b Roa

elgi

d Sta

erma

Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198

ram

opp

d el

sse

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Family B

jou r nal h o mep ag e: w ww .e1. Introduction

As academic elds grow, they seem to pass through distinctphases in their development. A recent analysis of top managementresearch as published in the Academy of Management Journal overthe period 19632007 distinguished papers into expanders, testers,builders, qualiers and reports (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Inthe early part of the period, papers were almost exclusively eitherreporters or testers. By the end of the period, there was a more evenspread of papers that were expanders, builders, qualiers andtesters, while reporters had all but disappeared.

Family rm research is currently undergoing this developmentaltrend described above. The domain is increasingly being representedat top international conferences. Zahra and Sharma (2004) com-mented in 2004 that family business featured in only ve sessions atthe Academy of Management conference, including pre-conferencesessions. In 2010 this picture had changed somewhat, with One Pre-conference Development Workshop (PDW), one Caucus session, and33 papers featuring in 15 divisional, roundtable, cross-divisional anddiscussion sessions either wholly or partly devoted to family rmsacross not only just the Entrepreneurship Division but also six otherdivisions (Business Policy and Strategy; Gender, and Diversity inOrganizations; Organization and Management Theory; Social Issues

in Management; Organizations and the Natural Environment; andthe International Theme Committee). In addition three annualconferences are exclusively devoted to family business research(Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC), International FamilyEnterprise Research Academy (IFERA), EIASM Workshop on FamilyFirm Management Research).

This positive development is mirrored by the recent research onfamily business that has been appearing in our top journals (forrecent statistics see Debicki, Matherne, Kellermanns, & Chrisman,2009). Indeed, the importance of the eld of family business hasbecome salient through a urry of special issues on the topicsbased on the Theory of Family Enterprise Conferences starting inJournal of Business Venturing (Chrisman, Chua, & Steier, 2003) andEntrepreneurship and Practice (Chrisman, Chua, & Steier, 2005) torecent efforts in the Journal of Management Studies (Schulze &Gedajlovic, 2010), Small Business Economics Journal (Uhlaner,Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Hoy, in press), Entrepreneurship andRegional Development (Nordqvist & Melin, 2010) and theforthcoming special issues of the Journal of Management Religionand Spirituality, Family Relations, Journal of Business History andthe Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Notably, the start of twonew family rm specic journals (Journal of Family BusinessStrategy, Journal of Family Business Management) is also a strongsign of the growing importance and establishment of the eld. Forfurther evidence and a detailed overview of the development of theeld please refer to Stewart and Miner (2011).

Over the last three decades, family rm research has shownmarked development. Zahra and Sharma (2004) nd that from anarrow eld with few authors and weak methods in the 1980s,

* Corresponding author at: Department of Management, The University of

Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Tel.: +1 865 974 3161.

E-mail addresses: mike.wright@imperial.ac.uk (M. Wright),

kellermanns@utk.edu (F.W. Kellermanns).

1877-8585/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2011.10.002Family rms: A research agenda and pu

Mike Wright a,b, Franz W. Kellermanns c,d,*aCentre for Management Buyout Research, Imperial College Business School, ExhibitionbDepartment of Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of Ghent, BcDepartment of Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United INTES Center for Family Enterprises, WHU (Otto Beisheim School of Management), G

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 11 November 2010

Received in revised form 3 July 2011

Accepted 27 October 2011

Keywords:

Family rm

Family rm research

Management research

Entrepreneurship research

Future research

A B S T R A C T

This paper develops a f

entrepreneurs, process of

among the aforementione

outcome variables is discu

publications.lication guide

d, London SW7 2AZ, UK

um

tes

ny

ework for future family rm research based on the types of family

ortunity recognition, type of organization, environment and interactions

ements. In addition, future research on both economic and non-economic

d. We conclude with a discussion intended to help facilitating family rm

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

usiness Strategy

l sev ier . co m / loc ate / j fb s

ho

yn

ici

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198188family rm research by the mid-1990s had attracted morescholars, improved methods and a more diverse research agenda,see Table 1 for an overview. Similarly, Debicki et al. (2009) showthat the trend has continued. In this context, our aim is to elaboratean agenda for future family rm research that draws upon relevantadvances in management and entrepreneurship while utilizingrigorous methods. We conclude this article with a discussion ofdeveloping family rm focused papers for publication.

1.1. A framework for developing a future family rm research agenda

Against the background of developments in general manage-ment and entrepreneurship research as well as the emergence offamily rm research, we elaborate a framework for developing afuture family rm research agenda. We specically draw on amanagement perspective as the body of knowledge offers insightsrelated to governance, resource management, and performanceoutcomes, which are central themes in family rm research. Wealso draw on an entrepreneurship perspective because family rmresearch is moving away from a model that calls for moreprofessionalization to a model that acknowledges the demands of adynamic global economy on entrepreneurial behavior in familyrms.

We build upon the broad elements of a unifying frameworkidentied in entrepreneurship research (Busenitz et al., 2003;Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2001). We adapt the identiedframework elements for the purpose of family rm research toinclude six key components, which are portrayed in Fig. 1:

The type of family rm organization The types of family rm entrepreneurs The processes in family rms

Table 1How has family rm research developed?

1980s To mid-1990s

Lack of systematic analysis and scientic rigor Variety of met

Based on consultancy projects More authors

Few authors More topics

Succession emphasis Succession

Interpersonal d

Performance

Consulting

Gender & ethn

Note: adapted from Zahra and Sharma (2004). The environments in which entrepreneurship occurs The intersections between these elements The outcome (Family Firm Performance)

The development of such a framework is important as itclaries and organizes the knowledge in the eld. Without acoherent body of knowledge no theory of the family rm can bedeveloped. Indeed, we believe that the following comment madeby Busenitz et al. (2003, p. 296) about entrepreneurship alsoapplies to the eld of family rm research:

Good theory is the foundation of any emerging eld; it sets theboundaries and thus fosters both external and internalexchange. A eld of study with distinctive boundaries andcoherent theory faces few questions of legitimacy from thebroader Academy. For the eld of entrepreneurship to thenreach a higher level of legitimacy, we argue that the boundariesneed to be articulated more clearly and new theory moreconsistently put forward.

Below, we elaborate on each of these six elements of ourunifying framework to aid in the above describe effort and outlineimplication for family rm research in more detail. We do so bytouching upon culture as a linking element, as while important,little emphasis has been placed upon it (Debicki et al., 2009) afterthe early groundbreaking work by Dyer (1986, 1988).

1.2. Types of family rm organization

There is considerable debate about denitions of family rms(Chua, Chrisman, & Chang, 2004; Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999;Westhead & Howorth, 2007), which is reminiscent of the debateabout the denition of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.Research has recognized the heterogeneity of family rms andhas attempted to provide systematic and robust classications.Westhead and Howorths (2007) study of private family rmsdistinguished between rst and multiple generation rms; dilutedfamily rms, average family rms, professional family rms, openfamily rms and transitional family rms, on the basis of their mix ofnancial versus family objectives. Another popular classication wasdeveloped by Gersick, Davis, Hampton, and Lansberg (1997), whodistinguish founder, sibling partnership and cousin consortiums.Others tried to classify family rms based on the F-PEC (power,experience and culture) (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002; Klein,Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005), which allows the establishment ofmore nuanced differences at the cost of added complexity.

