The study examined the main and interaction effects of size and firm type on a variety of informal and formal training programs in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Samples of 448 family and 470 nonfamily SMEs were separated into four size groups and differences were assessed using multivariate analyses of variance. The results point to prevalence of informal training for all sizes and an increase in adoption of formal, structured, and development-oriented training with increasing firm size (especially for firms with 20-99 employees). This pattern was evident for nonfamily but not for family firms. For family firms, formal training programs increased significantly during the critical growth phase only (20-49 employees). Gaps in employee training between the two types of firms were greatest at 50-99 employees but narrowed thereafter at 100-199 employees. The approach to employee training in family SMEs is in consonance with their slower growth, informal management styles, limited financial resources, and greater emphasis on efficiency compared with nonfamily SMEs.

This study presents a theoretical concept called the collaborative network orientation (CNO) and tests it using a sample of male and female small business owners. The CNO is based on(1) research that indicates female managers prefer to organize in cooperative network relationships and (2) conflict theory that indicates collaboration is preferred for both building relationships and achieving goals. Empirical tests revealed that female owners had a stronger preference for a CNO. A CNO was associated with business success for all owners, but it was significantly more positively associated with success for male business owners.

Considers the impact on a firm’s performance if weaknesses are not addressed. Uses SWOT analysis to show how a firm often concentrate on developing its strengths and opportunities, avoiding the weaknesses. Reports the findings of a survey covering 156 US Chief Executives suggesting that if firms minimised their weaknesses it makes it harder for others to differentiate themselves to gain competitive advantage. Concludes that whilst it is difficult to compare performance, any avoidance of tackling a weakness provides a vulnerable attack point for competitors, and therefore a narrow view concentrating on strength could therefore influence overall performance.