A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: an extension and integration

Chrisman, James J.; Chua, Jess H.; Litz, Reginald A.

doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00055-7

Cited by 336 publications

(269 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

241

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, our findings support the view that altruism can flourish in family firms (Karra, Tracey and Phillips, 2006). Second, our findings corroborate research that proposes mediating factors that bridge individual perceptions and firm performance (Chrisman, Chua and Litz, 2003). In the family firm research, examining the family's benefits to the firm has often supported joint examinations at the micro and macro levels (Habbershon and Williams, 1999;Wortman, 1994) with erratic findings (Essen et al, 2015).…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…To test these hypotheses, We collected data with the help of two family firm centers in the Eastern United States using sampling approaches consistent with earlier research (e.g., Chrisman, Chua and Litz, 2003;Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2007). The research sample, measures, and method are all described in the following section.…”

Section: Hypothesis 6: Extra-role Behaviour Mediates the Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Madden

Strickling

et al. 2017

IJMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests a social exchange theory model that links firm family members' transactional and relational psychological contract obligations to firm performance. Evidence supports the hypotheses that organisational obligations are antecedents of individual contributions to firm performance in the psychological contract model. When family firms meet the employees' perceived obligations to their employees, the employees meet their perceived obligations to their employers. Participative decision-making and succession planning are of particular importance to maintain transgenerational control and evidence is found to support succession planning as fully mediating the relationship between participative decision-making and firm performance.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Hypothesis 6: Extra-role Behaviour Mediates the Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Madden

Strickling

et al. 2017

IJMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Family firm resources are described as consisting of structural network ties, cognitive shared visions and relational dimensions of trust, norms, obligations and identification, which provide information access to capabilities and associability. Chrisman et al (2003a) suggest that RBV should take the dynamics of both the financial and non-financial resources into account. RBV sheds some light on familiness as the family firm's biggest asset that develops from idiosyncratic dynamic processes resulting in superior performance (Habbershon and Williams, 1999).…”

Section: Theoretic Perspective: Resource-based Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constrictive vs. distinctive familiness and the culturing of familiness capital (FamCap)

Wyk¹

2012

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The special capacity of family firms to perform competently is termed 'familiness'. The construct familiness refers to strategic processes in family firms, based on the unique capabilities and involvement of the family firm owners that enhance business performance. However, the culture of familiness has to be observed cautiously with both its positive (distinctive) and negative (constrictive) attributes. Only when distinctive familiness functions optimally, does it operate as 'familiness capital' (FamCap). As far as could be established, this review introduces the concept of FamCap for the first time as the ultimate performance of familiness. It furthermore explores the unique characteristics that could foster the cultivation of FamCap in family businesses.

show abstract

“…The loss of socioemotional wealth, however, can result in diminished intimacy, lowered status, and inability to meet family's expectations (Gomez-Mejia et al [24]). Hence, family firms could be willing to accept greater performance hazard in order to preserve socioemotional wealth rooted in noneconomic goals (Chrisman et al [60], Gomez-Mejia et al [24]). Gomez-Mejia et al [24] show that family firms may be willing to accept risk to their performance to avoid the loss of socioemotional wealth, but at the same time be risk averse in making other business decisions.…”

Section: Principal-principal Problems In Publicly Traded Family Firmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Governance Provisions, Family Involvement, and Firm Performance in Publicly Traded Family Firms

Memili

Misra

2015

IJFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the moderation effects of corporate governance provisions on the link between family involvement (i.e., family ownership and family management) in publicly-traded firms and firm performance by drawing upon agency theory, with a focus on principal-principal agency issues, and the extant family governance literature. We develop and test the hypotheses on 386 of the S&P 500 firms longitudinally. Findings support the hypotheses suggesting the moderation effects of the use of provisions (a) protecting controlling owners in terms of their sustainability of controlling status, and (b) protecting management legally on the inverted U-shaped relationship between family ownership and firm performance. We also found support for the moderation effects of provisions (c) protecting controlling owners in terms of their voting rights, (d) protecting noncontrolling owners, and (e) protecting management monetarily on the inverted U-shaped relationship between family management and firm performance. By this, our study provides empirical support for the principal-principal agency perspective on the corporate governance in publicly-traded family firms. As such, it suggests new avenues of research for both the corporate governance literature, as well as for the theory of the family firm. Our study also offers insights to policy directed toward monitoring the actions of large shareholders such as family and enhancing the overall shareholder value in publicly-traded family firms. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2015, 3 195 OPEN ACCESS

show abstract

A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: an extension and integration

Cited by 336 publications

References 13 publications

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Psychological contract and social exchange in family firms

Constrictive vs. distinctive familiness and the culturing of familiness capital (FamCap)

Corporate Governance Provisions, Family Involvement, and Firm Performance in Publicly Traded Family Firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About