All the differences between family rms outlined above suggesta high level of heterogeneity within this group of rms. However,family rms are generally linked by the desire for transgenera-

Mid-1990s on

ds Depth of understanding still limited/shallow

More systematic analysis and theoretical grounding

More authors from general disciplines

Topics

amics Succession

Performance

Governance

ty Resources

Conict

Entrepreneurship/Innovation

Internationalization

Professionalization

Gender/ethnicitytional intentions (e.g., Chua et al., 1999; Churchill & Hatten, 1987).Indeed, many family rms are born with this desire, while otherrms develop this desire during their existence and thus turn into afamily rm at later stages of their development (Chua et al., 2004).This desire to keep the company within the family affects the goalsof family rms (Chrisman, Chua, Pearson, & Barnett, 2012), both innancial and non-nancial terms, and constitutes a linkingelement in each family rms culture. While a further discussionof family rm classications is beyond the scope of this paper, westill want to highlight a few areas of research linked to ownershipand succession, before we discuss issues related with managementin the process section of this paper.

1.3. Heterogeneity of ownership

Family rm research needs to distinguish more clearly betweenpublicly listed and privately owned family rms. It is undisputed

roc

utur

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198 189that the majority of rms worldwide are family rms (e.g.,Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, & Kellermanns, 2009).The effects of the family and its inuence on the rm and its cultureare likely to vary substantially by the size of the rm. For example,a stewardship culture in family rms, which encourages pro-organizational behavior from all family members (Davis, Allen, &Hayes, 2010; Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997), is more likelyto show a direct performance effect in smaller family rms with ahigh level of family involvement.

Yet, the majority of research investigates performancedifferences between publicly traded family and non-familyrms. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis by Essen, Carney, Gedaj-lovic, Heugens and van Osterhout (2011) showed that publicallytraded family rms outperform non-family rms. However, assuggested by earlier research (e.g., Miller, Le Breton-Miller,Lester, & Cannella, 2007), this effect can be explained by thefounder effect. Accordingly, more research is necessary on theconstraining factors that reduce performance between rst and

Adapted from Busenitz et al. (2003: 297)

Family FirmEntrepreneur s

P

The Type of Family Firm Organization

Environment

Intersections

Fig. 1. Framework for flater generation rms. Here, the family rm culture establishedby the founder may play a crucial role. What elements of theculture serve as useful elements that may facilitate transition andwhat elements of the family rm culture create inertia?Additionally, we do not conclusively know if the performancedifference exists between private family and non-family rms.Smaller rms may be even more likely to pursue non-economicgoals as part of their overall culture, which may not necessarilybe complementary with economic performance goals, as researchon asymmetric altruism illustrates (Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, &Buchholtz, 2001). At the same time, the benets of a stewardshipculture in family rms may offset some negative effects andenhance performance (e.g., Chrisman, Chua, & Litz, 2004;Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007).

As suggested above, the founder, the created culture and thepotentially resulting path dependence may exercise a stronginuence on the family rm. Even some listed corporations havestrong residual family inuence, ownership and control, and ethos.Interestingly, even where family members serve no longer on theboard; there may be a legacy of family values. This was highlightedfor example in the debate surrounding the hostile acquisition ofCadbury in 2009. This extends the notion of when rms cease to befamily rms and highlights differences between ownership andfamiliness perspectives of family rm identity (see also Zellweger,Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010). There is a need for furtherrecognition and theorization of the behavior of family rms thattakes this diversity into account.

Lastly, the distribution of ownership within the family oramongst different families is a concern. While ownership of thefamily rms of different generations may affect the dynamics andprocesses in the rm, different branches of the family or evendifferent families may amplify potential goal conict (Gersick et al.,1997). However, some rms with different family involvementhave performed well over decades (e.g., Miele was founded and hasbeen run together by two different families). For these types ofcompanies, which deserve future research attention, culture mayplay an important role.

1.4. Succession mode

Succession research has received much research attention (DeMassis, Chua, & Chrisman, 2008; Debicki et al., 2009). Much of this

esses

Outcomes

e family rm research.research has been quite narrowly focused on succession to the nextgeneration of the family. Yet, succession can involve a non-familymanagement buyout or buy-in (Howorth, Westhead, & Wright,2004). In some of these cases, the founder or the family of thefounder may play a continuing but diminished role prior to thebuyout. Alternatively, a new family rm may arise as the result ofthe succession by buyout. These areas remain under-researchedand deserve further attention.

Some studies have examined the nature and consequences offamily owners in the context of succession (Willard, Krueger, &Feeser, 1991). This research has considered both the process ofsuch involvement as well as the performance consequences. Perez-Gonzalez (2006), for example, nds evidence of the downside ofnepotism as lower performance is prominent in rms whereincoming CEOs are related to departing CEOs. Wasserman (2003)suggests that more radical changes are likely with an outsidesuccessor. However, the benet from bringing in new skills may beoffset by the loss of tacit knowledge about the business and the lossof family-owner-specic social capital that provides access to newopportunities. There is some anecdotal evidence that in manage-ment buyouts and buy-ins of family rms, the loss of the familystacit knowledge contributes to failure and, in some cases, buybackby the family, yet this area has not been researched systematically.The family rm culture may also provide a stumbling block for

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198190successful inside or outside succession. Incompatible leadershipcultures could hamper the success of buyouts or limit the initialeffectiveness of a new CEO.

We also need to mention that higher data quality in successionresearch is highly desirable. For example, to obtain assessmentsfrom both the incoming and outgoing CEO may provide valuableinsights as prior research suggests that successors and incumbentsoften have signicantly different perceptions about the process(Poza, Alfred, & Maheshawi, 1997). Of course, even more insightscould be gained if this data could be collected before, during andafter the succession process. For a recent example of this kind ofresearch please refer to Steier and Miller (2010).

1.5. Next generational involvement

Recent work in entrepreneurship has seen a resurgence ofstudies that examine why entrepreneurs exit their careers asentrepreneurs (Wennberg, Wiklund, DeTienne, & Cardon, 2010).This research provides useful insights for family rms. The nextgeneration may face a major choice about whether they go into thefamily business (Zellweger, Sieger, & Halter, 2011). Alternatively,the next generation may select to create an independent new rmor become entrepreneurial within a corporation. The companiesculture pertaining to innovation may drive these decisions, as itprovides a backdrop for additional factors including personalchoice, capacity of the family rm to support more familymembers, etc. Furthermore, the impacts of a failed family rmon the entrepreneurial efforts of the next generation deserveempirical attention. A failed family rm may not only cut off aroute to entrepreneurship but also induce a grieving process(Shepherd, 2003) and create reluctance to pursue an entrepre-neurial career. While research has drawn attention to entry intoentrepreneurship by the offspring of entrepreneurs, at present, weknow little about how these exit processes affect the nextgeneration.

Lastly, the role of family networks may provide a useful tool tostudy the involvement of next generation family members andfamily rm performance, as these networks offer access tobusiness opportunities. These networks may offer the newgeneration opportunities to prove themselves or provide accessto nance start-up opportunities (Chua, Chrisman, Kellermanns, &Wu, 2011). Yet, in order to better understand the behavior of thenew generation of family members, both the entrepreneuringculture of the family and the entrepeneuring culture of the rmand their potential interaction effects need to be studied (see alsoHoy & Sharma, 2010; Nordqvist & Melin, 2010). Indeed, family rmowners are likely to provide many chances for the new generationand are likely to facilitate opportunities for them. For example,recent research shows that in case of a sale, the family rm wouldbe sold at a tremendous discount to family members compared tonon-family members (Zelleweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, & Chua,in press). In addition, as not all family members may work in orown the same organization, a look at the overall portfolio of rmsand the interrelationships amongst them, could yield interestinginsights. Overall, trans-generational entrepreneurship in familyrms has started to gain tremendous interest (e.g., Chirico &Nordqvist, 2010; Niedermeyer, Jaskiewicz, & Klein, 2010; Slavato,Chirico, & Sharma, 2010) and has stressed organizational culture asa driving force (i.e. Chirico & Nordqvist, 2010).

