We draw on the institutional logics perspective to understand different approaches that family firms can use to manage the process of succession. Based on the analysis of 21 case studies of family firms in Germany, we identify four different ways of managing potentially conflicting family and commercial logics that are associated with four different succession processes. Our findings contribute to the family firm literature by improving our knowledge of the heterogeneity of family firms and by explaining different ways that the family logic can influence firm behavior. Moreover, we contribute to institutional theory by showing the importance of filtering mechanisms for organizations that must respond to coexisting logics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfordR. & FriedlandR. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BeckertJ. (2007). Inherited wealth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BennedsenM., Meisner NielsenK., Pérez–GonzálezF., & WolfenzonD. (2007). Inside the family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 647–691.
4.
BertrandM. & SchoarA. (2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 73–96.
5.
BesharovM. & SmithW. (2014). Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0431.
6.
BlockJ., MillerD., JaskiewiczP., & SpiegelF. (2013). Economic and technological importance of innovations in large family and founder firms: An analysis of patent data. Family Business Review, 26, 180–199.
7.
BloomN. & van ReenenJ. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351–1408.
8.
ChrismanJ., ChuaJ., PearsonA., & BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.
9.
ChrismanJ.J. & PatelP.C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and non–family firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997.
10.
ChuaJ.H., ChrismanJ.J., & SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 19–39.
11.
DavisP.S. & HarvestonP.D. (1998). The influence of family on the family business succession process: A multi–generational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(3), 31–54.
12.
De MassisA., ChuaJ.H., & ChrismanJ.J. (2008). Factors preventing intra–family succession. Family Business Review, 21(2), 183–199.
13.
DeephouseD.L. & JaskiewiczP. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non–family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360.
DyerW.G.Jr. (1986). Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and family transitions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
17.
EichelmannG. (2009). Deutschlands Weine 2010: Das unabhängige Standardwerk. 949 Weingüter und 10.081 Weine [Wines of Germany 2010: The independent standard work. 949 wineries and 10,081 wines]. Heidelberg: Mondo.
18.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 488–511.
19.
EisenhardtK.M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.
20.
EisenhardtK.M. & BourgeoisL.J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high–velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737–770.
21.
EisenhardtK.M. & GraebnerM.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
22.
FriedlandR. & AlfordR. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW.W. & DiMaggioP.J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Gault & Millau. (1994). Gault & Millau weinguide Deutschland 1994 [1994 Gault & Millau Wine Guide: Germany]. Munich: Christian Verlag.
24.
Gault & Millau. (2009). Gault & Millau weinguide Deutschland 2009 [2009 Gault & Millau Wine Guide: Germany]. Munich: Christian Verlag.
25.
GioiaD.A., CorleyK.G., & HamiltonA.L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
26.
Gómez–MejíaL.R., CruzC., BerroneP., & De CastroJ. (2011). The ties that bind: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.
27.
Gómez–MejíaL.R., HaynesK.T., Nunez–NickelM., JacobsonK.J.L., & Moyano–FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family–controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.
28.
GoodrickE. & ReayT. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372–416.
29.
GraebnerM.E. & EisenhardtK.M. (2004). The seller's side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366–403.
30.
GreenwoodR., DiazA.M., LiS.X., & LorenteJ.C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.
31.
GreenwoodR., RaynardM., KodeihF., MicelottaE.R., & LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
32.
HabbershonT.G. & WilliamsM.L. (1999). A resource–based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.
33.
JohnsonH. & BrookS. (2009). Der große Johnson: Die Enzyklopädie der Weine, Weinbaugebiete und Weinerzeuger der Welt [The Big Johnson: The encyclopedia of wines, wine regions, and wine producers of the world]. Muenchen: Gräfe und Unzer Verlag GmbH. [Gräfe and Unzer Publishers Ltd.].
34.
KraatzM. & BlockE. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In GreenwoodR., OliverC., Sahlin–AnderssonK., & SuddabyR. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage Publications.
35.
LansbergI. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: The problem of institutional overlap. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 39–46.
36.
