business Review, 19(1): 73-87.
Munck, R. (2004) ‘Globalization, Labour and the ‘Polyani Problem’, Labour History, 45(3):
251-69.
Nare, L. (2011) ‘The Moral Economy of Domestic and Care Labour: Migrant Workers in
Naples, Italy’, Sociology, 54(3): 396-412.
Nicholson, N. (2008) ‘Evolutionary Psychology and Family Business: A New Synthesis for
Theory, Research and Practice’, Family Business Review, 21(1): 103-18.
14
Nicholson, N. (2003) Leadership in Family Business, London, London Business School.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach,
Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press.
Nordqvist, M. and Melin, L. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial families and family firms’,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22 (3–4): 211–39.
Pearson, A W., Carr, J. C. and Shaw, J. C. (2008) ‘Toward a Theory of Familiness: A Social
Capital Perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6): 949-69.
Polyani, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time, Boston, Beacon Press.
Reber, A., Allen, R. and Reber, S. (2009) The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, CREDO,
Available on line:
http://search.credoreference.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/content/title/penguinpsyc?
tab=entries
Sayer, A. (2005) The Moral Significance of Class, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sayer, A. (2006) Approaching Moral Economy, in N. Stehr et al., (Eds). The Moralization of
the Markets, New York, Transaction Books, 77-97.
Sayer, A. (2007) Moral Economy and Employment, in S. C. Bolton, & M. Houilihan (eds).
Searching for the Human in Human Resource Management: Theory, Practice and
Workplace Contexts, London, Palgrave, 21-40.
Sayer, A. (2007) ‘Moral Economy as Critique’, New Political Economy, 12(2): 261-70.
Schulz, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2001) ‘Agency Relationships
in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence’, Organization Science, 12(2): 99-116.
Scott, J. (1976) The Moral Economy of the Peasant, New Haven, CT., Yale University Press.
Sevenhuijsen, S. (2000) ‘Caring in the Third Way: The Relation Between Obligation,
Responsibility and Care in Third Way Discourse’, Critical Social Policy, 20(1): 5-37.
Silver, B. (2003) Forces of Labour. Workers Movements and Globalization Since 1870,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Smyrnios, K. X. and Walker, R. H. (2003) The Boyd Partners Australian Family and Private
Business Survey, Melbourne, RMIT University.
Stanley, L. (2010). ‘Emotions and Family Business Creation: An Extension and Implications’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6): 1085-92.
Steier, L., Chua, J. and Chrisman, J. (2009) ‘Embeddedness Perspectives of Economic Action
Within Family Firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6): 1157-67.
Thompson, E. P. (1971) ‘The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
Century’, Past and Present, 50(1): 76-136.
Tonnies, F. (2001) Community and Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1S
Tsui-Auch, L.S. (2003) ‘Learning Strategies of Small and Medium-Sized Chinese Family
Firms: A Comparative Study of Two Suppliers in Singapore’, Management Learning,
34(2): 201-20
Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R., Haynes, G., and Danes, S (1998) ‘Tracking Family
Businesses and their Owners Over Time: Panel Attrition, Manager Departure, and
Business Demise’, Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 535-59.
Zachary, R. (2011) ‘The Importance of the Family System in Family Business’, Journal of
Family Business Management, 1(1): 26-36.
Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C. and Salvato, C. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship in Firms: A Resource-
Based Analysis of the Effect of Organizational Culture’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 28(4): 363–82.
16
Appendix A
Table 1: Theories Identified in Literature Review of Family Business, 2005-2014
!"#$%&#' )'#* +$, %#'#-%."
/)01&.-!&$+'
Stiategic management view of family fiims
'|Tjhe ultimate aim of ieseaich about family business is to uevelop a
theoiy of the family fiim. two theoiies that contiibute to this aie RBv
anu agency theoiy' (Chiisman, Chua & Shaima, 2uuS, p. SS7, S66).
S
Resouice Baseu view (RBv)
'Iuentifying iesouices anu capabilities that make family fiims unique
anu allow them to uevelop family-baseu competitive auvantages'
(Chiisman, Chua & Shaima, 2uuS, p. S62-6S).
2
Agency Theoiy
'Agency costs aiise because of conflicts of inteiest anu asymmetiic
infoimation between two paities to a contiact' (Chiisman, Chua &
Shaima, 2uuS, p. S6u).
12
Stewaiuship Theoiy
'|Njany leaueis anu executives aspiie to highei puiposes at theii jobs -
they aie not self-seiving inuiviuuals, but often act with altiuism foi the
benefit of theii oiganization anu its stakeholueis' (Nillei & Le Bieton-
Nillei, 2uu6, p. 74).
2
'Familiness' concept
uiawing on Evolutionaiy Theoiy, Top management team anu Social
Capital Theoiy, RBv of the fiim anu systems theoiy, Social capital
theoiy, Family sociology, RBv of the fiim (Peaison, Caii & Shaw, 2uu8).
S
Family systems theoiy
Influenceu by Bowen, uiffeientiation of self, the uegiee to which one
can balance the piessuies of togetheiness anu inuiviuuation,
'emphasise balance between how inuiviuuals ielate to the family
system, anu the impacts of family systems on inuiviuuals' (Lumpkin,
Naitin & vaughn, 2uu8, p. 129).
1
Socioemotional wealth (SEW)
Anchoieu in the behaviouial tiauition within the management fielu,
'the SEW mouel suggests that family fiims aie typically motivateu by,
anu committeu to, the pieseivation of theii SEW, iefeiiing to
nonfinancial aspects oi "affective enuowments" of family owneis'
(Beiione, Ciuz & uomez-Neja, 2u12, p. 2).
1
Evolutionaiy Psychology (EP)
'In EP much inteiest has focuseu on oui poweiful noims of
iecipiocation as a cultuial univeisal anu oui capacity foi 'stiong
altiuism'' (Nicholson 2uu8, p. 1u7).
2
Social capital
Influenceu by Bouiuieu, 'emphasis on netwoik position, anu how
netwoik position influences the infoimation flows among inuiviuual
netwoik membeis, as well as inuiviuual-level benefits that acciue'
(Lestei & Cannella, 2uu6, p. 7S6).
2
doc_739705963.pdf