1.6. Types of family rm entrepreneurs

The entrepreneur running the family business, particularly thecentral role of the founding entrepreneur through highly central-ized decision-making (Kelly, Athanassiou, & Crittenden, 2000), hasan important impact on the way business is conducted. Theinuence may even extend across generations (also referred to asgenerational shadow (Davis & Harveston, 1999)). Through theinteraction with employees, both family and non-family members,behavioral patterns are established that form the family rmculture over time (Dyer, 1986; Schein, 1983). Embedded in thisculture, the family makes decision regarding their entrepreneurialefforts. Below, we will discuss under-researched element of thisentrepreneurial behavior.

The family rm literature has tended to view the ownership ofthe family rm as a once-for-all event that ends in succession, saleor IPO, or failure (e.g., De Massis et al., 2008; Shepherd, 2009;Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009). However, the growingresearch on the role of entrepreneurial experience has identiedimportant differences between both the extent and nature of priorbusiness ownership (Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2009;Ucbasaran, Westhead, Wright, & Flores, 2010). This generalentrepreneurship research shows that entrepreneurs may buildportfolios of businesses or may engage in serial businessownership. Prior business ownership experience may haveresulted in a successful exit (sale or IPO or buy-out) or may haveended in failure. However, the re-entry of family rm owners intobusiness ownership has been neglected. Second-time family rmowners warrant further attention since they raise potentiallyimportant issues not addressed in the general habitual entrepre-neur literature. Particularly the consequences of the loss of a familyrm (Niedermeyer et al., 2010; Shepherd, 2003, 2009; Slavatoet al., 2010) and its implications for whether recovery from thegrieving process leads to a willingness to try again or not can beenlightening. Indeed, the literature has not examined the inuenceof family objectives on the decision to re-enter business ownershipor on the behavior of management in the rms concerned.

A further dimension of re-entry into family rm ownershipconcerns the repurchase of the family rm, as noted above. There isanecdotal evidence of private family rms that have been sold asmanagement buyouts or buyins being reacquired by the foundingfamily when it has encountered problems subsequent to the sale,often based on incompatible cultures between the rms. Is thisdriven by emotional motives to do with ensuring that the rm doesnot disappear or are more entrepreneurial motives involved? Is thefamily conguration that repurchases the business the same asthat which sold it?

Similarly, the support of the family for new family rm venturesdeserves further research attention (e.g., Chua et al., 2011;Niedermeyer et al., 2010). As family rms pursue both economicand non-economic goals (Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008; Chrismanet al., in press; Gomez-Meja, Haynes, Nunez-Nickel, Jacobson, &Moyano-Fuentes, 2007; Zellweger & Astrachan, 2008), the inu-ence of family objectives and interactions may differentiallyimpact learning from prior experience, even compared to teams ofunrelated serial entrepreneurs.

A growing literature has examined the nature of entrepreneur-ial teams (Wright & Vanaelst, 2009). As many entrepreneurialrms, family rms involve teams of owners/entrepreneurs. Animportant question is then to what extent do family rms differfrom traditional teams? To what extent can we observedifferences in stability, emotions, trust, conict, entry and exitbetween such teams both in relation to non-family rms as well aswithin the category of family rms? What types of family rmteams are there?

Later in the family rm development process, the notion offamily rms as portfolios raises important issues surrounding exitof parts of the portfolio due to failure. In particular, how is thisprocess managed from the family point of view? For example, ifone of the businesses in the family rm portfolio fails, do thosefamily members exit the family rm as whole or are theysubsumed in other parts of the business? However, not only failure

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198 191or divestment (Sharma & Manikutty, 2005) deserves attention, butalso portfolio growth needs to be studied. How are these portfoliosmanaged and new businesses added to the portfolio? Is nancialsupport provided to family members to start businesses as part ofthe larger family rm portfolio?

Methodologically, these fertile areas of research need to beapproached with caution. As an alternative to the unit of analysisbeing the individual family rm, richer insights may be availablethrough consideration of family rms as networks or portfolios.Families may own more than one rm and an overlapping set ofdifferent family members may own these businesses. Thesecongurations could involve different members of the samegeneration or of different generations or members of extendedfamilies. Important questions also concern whether the busi-nesses are in sectors related to some core activity or whetherthey are unrelated. Can a positive family rm culture leveragedacross the network? These portfolios of family owned rms mayoperate as a network of interdependent rms or may be quiteseparate. The component family rms may provide novel forms ofsocial capital that are distinctive from those found in singlefamily rms (see also Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007; Pearson,Carr, & Shaw, 2008).

2. Processes

Family involvement exercises considerable inuence on theprocesses experienced in family rms (Kellermanns & Eddleston,2004; Zellweger et al., 2010). While the inuence of the family isnot limited to the topics discussed below, we have chosengovernance as an overarching theme and the subsequent topics aspotential areas where the intersection of stewardship and agencytheory may have pronounced implications. The degree to which anorganization adopts a professional culture has a profound impacton the processes described below (for a detailed discussion aboutthe ambiguities of the concept of professionalization see Hall &Nordqvist, 2008). While each topic has experienced signicantprior attention in the literature, we believe that the identied areasoffer many avenues for future research.

2.1. Governance

While the family rm was initially thought to be shelteredfrom agency costs through the overlap of ownership andmanagement (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), the presence of agencyissues in family rms has been recognized (e.g., Chrisman, Chua,Chang, & Kellermanns, 2007; Schulze et al., 2001). It needs to benoted however that these agency costs tend to be lower in familythan in non-family rms (Chrisman et al., 2004). As agencyrelationships and the associated cost can occur at any level of theorganization (Chrisman, Kellermanns, Chan, & Liano, 2010; Jensen& Meckling, 1976), this area holds many opportunities despite thealready signicant research related to the effects of ownershipconcentration.

For example, agency theory is useful in understanding theinteraction between family owners and non-family managers(Chua, Chrisman, & Bergiel, 2009; Chua, Chrisman, & Steier, 2003),yet hardly any research touches on non-family members in familyrms (for exceptions see Barnett & Kellermanns, 2006; Karra,Tracey, & Phillips, 2006). In addition to general research on theprofessionalization of the family rm (Chua et al., 2009;Gedajlovic, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2004), agency relationshipsbetween family and non-family rm members need to be explored.While, we know that family members may behave opportunisti-cally (Chrisman et al., 2007), agency relationships between familyand non-family rm members need to be explored. How do non-family members interact, e.g., non-family rm CEOs, incentivize ormonitor family members? Agency problems may also arise fromdifferences in the time horizons of family and non-family minorityowners.

The general management and nance literatures have seendevelopments beyond simple principalagency theory to includeprincipalprincipalagent theory and, more recently, multipleagency theory in the context of family controlled listed corpora-tions. Cultural differences in these issues relate just not only tofamily versus non-family rms but also to the particularinstitutional environment in which the family rms are situated.Villalonga and Amit (2006) nd in the US that family rm ownersof listed corporations frequently have dual-class stock anddisproportionate voting agreements. Additional control is fre-quently obtained through board representation in excess of votingcontrol, and through the presence of a family member as CEO orChairman of the Board. Many listed corporations in continentalEurope and Asia especially continue to be controlled by families(Claessens, Djankov, & Lang, 2000; Facccio & Lang, 2002) that poseproblems for minority, non-family, shareholders. Anderson andReeb (2003) and Anderson, Mansi, and Reeb (2003) nd signicantcorporate governance differences between family and non-familyrms in the US. They show that the key factor limiting familyopportunism is the relative inuence of independent andfamily directors. They contrast their ndings with those for EastAsian rms noting that, rather than focusing on divergences infamily ownership and control, investors in US rms appear to focuson the presence of independent monitors to counterbalance familyinuence.