Le Breton–MillerI., MillerD., & SteierL. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305–328.
37.
LeaptrottJ. (2005). An institutional theory view of the family business. Family Business Review, 18, 215–228.
38.
LehmanD.R., ChinC.–Y., & SchallerM. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714.
39.
LounsburyM. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307.
40.
MelinL. & NordqvistM. (2007). The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: The case of the family business. Strategic Organization, 5(4), 321–333.
41.
MillerD. & Le Breton–MillerI. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
42.
MillerD., Le Breton–MillerI., & LesterR.H. (2011). Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behavior: Social context, identity and institutional logics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 1–25.
43.
MillerD., Le Breton–MillerI., LesterR.H., & CannellaA.A.Jr (2007). Are family firms really superior performers?Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5), 829–858.
44.
MillerD., LeeJ., ChangS., & Le Breton–MillerI. (2009). Filling the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of family vs non–family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 802–817.
Namen und Werte [Names and Values]. (2011). Weinwirtschaft [Wine industry]. 2011(20). Neustadt/Weinstrasse, Germany: Meininger Verlag GmbH.
47.
NiedermeyerC., JaskiewiczP., & KleinS.B. (2010). Can't get no satisfaction? Evaluating the sale of the family business from the family's perspective and deriving implications for new venture activities. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3/4), 293–320.
48.
NordqvistM. (2005). Familiness in top management teams: Commentary on Ensley and Pearson's “An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 285–292.
49.
OlsonD.H., SprenkleD.H., & RussellC.S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3–28.
50.
PacheA. & SantosF. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.
51.
ParadaM.J., NordqvistM., & GimenoS.A. (2010). Institutionalizing the family business: The role of professional associations in fostering the change of values. Family Business Review, 23(4), 355–372.
52.
PearsonA.W., CarrJ.C., & ShawJ.C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949–969.
53.
PengM.W. & JiangY. (2010). Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 253–273.
54.
Pérez–GonzálezF. (2006). Inherited control and firm performance. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1559–1588.
55.
PozaE.J., AlfredT., & MaheshwariA. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture and management practices in family and family firms—A preliminary report. Family Business Review, 10(2), 135–155.
56.
RaaijmakersA.G.M., VermeulenP.A.M., MeeusM.T.H., & ZietsmaC. (2014). I need time!Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0276.
57.
ReayT. (2009). Family–business meta–identity, institutional pressures, and ability to respond to entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 1265–1270.
58.
ReayT., GoodrickB., Boch WaldorffS., & CasebeeerA. (2014). How can you get a leopard to change its spots? Institutional logics and physical role identity. Working paper. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta.
59.
ReayT. & HiningsC.R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
60.
RichardsT.J. & RichardsL. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In DenzinY.K. & LincolnY.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445–462). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
RynesS. & GephartR.P. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.
62.
SchulzeW.S., LubatkinM.H., & DinoR.N. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 473–490.
63.
SharmaP., ChrismanJ.J., & ChuaJ.H. (2003). Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 667–687.
64.
SiegerP., ZellwegerT., NasonR.S., & ClintonE. (2011). Portfolio entrepreneurship in family firms: A resource–based perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5, 327–351.
65.
SirmonD.G. & HittM.A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.
66.
SorensonR.L. (2000). The contribution of leadership style and practices to family and business success. Family Business Review, 13, 183–200.
67.
StewartA. & HittM. (2012). Why can't a family business be more like a non–family business: Modes of professionalization in family firms. Family Business Review, 25, 58–86.
68.
The Economist. (2004). Passing on the crown. The Economist, 373, 69–71.
69.
ThorntonP.H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.
70.
ThorntonP.H. & OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
71.
ThorntonP.H., OcasioW., & LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter (VDP). (2009). Association of German Quality and Prädikat Wine Estates. Available at http://www.vdp.de/en/association/, accessed 15 November 2009.
73.
WardJ.L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy: How to plan for continuing growth, profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
74.
Wein und Markt [Wine and Marketplace]. (2011). Fachverlag Dr. Fraund GmbH.
