This article develops a familiness scale measuring the family influence on the business via decision premises that express familiness. In three studies, we examine familiness with qualitative and quantitative approaches based on new systems theory. Narrative interviews are employed to generate items. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses led to a multidimensional scale (Family Influence Familiness Scale [FIFS]) comprising six dimensions: (1) ownership, management, and control; (2) proficiency level of active family members; (3) sharing of information between active family members; (4) transgenerational orientation; (5) family–employee bond; and (6) family business identity. Results indicate high reliability and validity levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkaikeH. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332.
2.
American PsychologicalAssociation. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
ArregleJ.–L., HittM.A., SirmonD.G., & VeryP. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.
4.
AshforthB.E. & MaelF. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
5.
AstrachanJ.H., KleinS.B., & SmyrniosK.X. (2002). The F–PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–55.
6.
BakkenT. & HernesT. (2003). Autopoietic organization theory—Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's social systems perspective. Oslo: Copenhagen Business School Press.
7.
BarnettT., EddlestonK.A., & KellermannsF.W. (2009). The effects of family versus career role sa–lience on the performance of family and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 22(1), 39–52.
8.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
9.
BeardenW.O., SharmaS., & TeelJ.E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 425–430.
10.
BentlerP.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
11.
BerroneP., CruzC., & Gómez–MejíaL.R. (2012): Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.
12.
Binz AstrachanC., PatelV.K., & WanzenriedG. (2014). A comparative study of CB–SEM and PLS–SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 115–128.
13.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & KellermannsF.W. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, and performance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 739–760.
14.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., KellermannsF.W., & ChangE.P. (2007). Are family managers agents or stewards? An exploratory study in privately–held family firms, Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1030–1038.
15.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & LitzR. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 467–472.
16.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., PearsonA.W., & BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.
17.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SteierL. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247.
18.
ChuaJ.H., ChrismanJ.J., & SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family firm by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
19.
ChuaJ.H., ChrismanJ.J., SteierL.P., & RauS.B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103–1113.
20.
ChurchillG.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
21.
CostelloA.B. & OsborneJ.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
22.
CronbachL.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
23.
CrookT.R., ShookC.L., MaddenT.M., & MorrisM.L. (2009). A review of current construct measurement in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 387–398.
24.
CrookT.R., ShookC.L., MorrisM.L., & MaddenT.M. (2010). Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 192–206.
25.
DawsonA. & MussolinoD. (2014). Exploring what makes family firms different: Discrete or overlapping constructs in the literature?Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2), 169–183.
26.
DiamantopoulosA. (2005). The C–OAR–SE procedure for scale development in marketing: A comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 1–9.
27.
DiamantopoulosA. & SiguawJ.A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
28.
EnsleyM. & PearsonA.W. (2005). 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(3), 267–284.
FieldJ. (2008). Social capital (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
31.
FischerM., VölknerF., & SattlerH. (2010). How important are brands? A cross–category, cross–country study. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 823–839.
32.
FrankH., KesslerA., & FinkM. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance—A replication study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62(2), 175–198.
33.
FrankH. & LuegerM. (1997). Reconstructing development processes: Conceptual basis and empirical analysis of setting up a business. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27(3), 34–63.
34.
FrankH., LuegerM., NoséL., & SuchyD. (2010). The concept of ‘familiness’—literature review and systems theory–based reflections. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 119–130.
35.
GodfreyP.C. & HillC.W.L. (1995). The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16(7), 519–533.
36.
HabbershonT.G. (2006). Commentary: A framework for managing the familiness and agency advantages in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 879–886.
37.
HabbershonT.G. & WilliamsM. (1999). A resource–based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.
38.
HabbershonT.G., WilliamsM., & MacMillanI. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.
39.
HairJ.F.Jr., BlackW.C., BabinB.J., & AndersonR.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
40.
HandlerW.C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations studying family businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), 257–276.
41.