The general management literature has also seen the morerecent development of a multiple agency perspective (Arthurs,Hoskisson, Busenitz, & Johnson, 2008) that moves beyond asimplistic principalagent dichotomy and considers multiplegovernance roles of the same participants in the rmsgovernance mechanism. Developments of multiple agencytheory research have begun to recognize that it is not auniversal theory that applies in the same way in differentinstitutional settings, but rather its applicability depends uponthe context (Bruton, Filatotchev, Chahine, & Wright, 2010). Sofar, this research has mainly been applied to the IPO context andin different country environments but it has potential applica-tions to the family rm context. In private family rms, familymanagement may have multiple agency relationships withdifferent family coalitions, with nanciers such as banks,business angels and venture capital rms. In publicly listedfamily rms, there may be multiple agency relationshipsbetween family management and underwriters, family share-holders, non-family shareholders, residual VCs, etc.

In addition to agency theory, which assumes a culture ofdistrust and opportunism, family rm research has recently begunto emphasize the importance of a stewardship culture, whichindicates that individuals are motivated by intrinsic factors ratherthan pursuit of maximizing their own personal gain (Davis et al.,1997). Indeed, whether an organization applies more agencyrelated governance mechanisms or follows a stewardship ap-proach can be seen as a reection of the companies employees.Stewardship theory suggests that the examination of motivations,relationships and information asymmetries may shed light on theprofessionalization process and the use of formal or social controls.A stewardship approach to governance may mean that socialcontrols are used in family rms where there is high goalalignment rather than professionalized formal controls (Eddleston& Kellermanns, 2007; Pieper, Klein, & Jaskiewicz, 2008). Indeed,evidence is mounting that stewardship in family rms positivelyaffects behavior and performance effects (e.g., Davis et al., 2010;Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007; Eddleston et al., in press; Zahra,Hayton, Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2008).

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198192Thus far, the family rm literature has tended to portray agencyand stewardship relationships as substitutes. Yet, there may becomplementarities between these theoretical perspectives thatremain to be explored (Le Breton-Miller, Miller, & Lester, 2011;Schulze & Gedajlovic, 2010). We envision three principal areas forfurther research where the interaction of agency and stewardshipaspects of governance may be important in family rms: thedevelopment of boards, the nature of the family rm life-cycle andthe response to environmental changes (entrepreneurship andinnovation, development of resources and capabilities and socialcapital), which we will outline in more detail below.

2.2. Boards of directors

Firms may develop and use boards in ways that give themcompetitive advantages over their rivals (Barney, Wright, &Ketchen, 2001). The general management and entrepreneurshipliterature has seen signicant development in research on thecomposition, role and processes of boards. This work hasrecognized the importance of issues concerning the selection ofindependent outside directors on boards. It has also considered thedevelopment and role of boards at different stages in the rm life-cycle (Lynall, Golden, & Hillman, 2003) and in different contexts(Zahra, Filatotchev, & Wright, 2009). However, our knowledgeabout board composition and the usefulness of boards cannot betaken for granted when applied to smaller private family rms(Chua et al., 2011).

A key reason for the potentially inconsistent ndings on boardsin smaller rms is the decision making culture that is present.Indeed, the way the board is comprised and functions is seen as akey element of a family business culture (Dyer, 1986). In smallfamily rms boards often serve to conrm the behavior anddecisions of the family owners, particularly the founder. However,boards can be very benecial if outside board members areappointed that challenge preconceived notion and bring in newinformation (Johannisson & Huse, 2000). Indeed, studies of familyrms have shown an association between board structure andsuperior rm performance (Schulze, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2003;Westhead & Howorth, 2006). While most board research hasfocused on larger rms, more research on smaller privately heldfamily rm is necessary (cf., Chua et al., 2011; Johannisson & Huse,2000). It is important to understand how the decision makingculture of the family rm inuences the creation, composition andprocesses involved in family rm boards (Uhlaner, Wright, & Huse,2007). A stewardship culture suggests that relationships embodiedin the intertwining of family and business objectives may lead tolower levels of professionalization. Indeed, a stewardship basedculture may thus create negative effects by conrming the familyrms ideology (see also Johannisson & Huse, 2000). As a result, theboard composition could be affected and its effectivenesscompromised. Thus, further analysis is needed for the culturalfactors that inuence the formation of boards in family rms andfor the variety of forms that these boards take.

Entrepreneurship research has highlighted the interdependen-cies between human and social capital (Davidsson & Honig, 2003)and important issues concern their representation on the boards offamily rms and how family rms ensure that their boards have anappropriate mix of these skills. As indicated above, we knowrelatively little about how family rms select board members,however, we know even less about why external board membersagree to be part of family rm boards. This knowledge is crucial, asrecent research calls the effectiveness of outside board members innewly formed family rms into question (Chua et al., 2011).

The pioneering work of McNulty and Pettigrew (1999) foundthat external part-time board members in large corporations werenot hapless and manipulated by dominant insiders but wereactively involved in corporate strategy. Family rms with boardscomprising family and non-family members also raise importantprocess issues. For example, the family may meet informallywithout the non-family members. Non-family members may beoutnumbered by family. Power relations on family boards maymean that coalitions involving family members may be dominant.This dominance is likely to diminish with the development of thefamily rm over time, as boards later in the rms life-cycle tend tohave more power (Huse & Zattoni, 2008). However, when facedwith a culture of family dominance, it may be difcult for non-family members to express dissenting views, which may bedetrimental to the longer-term development of the business if thisleads to dangers and new opportunities being missed. On the otherhand, non-family members may be selected on the basis that theyhave a commitment to the rm so that their contributions, even ifcritical, can be viewed in this light.

Further analysis is also needed that compares public andprivate family rms boards and the transition from private topublic company boards. Analysts and institutional investors needto see signals that the board is t for purpose as a public companyand complies with corporate governance codes regarding dualityand number of independent directors. Board structures may bechanged in preparing for IPO in order to send the appropriate signalto the market but much of this work focuses on young,entrepreneurial rms. Analysis is needed to distinguish how thisprocess differs between family rms and non-family rms comingto market. Analysis is also required of how family rms that arealready listed adapt to comply with the introduction of corporategovernance codes.

Smaller public family rms in particular may retain residualelements in non-executive directors who are tied to the family andhave served on the board for a long time. There are importantissues here concerning whether these directors remain in placebecause of their tacit knowledge or whether they are simply therebecause of inertia or to support the family rm leaders ideology.These directors may also inuence positively or negativelywhether the rm can adapt to new conditions. Their tacitknowledge and networks may be helpful but they may providea focus for resistance to change when a new outside CEO isrecruited. Research is needed that examines the skills and roles ofthese non-executive family directors, as well as the powerrelationships between them and new executive management.Lastly, longitudinal research would be desirable that examinestheir attrition over time and whether the role of family outsiderdirectors continues into subsequent generations.

2.3. Family rm life-cycle

The notion of a rm life-cycle is long-established but continuesto be debated in the general management literature, such as inrelation to the life-cycle in corporate governance (Filatotchev &Wright, 2005) and the entrepreneurship literature, such as inrelation to university spin-outs (Vohora, Wright, & Lockett, 2004).Debate surrounds both the number and type of life-cycle phases, aswell as whether the process is linear or not. The ongoing debateabout life-cycle in family rms (Gersick et al., 1997; Hoy, 2006;Hoy & Sharma, 2010) offers multiple avenues for future research.

In the family rm literature, the adaptation of a moreprofessionalized culture is typically seen as part of the lineardevelopment of the rm beyond the founding family stage.However, the notion of the once-for-all shift from entrepreneur-ialism to professionalization in threshold rms may be anoversimplication. Professionalization and entrepreneurialismmay be complementary rather than substitutes (Schulze &Gedajlovic, 2010). A central challenge is then to understand betterthe contingent factors inuencing these different emphases. For

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198 193example, recent research has identied the cultural competence ofthe CEO as a key variable within this process, as the lack thereofsignicantly diminishes his/her effectiveness (Hall & Nordqvist,2008).

