Are non-blood related “family” members treated differently? Determinants of bifurcation bias among family members in the family firm

Abstract

PurposePossible asymmetric treatment among family members has long been neglected in the field of family firm research. To fill this gap, the purpose of this study is to shed light on the heterogeneity of treatment of family members in family firms by proposing factors that influence the likelihood of bifurcation bias among “family” members.Design/methodology/approachDrawing upon social identity theory and the concept of bifurcation bias, the authors theorize that family members working in family firms are not a homogenous entity, but rather a heterogeneous entity contingent on their status and/or position in the family. To provide a comprehensive understanding of heterogeneous treatment among family members, both individual factors and societal factors should be considered.FindingsBlood relatedness of family members is suggested as an important determinant of the likelihood of bifurcation bias among family members. It is also proposed that the impact of blood relatedness is likely influenced by both individual factors (familial proximity and familial tenure) and a societal factor (collectivism).Originality/valueTheorizing takes a step forward to advance the understanding of interpersonal dynamics in family firms. In particular, this article expands the research boundaries of family business research by taking into account that not all “family” members are treated preferentially. Moreover, this article deepens our understanding of the nature and status of non-blood related family members by unveiling the influence of both individual and societal factors. This article also provides a theoretical foundation for human resource management (HRM) research in family businesses by addressing bifurcation bias among family members.

Identity in Family Firms: Toward an Integrative Understanding

“…Also considering identity tensions, but at the group level, Siebels et al (2017) reveal that certain role identities of non-active family shareholders (i.e., “coentrepreneur” and “traditionalist”) are related to a lower probability of conflict between active and non-active shareholders, while other identities (i.e., “active investor” and “silent shareholder”) are related to a higher probability of conflict between these two groups (Siebels et al, 2017). Kim and Marler (2022) assume that identity tensions (i.e., presence or not of blood relatedness) are positively associated with bifurcation bias, that is, asymmetric treatment of family and non-family members.…”

“…Tensions manifest as the divergent expectations of two or more group-based identities that are not easy to reconcile (Trippe & Baumoel, 2015). So far, the literature has focused on the family and highlighted that these tensions can arise between active and nonactive family shareholders (Siebels et al, 2017) or between blood- and nonblood-related (i.e., in-law) family members (Kim & Marler, 2022).…”

“…However, when considering the conceptual rationale for each contingency, we find different categories distributed at all levels of observation. Among these, studies focus on identity themes and their outcomes including contingencies that derive from internal attributes of the organization, for example, investment and slack (Brannon et al, 2013; Wei et al, 2020), elements of firm similarity (e.g., Dibrell et al, 2019; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009), or macro-level elements, such as country characteristics (e.g., Kim & Marler, 2022; Martinez-Garcia et al, 2022). Studies considering identity work themes and outcomes explore firm features, including life cycle (Klein, 2008), size (Shen & Tikoo, 2020), or market features, such as consumer involvement (Alonso-Dos-Santos et al, 2019).…”

“…Our review reveals that much can still be done in terms of empirically testing the theoretically identified moderators (e.g., Kim & Marler, 2022; Marler & Stanley, 2018; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009) and identifying the moderators of the antecedents–IFF relationship. More generally, it would be important to identify a more complete cluster of constructs (and related variables) that conceptually and empirically constitute the backbone of key contingencies in IFF dynamics.…”

The variation of family business branding across stakeholders: a social identity perspective

“…In addition, due to the family's involvement in the firm, human resource practices, such as selections, promotions and appraisals, tend to disproportionally favor employees from the owning family (Hauswald et al, 2016). According to Kim and Marler (2022), favoritism toward family employees may result in an asymmetric treatment toward non-family employees. Consequently, non-family employees often feel treated unfairly (Barnett and Kellermanns, 2006).…”