HendryJ. & SeidlD. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–196.
42.
HinkinT.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.
43.
HinkinT.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
44.
HooperD., CoughlanJ., & MullenM.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
45.
HuberP.J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions Vol. 1. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Statistics, 221/233. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46.
IravaW.J. & MooresK. (2010). Clarifying the strategic advantage of familiness: Unbundling its dimensions and highlighting its paradoxes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 131–144.
47.
JoereskogK.G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202.
48.
KaiserH.F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200.
49.
KellermannsF.W., WalterJ., CrookT.R., KemmererB., & NarayananV. (2016). The resource–based view in entrepreneurship: A content–analytical comparison of researchers’ and entrepreneurs’ views. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 26–48.
50.
KemmererB., WalterJ., KellermannsF.W., & NarayananV.K. (2012). A judgment analysis perspective on resource evaluation frameworks. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698–710.
51.
KidwellR.E., EddlestonK.A., CaterJ.J.III, & KellermannsF.W. (2013). How one bad family member can undermine a family firm: Preventing the Fredo effect. Business Horizons, 56(1), 5–12.
52.
KleinS.B., AstrachanJ.H., & SmyrniosK.X. (2005). The F–PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321–339.
53.
KnodtE.M. (1995). Foreword. In N. Luhmann, Social systems (pp. ix–xxxvi). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
KraaijenbrinkJ., SpenderJ.–C., & GroenA.J. (2010). The resource–based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372.
55.
LawleyD.N. & MaxwellA.E. (1971). Factor analysis as a statistical method (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.
56.
LingY. & KellermannsF.W. (2010). The effects of family specific sources of TMT diversity: The moderating role of information exchange frequency. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 322–344.
57.
LockettA., ThompsonS., & MorgensternU. (2009). The development of the resource–based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 9–28.
58.
LuegerM., FrankH., & Weismeier–SammerD. (2012). Zur Dynamik von Familienunternehmen: Reflexionen zur Familiness auf Basis qualitativ–empirischer Fallanalysen. In LuegerM. & FrankH. (Eds.), Wie erfolgreiche Familienunternehmen handeln—Good Practice Fallanalysen (pp. 210–237). Vienna: Facultas wuv.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
61.
LuhmannN. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
62.
LuhmannN. (2003). Organization. In BakkenT. & HernesT. (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory—Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's social systems perspective (pp. 31–52). Oslo: Copenhagen Business School Press.
63.
LuhmannN. (2013). Introduction to systems theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
64.
MarchJ.G. & SimonH. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
65.
MartensW. & OrtmannG.(2006). Organisationen in Luhmanns Systemtheorie. In KieserA. & EbersM. (Eds.), Organisationstheorien (6th ed., pp. 427–461). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
66.
MemiliE., EddlestonK.A., KellermannsF.W., ZellwegerT.M., & BarnettT. (2010). The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and image. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(4), 200–209.
67.
MillerD. & Le Breton–MillerI. (2003). Challenge versus advantage in family business. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 127–134.
68.
MillerD., Le Breton–MillerI., & ScholnickB. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non–family business. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.
69.
MingersJ. (2003). Observing organizations: An evaluation of Luhmann's organization theory. In BakkenT. & HernesT. (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory—Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's social systems perspective (pp. 103–122). Oslo: Copenhagen Business School Press.
70.
MinichilliA., CorbettaG., & MacMillanI.C. (2010). Top management teams in family–controlled companies: Familiness, faultlines, and their impact on financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 205–222.
71.
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(3), 285–291.
72.
NordqvistM., SharmaP., & ChiricoF. (2014). Family firm heterogeneity and governance: A configuration approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 192–209.
73.
NunnallyJ.C. & BernsteinI.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
74.
OevermannU., AllertT., KonauE., & KrambeckJ. (1979). Die Methodologie einer ‚objektiven‘ Hermeneutik und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. In SoeffnerH.–G. (Ed.), Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial– und Textwissenschaften (pp. 352–434). Stuttgart: Metzler.