Howorth, Westhead, and Wright (2010) provide interestinginitial insights into this process in their study of the developmentof professionalization in management buyouts and buyins. Theysuggest that professionalization is a process, not a stage ofdevelopment, which occurs in waves, which intensify withchanges in rm ownership and management. Over the life-cyclefrom pre-management buyout/buyin, through management buy-out/buyin to post-management buyout/buyin, the nature ofprofessionalization activities change. Professionalization focuseson operations when stewardship relationships predominate andon agency control mechanisms when there is increased potentialfor agency costs. These ndings may provide insights for moregeneral studies of professionalization in family rms fromstewardship and agency perspectives.

An important stream in the general management literaturerelates to the decline, distress and recovery aspect of the life-cycle(Filatotchev & Toms, 2006). Analysis is also required of the speedwith which family boards react to changes in market conditionsand particularly to decline and distress. Path dependencies relatedto the legacy of the family culture may mean that a stewardshipapproach is biased in trying to maintain the status quo (e.g.,Stanley, 2010). A board in a stewardship culture may be slower torespond in such conditions for fear of jeopardizing the socio-emotional wealth of the family rm. For example, such a boardmay exhibit a greater reluctance to restructure and downsize. Yet,boards with a stewardship culture may act swiftly when familycontrol is at stake.

2.4. Entrepreneurship and innovation

Although there has been and continues a considerable debate,the entrepreneurship literature has come to recognize thatentrepreneurship is more than about starting a business (Shane& Venkataraman, 2000). Entrepreneurship involves opportunityrecognition and exploitation and can occur in establishedbusinesses, as the burgeoning corporate entrepreneurship (Nar-ayanan, Yang, & Zahra, 2009; Phan, Wright, Ucbasaran, & Tan,2009; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999) and management buyout(Meuleman, Amess, Wright, & Scholes, 2009; Wright, Hoskisson,Busenitz, & Dial, 2000) literatures demonstrate. Consistent withthis literature, inheritors of family rms may engage in entrepre-neurial action, although the act of inheritance itself may not beentrepreneurial. Indeed, not only has recent research emphasizedthe importance of corporate entrepreneurship in family rms (e.g.,Eddleston et al., in press; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006;Kellermanns, Eddleston, Barnett, & Pearson, 2008; Naldi, Nordq-vist, Sjoberg, & Wiklund, 2007), but has also highlighted a need toquestion the paradigm that family rms are risk adverse and lessentrepreneurial than non-family rms (Uhlaner et al., in press).

Other recent research on family rms has focused on the rmsentrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Short, Payne, Brigham, Lumpkin,& Broberg, 2009; Zellweger & Sieger, in press) or has related thisresearch to the realm of family business (e.g., Memili, Lumpkin, &Dess, 2010), yet empirical works are still sparse. Lumpkin,Brigham, and Moss (2010) for example offer a theoretical modellinking long-term orientation, a key cultural component of familyrms (James, 1999; Zellweger, 2007), to the different facets ofentrepreneurial orientation. Their model could be usefullycomplicated by investigating the importance of socio-emotionalwealth in the proposed relationships, e.g., while the proposednegative relationship between long-term orientation and risk-taking is generally true for family rms, research also shows thatfamily rms are willing to risk the rm and fortune to maintaintransgenerational control (Gomez-Meja et al., 2007).

Inheritors of family rms (second and later generations) mayengage in experimentation and search as they seek to shift fromthe core business. Structural decline in the core business maygenerate a need for new opportunity recognition that earliergenerations may have been unwilling or unable to undertake. Thisraises an important issue relating to whether the family possessesthe information processing capability to recognize new opportu-nities (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007; Ling & Kellermans, 2010)and if the family culture in which the decision makers areembedded facilitates organizational change.

2.5. Development of resources and capabilities

The emerging Strategic Entrepreneurship literature (Ireland,Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003) has recognized explicitly that there is a needto examine how entrepreneurial rms access the resources andcapabilities they need in order to exploit successfully entrepre-neurial opportunities. In this context, family rms, too, face thechallenge of accessing the resources and capabilities, which theyrequire to develop new opportunities (see Webb, Ketchen, &Ireland, 2010). While the development of unique family rmspecic resources (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Habbershon,Williams, & MacMillan, 2003; Zellweger et al., 2010) has beenaddressed by the literature, we know very little about thepotentially very strong imprinting of cultures and routines byfounders, which may lead to particularly strong path dependencies(Morris, Allen, Kuratko, & Brannon, 2010; Stanley, 2010). There isthe need to assess whether family rms overcome pathdependencies of the founder generation and develop a culturethat focuses on the creation of dynamic capabilities (Chirico &Nordqvist, 2010). Recent research in the strategy eld (e.g., Ahuja &Katila, 2004) as well as in spinoffs from universities (Rasmussen,Mosey, & Wright, 2010) has explored how rms can shift pathdependencies and the barriers to them doing so successfully.Family rms would need to develop new human and social capitalthat can take them beyond established routines and embeddedrelationships (e.g., Eddleston et al., in press). One way of doing thisconcerns the role of family members who have gained experienceoutside the rm. But this introduces a further interesting issue inthat returning family members may need to deal with resistancefrom incumbents.

2.6. Social capital

Family rms traditionally benet from family social capital(Arregle et al., 2007; Chrisman et al., 2009; Pearson et al., 2008;Zahra, 2010). The importance of organizational social capital infamily rms that is the goodwill and resources companies gainfrom their relationships with other companies is being recognized(as being necessary to enable family rms to assemble theresources (especially knowledge) necessary for successful adapta-tion (Arregle et al., 2007; Zahra, 2010). Such embedded relation-ships can provide an important stimulus to entrepreneurship infamily rms through accessing new knowledge not possessed bythe family. However, while these relationships may be benecial,they have also been shown to have limitations (Uzzi, 1997; Walter,Lechner, & Kellermanns, 2007), especially where market condi-tions are changing or when the rm seeks to enter new markets(Meuleman, Lockett, Manigart, & Wright, 2010).

These embedded relationships may represent social capital ofthe founding generation in family rms, which may be transferableonly with difculty to succeeding generations. There is then a needto examine how family rms can develop new social capital.Options involve the experience built up through the next

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198194generations external experience, recruitment of new boardmembers, links provided by new VC investors and the recruitmentof non-family management. At present, we know little about therelevant efcacy of these different options in providing access tonew social capital. Furthermore, even if social capital resides in thenew generation entering the family business, the benet forinnovative behavior will strongly depend on the decision makingculture in the rm in its inclusiveness (Eddleston et al., in press).

3. Environment

It is clear that the environment generates an importantinuence on the occurrence and the behavior of family rms.For example, a family rm is more likely to occur in lesserdeveloped areas (e.g., Chang, Chrisman, Chua, & Kellermanns,2008) and their effect on these areas does not have to benecessarily positive (Morck & Yeung, 2004). A detailed discussionof the environment is beyond the scope of this paper (for a moredetailed review on this issue see Gedajlovic et al., 2011), and is onlyindirectly linked to the organizational culture via national culture(Hofstede, 2001) or through institutional pressures (Scott, 1995).Yet, we want to conclude the discussion of our framework with afew areas of future research.

Similarly, as with many studies in the entrepreneurshipliterature, the environment/industry is used as a control ormoderating variable. However, the family rm literature is sparseboth on the inuence of the family on the internationalizationprocess (for recent examples see Gomez-Meja, Makri, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010; Sirmon, Arregle, Hitt, & Webb, 2008; Zahra, 2003) aswell as on the effects of international exposure on the behavior offamily members.

While our paper can not provide a detailed discussion of theenvironment, we still want to highlight one specic example forfuture research in this area. Entrepreneurs returning to their homecountries from developed market economies are an importantfeature of emerging economies. Family rms in entrepreneurshipdecit environments may be able to augment their human andsocial capital through the return of family members who havestudied or created businesses abroad. On the downside, there is thepotential for conict when the newly acquired international andcommercial expertise of returnees confronts the conservativeapproach of families that have remained embedded in the localcontext.

