Nonfamily Members in Family Firms: A Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

The study of the roles, impact, and challenges associated with nonfamily members in family firms has generated considerable attention in the literature. To gain an appreciation of this body of knowledge, we systematically review 82 articles on nonfamily members in family firms that were published in 34 journals over the past three decades. We synthesize the literature according to three broad, yet overlapping themes: preemployment considerations, employment considerations, and outcomes of nonfamily employment. We then offer a future research agenda that integrates these themes to guide the advancement of knowledge on nonfamily members in family firms.

Survey Response Rates in Family Business Research

“…Surveys in family business research are often directed to family firms' top managers (Wilson et al ., ). In family business research, it has been found that the inclusion of non‐family actors in the management team often leads to family firm behaviors that differ from behaviors in family firms purely equipped with top management team members that belong to the controlling family (Klein and Bell, ; Hiebl and Li, ; Tabor et al ., ). Based on these general observations, we expect that the family or non‐family status of respondents will also have an effect on response rates in family business survey studies.…”

“…In particular, we expect lower response rates for surveys including family respondents because family members are portrayed as often being very secretive in regard to disclosing data about their firms (Stamm and Lubinski, ; Wilson et al ., ), whereas non‐family respondents may be more accustomed to disclosing information about their employer firms based on earlier career experience in non‐family firms and are not as committed to family‐related goals, such as secretiveness (cf. Tabor et al ., ). Consequently, we posit the following:Hypothesis Response rates are lower for family business research surveys including family respondents than for surveys addressing only non‐family respondents.…”

“…There is evidence that larger family firms tend to resemble non‐family firms in applying techniques that are considered part of ‘professional management’; thus, larger family firms may be considered to have lost some family business‐specific characteristics. For instance, similar to non‐family firms, larger family firms make greater use of formal employee training programs (Kotey and Folker, ) and formal performance measurement techniques (Speckbacher and Wentges, ) and employ more non‐family managers (Hiebl and Li, ; Tabor et al ., ). Consequently, we could expect that with growing firm size, family firms may lose some of their secretiveness in regard to responding to surveys (Stamm and Lubinski, ; Wilson et al ., ).…”

Tax avoidance in different firm types and the role of nonfamily involvement in private family firms

“…In this context, prior research has investigated several dimensions of family firm heterogeneity, for example, generation (Stockmans, Lybaert, & Voordeckers, 2010) and internationalization (Arregle, Naldi, Nordqvist, & Hitt, 2012). Additionally, prior research has started to verify the relevance of nonfamily involvement in family firms (Tabor, Chrisman, Madison, & Vardaman, 2018).…”

Identifying as an outsider: implications for nonfamily in small family firms

“…One explanation for the concern around family firms as employers may be their rather idiosyncratic approach to management practices (Mitchell et al, 2003) and perspectives on the socialization of nonfamily employees (Tabor et al, 2018). When many organisational members are directly related, either through blood or marriage lines, there is less perceived requirement to follow standardised and informed methods of evidence-based management (Briner et al, 2009).…”