75.
PearsonA.W., CarrJ.C., & ShawJ.C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949–969.
76.
PearsonA.W., HoltD.T., & CarrJ.C. (2014). Scales in family business studies. In MelinL., NordqvistM., & SharmaP. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family business (pp. 551–572). London: Sage.
77.
PearsonA.W. & LumpkinG.T. (2011). Measurement in family business research: How do we measure up?Family Business Review, 24(4), 287–291.
78.
PerrowC. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.
79.
PijanowskiT. (2014). Lending behavior towards family firms. In HackA., CalabroA., FrankH., KellermannsF.W., & ZellwegerT.M. (Eds.), Familienunternehmen und KMU. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer–Gabler.
80.
PodsakoffP.M., MacKenzieS.B., LeeJ.–Y., & PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
81.
PriemR.L. & ButlerJ.E. (2001a). Is the resource–based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
82.
PriemR.L. & ButlerJ.E. (2001b). Tautology in the resource–based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 57–66.
83.
R Core Development Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org/, accessed 9 January 2014.
84.
RevelleW. (2013). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.3.10, accessed 9 January 2014.
85.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Available at http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/, accessed 9 January 2014.
86.
SartoriR. (2010). Face validity in personality tests: Psychometric instruments and projective techniques in comparison. Quality & Quantity, 44(4), 749–759.
87.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.
88.
SeidlD. & BeckerK.H. (2005). Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
89.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36.
90.
SharmaP. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 787–806.
91.
SimonF.B. (2012). Einführung in die Theorie des Familienunternehmens. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Auer.
92.
SimonF.B. (2013). Einführung in die systemische Organisationstheorie (4th ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Auer.
93.
SimonH.A. (1957). Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York: Wiley.
94.
TagiuriR. & DavisJ.A. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208.
95.
Ten BergeJ.M. & SočanG. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613–625.
96.
TokarczykJ., HansenE., GreenM., & DownJ. (2007). A resource–based view and market orientation examination of the role of familiness in family business success. Family Business Review, 20(1), 17–31.
97.
Von SchlippeA. & FrankH. (2013). The theory of social systems as a framework for understanding family businesses. Family Relations, 63(3), 384–398.
98.
WagnerS.M., LukassenP., & MahlendorfM. (2010). Misused and missed use—Grounded theory and objective hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 5–15.
99.
WardJ.L. (1990). What is a family business? And how can we help?Small Business Forum, 8(3), 63–71.
100.
Weismeier–SammerD., FrankH., & von SchlippeA. (2013). Untangling “familiness”: A literature review and directions for future research. International Journal for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14(3), 165–177.
101.
WernerfeltB. (1984). A resource–based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.
102.
WestheadP. & HoworthC. (2006). Ownership and management issues associated with family firm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review, 19(4), 301–316.
103.
WhettenD., ForemanP., & DyerW.G. (2014). Organizational identity and family business. In MelinL., NordqvistM., & SharmaP. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family business (pp. 480–497). London: Sage.
104.
WhiteH. (1980) A heteroskedasticity–consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.
105.
WilliamsD.W., ZornM.L., CrookT.R., & CombsJ.G. (2013). Passing the torch: Factors influencing transgenerational intent in family firms. Family Relations, 62(3), 415–428.
YuanK–H. & BentlerP. (1998). Robust mean and covariance structure analysis, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51(1), 63–88.
108.
ZacharyR.K. (2011). The importance of the family system in family business. Journal of Family Business Management, 1(1), 26–36.
109.
ZellwegerT.M., EddlestonK.A., & KellermannsF.W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63.
110.
ZellwegerT.M., KellermannsF.W., EddlestonK.A., & MemiliE. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.
111.
ZellwegerT.M., NasonR.S., NordqvistM., & BrushC.G. (2011). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(2), 229–248.