4. Intersections

While the above mentioned areas are worthy areas for futureresearch, the individual components do not exist in a vacuum, butthe intersections of these components have implications for theorybuilding. A number of intersections between the main elements ofour framework can be identied. First, an investigation of potentialintersection between entrepreneurial approach [formal/informal,etc.], stage of the family rm life-cycle and the composition offamily rm management teams, etc. is needed. Second, is there anintersection between different types of family rms, the differentnature of opportunities and the family rm life-cycle? Third, isthere an intersection between different generations of family rmsand the ability to process information, recognize opportunities andthe family rm life-cycle? Fourth, is there an intersection betweentype of opportunities pursued, the way in which the family rm ismanaged, the socio-emotional wealth the family derives andalternative employment opportunities for family members?Finally, we should consider the intersection between the natureof the family in family rms and the resulting ability to access andorganize resources.5. Family rm outcomes

There is considerable debate in the entrepreneurship literatureabout the nature of the dependent variable that is, what are thedimensions of performance or outcomes. In part, this debate isconcerned with empirical measurement and attempts have beenmade to establish which measures are interchangeable and whichare not (Shepherd & Wiklund, 2009). The entrepreneurshipliterature has, however, struggled with the underlying theoreticalissues behind different performance and outcome measures.

Yu et al. (working paper) systematically coded all dependentvariables utilized in family business research from 1998 to 2007and clustered the outcome variables into seven groups alongbusiness and family related as well as long-term and short-termrelated outcomes. While their paper listed any class of outcomevariable, we will specically discuss performance measures in thenext sections.

Outcomes can be measured in terms of performance in the shortand long term. Performance can be distinguished into not onlynancial and economic performance as measured by protabilityand efciency but also performance in terms of growth inemployment. However, family rms are characterized by botheconomic and non-economic goals (Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008;Chrisman et al., in press; Zellweger & Astrachan, 2008). Futureresearch should investigate the inherent tension between the twoperformance dimensions and identify where they are comple-mentary or conicting. For example, a stewardship culture is oftencharacterized by the occurrence of altruism (e.g., Eddleston &Kellermanns, 2007), yet only reciprocal altruism is benecial forfamily rm performance, while asymmetrical altruism generatesagency cost that can trigger negative performance consequences.

The interplay between non-economic and economic goals isfurther complicated by the life-cycle of the family rm and thegenerational involvement of the family. For example, differentgenerations or branches in the family may have signicantlydifferent attitudes toward their desired goals (Gersick et al., 1997).Similarly, the involvement of the family in the business can createthe need to focus on some outcomes over others. For example, ifthe family rms desire to employ a signicant amount of familymembers across generations, the rm would have to focus on agrowth imperative (Poza, 1989). To complicate matters evenfurther, publicly listed family rms seem likely to face a differentrange of objectives compared to their private counterparts, who inturn may have even more heterogeneous objectives.

While we can identify this range of performance measures, it isimportant to recognize that their applicability to particular caseswill also likely be affected by the desire to maintain socio-emotional wealth (e.g., Berrone, Cruz, Gomez-Meja, & LarrazaKintana, 2010; Cruz, Gomez-Meja, & Becerra, 2010; Gomez-Mejaet al., 2007; Stockmans, Lybaert, & Voordeckers, 2010). The desireto maintain the non-nancial benets associated with the familyrm may affect both economic and non-economic decisions. Forexample, a recent study by Berrone et al. (2010) showed thatfamily rms are polluting at lower levels than non-family rms,which has both economic and non-economic implications. Futureresearch needs to investigate how the desire to maintain socio-emotional wealth affects family rm performance, succession andultimately the survival of the rm.

In addition to traditional performance based outcomes, moreunderstanding of intermediate outcomes is necessary. In thediscussion of future research, we touched upon corporateentrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation, and changeamongst some of the topics. Maybe even more importantly, thedevelopment of a stewardship based family rm culture seemswarranted. As we linked the family rms culture to many aspectsof our future research agenda, the understanding of family rm

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198 195specic inuences on the development of the family rms cultureis a worthy research focus by itself.

5.1. Publishing family rm research

After outlining future areas for research, we conclude thisarticle with a reection on the ability to publish the research thatwe hope to have sparked interest in. Within broader domains,newer elds may initially struggle to penetrate journals as theyface the challenges of legitimacy in terms of their theoretical andempirical approach. While three journals are now devoted tofamily business research, relatively little of the overall journalspace is devoted to family business research. Lets look atentrepreneurship as an example, as this eld is ahead in itsdevelopment over the eld of family business, albeit most scholarswould see these elds as not mutually exclusive. For entrepreneur-ship, an analysis of seven top management journals (Busenitz et al.,2003) showed that only 1.8 per cent of papers published during1985 to 1999 were from entrepreneurship. However, there didappear to be an increase between the rst and second half of theperiod from an average of 4.9 articles per year in 19851991 to 7.9per year in 19921999 in the selected set of journals. Busenitz et al.(2003) noted that the most important citation sources in thesepapers were other top management journals (notably ASQ, SMJ,AMJ and AMR) but that entrepreneurship journals (notably ETP,JSBM and JBV) were becoming increasingly important, reecting agrowing maturity of the entrepreneurship research domain.Ireland (2010) as editor of the Academy of Management Journalhas more recently noted an increase in the presence ofentrepreneurship papers in that journal, a marked improvementin the quality of submissions from entrepreneurship scholars andgood qualitative entrepreneurship research that was publishablein the journal. Family business research is likely to follow suit;indeed, top tier publications in our eld (for early key studies seeSchulze et al., 2003, 2001) are on the rise (e.g., Bennedsen, Perez-Gonzalez, & Wolfenzon, 2010; Gomez-Meja et al., 2007, 2010; LeBreton-Miller et al., 2011; Zelleweger et al., in press).

Yet, the positive development raises the important question:What do family rm researchers need to do to improve their abilityto publish in family, entrepreneurship and mainstream journals? Arecent analysis by Clark, Floyd and Wright (2006) that outlines thereasons why papers were rejected after rst review at the Journalof Management Studies highlights some key requirements forpapers to be published in leading journals. With the highestfrequency, the lack of contribution (92%) was criticized, followedby failure to develop the theoretical contribution (76%), fatal awsin the methods (70%) and deciencies in the analysis (58%).Accordingly, publishing family rm research is not an easy task andwe would like to comment on how the papers that providetheoretical extensions or empirical tests of our research agenda canhave an easier way to claim journal space.

Of course, everything starts with the framing of the paper.While older papers on this topic have not lost any of their relevance(Bartunek & Rynes, 2006; Pfeffer, 1993; Sutton & Staw, 1995;Whetten, 1989) and always provide a good refresher, a recenteditorial in Family Business Review (Reay & Whetten, 2011)specically discusses the contribution of family rm papers. Whileit might seem obvious, Reay and Whetten (2011) rightfullyemphasize that the contribution of family rm papers needs toindeed center around the family enterprise. Testing existing theorywith a family rm sample is not a sufcient contribution and notinteresting. This leads us to the wider question of theory andtheory development in a family rm paper.

An important question for family rm researchers concerns therole of theory development. Management researchers are begin-ning to question whether there is too much emphasis on theorydevelopment (Hambrick, 2007). In entrepreneurship, research andeditorial policies are generally increasingly stressing the impor-tance of base disciplines (see recent JBV editorial policy) and lessemphasis on explaining observed phenomena. In contrast in thenance area, there is more consensus on concepts and while manypapers have a story line, there is little hard new theory inempirical papers. Rather, the emphasis is on interesting and noveldatasets. Family rm research is probably still at stage wheretheoretical paradigms are still to be developed (for a recentdiscussion see Uhlaner et al., in press).

In developing novel areas for family rm research, rootdisciplines may provide a useful conceptual grounding. Entre-preneurship researchers emphasize the importance of developingcore knowledge in their domain: Increasingly [...] exchange inentrepreneurship research published in mainstream managementjournals relies upon dedicated entrepreneurship journal citations.This provides evidence of a growing internal culture andknowledge base, and thus a growing level of exchange internalto the entrepreneurship community Busenitz et al. (2003, p. 295).Indeed, in addition to early research that has extended andmodied conclusions of prior research to the family rm domain,current research has created family rm specic knowledge thatmay inform non-family rm research, e.g., socio-emotional wealthresearch (e.g., Cruz et al., 2010; Gomez-Meja et al., 2007, 2010;Zelleweger et al., in press).

In the general management area, there is growing debate aboutthe need for rigor and relevance in management research (Starkey& Madan, 2001). While some may argue that a move to rigor maymean that family rm researchers may cease to address the sowhat? question, we would counter that poor quality research canresult in highly misleading recommendations for family rmpractitioners and their advisors. Indeed, rigor and relevance infamily rm research are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Somefamily rm researchers who believe they are conducting rigorousrelevant research may not have a clear understanding of whatrelevance means in this context. Similarly, family rm practi-tioners may not have a clear understanding of the purpose ofacademic research as distinct from consultancy. These differencesmay not be irreconcilable.

For family rm researchers, analysis of the challenges facingfamily rms may provide a way to identify novel contributions.This suggests that a way forward is through interaction withpractitioners to identify these challenges and then to link these tokey debates in the literature in order to give conceptual grounding.Indeed, many schools worldwide that are dedicated to familybusiness research have also established family business centers.The resulting interactions with family businesses not only benetthe families, but also provide the opportunity to learn from thebusinesses.

While it is easy to criticize almost any kind of sample andanalysis (Sharma & Kellermanns, 2009), we still need to stress thatthe appropriate framing of papers needs to be accompanied byrobust and rigorous empirical methods. To publish in leadingfamily, entrepreneurship and management journals, authors havehad to raise the quality of their methodological approaches.Charting the development of entrepreneurship research, it is clearthat there have been major changes in the level of analysis and thedata and methods used (Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Davidsson &Wiklund, 2001). Yet, a decade later, Short, Ketchen, Combs andIreland (2010) observed that entrepreneurship still faced keychallenges to improve its methodological rigor. Similarly, some ofthe positive elements observed in the entrepreneurship literatureshould be strived for in family business research. For example,more multi-level research (e.g., Eddleston, Kellermanns, & Sarathy,2008; Eddleston, Otondo, & Kellermanns, 2008) would bedesirable. Here, data could be collected from multiple respondents

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198196at different levels of the organization in order to tease out higherlevel inuences on lower level outcomes. Indeed, collecting datafrom multiple family or non-family members is desirable in anycase as it reduces biases. Thus, just obtaining dual responses for asample is more desirable than a single respondent design (for thisapproach see Eddleston, Kellermanns, et al., 2008). However, asfamily rm data are extremely difcult to obtain, we need toremind ourselves that we cannot set impossible standards onprimary data collection. Accordingly, it is not justied to introducea strategic management bias into the eld that tends to disfavorcross-sectional survey designs in family rm research oversecondary data-base research. Rather, supplementing survey orqualitative research with additional archival data should be highlyencouraged. Further, the linkages with family rms and theirassociations that have been established through family rmcenters may provide an important opportunity for the collection ofnovel databases of micro and macro data. Family rms and theirassociations might be persuaded to contribute to the developmentof these datasets if they were seen to be serving the needs of thefamily rm community in producing rigorous and relevantresearch while at the same time respecting the condentialityof certain types of information. Parallels here may be drawn withthe development of large, longitudinal international datasets onprivate equity, venture capital and management buyouts thatenable rigorous quantitative research, provide a population forsystematic surveys and selection of qualitative cases, and, by virtueof their international nature, provide a basis for cross-culturalanalyses.

In conclusion, our paper highlighted multiple fruitful areas ofresearch and points out important aspects researchers should takeinto account when conducting family rm research targetingleading family rm, entrepreneurship and management research.We hope that this paper sparks many projects that will enhanceour understanding of family rm research, build a theory of thefamily rm (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2003) and contribute not only tofamily rm and entrepreneurship research, but also the wider eldof management.

References

Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncraticsituations. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 887907.

Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding-family ownership and rm performance:Evidence from S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 13011327.

Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding family ownership and theagency cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 68, 263285.

Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development oforganizational social capital: Attributes of family rms. Journal of ManagementStudies, 44, 7295.

Arthurs, J., Hoskisson, R., Busenitz, L., & Johnson, R. (2008). Managerial agents watchingother agents: Multiple agency conicts regarding underpricing in IPO rms.Academy of Management Journal, 51, 277294.

Astrachan, J., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs inprivately-held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. FamilyBusiness Review, 21(2), 139150.

Astrachan, J., & Shanker, M. (2003). Family businesses contribution to the U.S econo-my: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211219.

Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-Pec scale of family inuence:A proposal for solving the family business denition problem. Family BusinessReview, 15(1), 4558.

Barnett, T., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2006). Are we family? Nonfamily employeesperceptions of justice in the family rm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(6), 837854.

Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the rm: Tenyears after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625641.

Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. I. R. D. (2006). What makes management researchinteresting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 915.

Bennedsen, M., Perez-Gonzalez, F., & Wolfenzon, D. (2010). The governance of familyrms. In K. H. Baker & R. Anderson (Eds.), Corporate governance: A synthesis oftheory, research, and practice (pp. 371390). Hoboken: Wiley.

Berrone, P., Cruz, C. C., Gomez-Meja, L. R., & Larraza Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotionalwealth and corporate response to institutional pressures: Do family-controlledrms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82113.Bruton, G., Filatotchev, I., Chahine, S., & Wright, M. (2010). Governance, ownershipstructure and performance of IPO rms: The impact of different types of privateequity investors and institutional environments. Strategic Management Journal, 31,491509.

Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A.(2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions.Journal of Management, 29(3), 285308.

Chandler, G., & Lyon, D. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement inentrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,25(4), 101113.

Chang, E. P. C., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2008). Regional economyas a determinant of the prevalence of family rms in the United States: Apreliminary report. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 559573.

Chirico, F., & Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational valuecreation in family rms: The role of organizational culture. International SmallBusiness Journal, 28(5), 487504.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Chang, E. P., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Are family managersagents or stewards? An exploratory study in privately-held family rms. Journal ofBusiness Research, 60, 10301038.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, andperformance in family and non-family rms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,33(3), 739760.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family andnon-family rms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 28(4), 335354.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., Barnett, T. Family involvement, familyinuence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small rms, Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice, 36, in press.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2003). An introduction to theories of familybusiness. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 441448.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctivefamiliness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237248.

Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chan, K. C., & Liano, K. (2010). Intellectual founda-tions of current research in family business: An identication and review of 25inuential articles. Family Business Review, 23(1), 926.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Bergiel, E. B. (2009). An agency theoretic analysis of theprofessionalized family rm. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33, 355372.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Chang, E. P. C. (2004). Are family rms born or made? Anexploratory investigation. Family Business Review, 17, 3754.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., & Wu, Z. (2011). Agency problems ofborrowed social and nancial capital: Resolution in new ventures through familyinvolvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 472488.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Dening the family business by behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 1939.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Steier, L. P. (2003). Extending the theoretical horizons offamily business research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(4), 331338.

Churchill, N. C., & Hatten, K. J. (1987). Non market based transfers of wealth and power:A research framework for family business. American Journal of Small Business, 11(3),5164.

Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (2000). Separation of ownership from control ofEast Asian rms. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81112.

Clark, T., Floyd, S., & Wright, M. (2006). On the review process and journal develop-ment. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 655664.

Colquitt, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: ave decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 12811303.

Cruz, C. C., Gomez-Meja, L. R., & Becerra, M. (2010). Perceptions of benevolence and thedesign of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family rms. Academy ofManagement Journal, 53(1), 6989.

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascententrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301331.

Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research:Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 25(4), 8199.

Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study ofstewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,34(6), 10931116.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory ofmanagement. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 2047.

Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (1999). In the founders shadow: Conict in the familyrm. Family Business Review, 12(4), 311323.

De Massis, A., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors preventing intra-familysuccession. Family Business Review, 21(2), 183199.

Debicki, B. J., Matherne, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Familybusiness research in the new millennium: An overview of the who, the where, thewhat, and the why. Family Business Review, 22(2), 151166.

Dyer, W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family rms: Anticipating and managing businessand family transition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Dyer, W. G. (1988). Culture and continuity in family rms. Family Business Review, 1(1),3750.

Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Destructive and productive familyrelationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,22(4), 545565.

Eddleston, K., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource conguration in familyrms: Linking resources, strategic planning and technological opportunities toperformance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 2650.

M. Wright, F.W. Kellermanns / Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 (2011) 187198 197Eddleston, K., Kellermanns, F. W., & Zellweger, T. Exploring the entrepreneurialbehavior of family rms: Does the stewardship perspective explain differences?Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, in press.

Eddleston, K., Otondo, R., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2008). Conict, participative decisionmaking, and multi-generational ownership: A multi-level analysis. Journal of SmallBusiness Management 47(1.).

Facccio, M., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western Europeancorporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365395.

Filatotchev, I., & Toms, S. (2006). Corporate governance and nancial constraints onstrategic turnarounds. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 407433.

Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2005). The life-cycle of corporate governance. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2011). The adolescenceof family rm research: Taking stock and planning for the future. Journal ofManagement.

Gedajlovic, E., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. S. (2004). Crossing the threshold fromfounder management to professional management: A governance perspective.Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 899912.

Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M. M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation togeneration: Life cycles of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Gomez-Meja, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, H. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risk in family-controlledrms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1),106137.

Gomez-Meja, L. R., Makri, M., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Diversication decisions infamily-controlled rms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223252.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessingthe strategic advantage of family rms. Family Business Review, 12, 125.

Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unied systems perspec-tive of family rm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451465.

Hall, A., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Professional management in family businesses:Toward an extended understanding. Family Business Review, 21(1), 5169.

Hambrick, D. (2007). The eld of managements devotion to theory: Too much of a goodthing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 13461352.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions, andorganizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Howorth, C., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2004). Buyouts, information asymmetry andthe family management dyad. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 509534.

Howorth, C., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Professionalization of family rmsthrough management buyout: Longitudinal case study analysis. CMBOR WorkingPaper.

Hoy, F. (2006). The complicating factor of life cycles in corporate venturing. Entre-preneurship Theory & Practice, 30(6), 831836.

Hoy, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). Entrepreneurial family rms. Prentice Hall.Huse, M., & Zattoni, A. (2008). Trust, rm life cycle, and acutal board behavior.

International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(3), 7197.Ireland, D. (2010). Research exemplars conference.Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship:

The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29, 963989.James, H. (1999). Owner as manager, extended horizons and the family rm. Interna-

tional Journal of Economics of Business, 6, 4156.Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the rm: Managerial behavior,

agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305360.Johannisson, B., & Huse, M. (2000). Recruiting outside board members in the small

family business: An ideological challenge. Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop-ment, 12(4), 353378.

Karra, N., Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family rm:Exploring the role of family, kinship, and ethnicity. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 30, 861877.

Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. (2004). Feuding families: When conict does afamily rm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209228.

Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. (2006). Corporate venturing in family rms: Doesthe family matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809830.

Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. W. (2008). An exploratorystudy of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneur-ial behavior in the family rm. Family Business Review, 21(1), 114.

Kelly, L. M., Athanassiou, N., & Crittenden, W. F. (2000). Founder centrality and strategicbehavior in the family-owned rm. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(2),2742.

Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of familyinuence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321339.

Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Lester, R. H. (2011). Stewardship or agency? A socialembeddedness reconciliation of conduct and performance in public family busi-nesses. Organization Science, 22(3), 704721.

Ling, Y., & Kellermans, F. (2010). The effects of family rm specic sources of TMTdiversity: The moderating role of information exchange frequency. Journal ofManagement Studies, 47(2), 322344.

Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K. H., & Moss, T. W. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implica-tions for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses.Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3-4), 241L 264.

Lynall, M., Golden, B., & Hillman, A. (2003). Board composition from adolescence tomaturity: A multi-theoretic view. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 416431.

McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20(1),4774.Memili, E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation: The drivingforce for corporate entrepreneurship. In P. Mazzola & F. W. Kellermanns (Eds.),Handbook of Strategy Process Research (pp. 326349). Cheltenham, UK: EdwardElgar Publishing.

Meuleman, M., Amess, K., Wright, M., & Scholes, L. (2009). Agency, strategic entre-preneurship and the performance of private equity backed buyouts. Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice, 33, 213239.

Meuleman, M., Lockett, A., Manigart, S., & Wright, M. (2010). Partner selection decisionsin interrm collaborations: The paradox of relational embeddedness. Journal ofManagement Studies, 47, 9951019.

Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2007). Are family rmsreally superior performers? Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5), 829858.

Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Family control and rent-seeking society. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 28(4), 391410.

Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Brannon, D. (2010). Experiencing familybusiness creation: Differences between founders, non-family managers and foun-ders of non-family rms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(6), 10571084.

Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjoberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation,risk taking, and performance in family rms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 3347.

Narayanan, V., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: Areview and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38, 5876.

Niedermeyer, C., Jaskiewicz, P., & Klein, S. B. (2010). Cant get no satisfaction?Evaluating the sale of the family business from the familys perspective andderiving implications for new venture activities. Entrepreneurship and RegionalDevelopment, 22(34), 293L 320.

Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family rms. Entre-preneurship and Regional Development, 22(34), 211L 239.

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A socialcapital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949969.

Perez-Gonzalez, F. (2006). Inherited control and rm performance. American EconomicReview, 96, 15501588.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm develop-ment as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599620.

Phan, P., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W.-L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship:Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 197205.

Pieper, T. M., Klein, S. B., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). The impact of goal alignment on boardexistence and top management team composition: Evidence from family-inu-enced businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 372394.

Poza, E. F., Alfred, T., & Maheshawi, A. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture andmanagement practices in family and family rmsA preliminary report. FamilyBusiness Review, 10(2), 135155.

Poza, E. J. (1989). Smart growth: Critical choices for business continuity and prosperity.Jossey-Bass Inc. San Francisco.

Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2010). The evolution of entrepreneurialcompetencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergenceforthcoming. Journal of Management Studies .

Reay, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical contribution in familybusiness. Family Business Review, 24(2), 105110.

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture.Organization Dynamics, 12(1), 1328.

Schulze, W., & Gedajlovic, E. R. (2010). Whither family business? Journal of ManagementStudies, 47(1), 191204.

Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequencesof ownership dispersion among the directors of private family rms. Academy ofManagement Journal, 46(2), 179194.

Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., Dino, R. N., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2001). Agency relation-ships in family rms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99116.

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a eld of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217226.Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the denitional issues in

the eld of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3),1127.

Sharma, P., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2009). Editors notes: The craft of reviewing. FamilyBusiness Review, 22(4), 305308.

Sharma, P., & Manikutty, S. (2005). Strategic divestment in family rms: Role of familystructure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3),293312.

Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples withoranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 105123.

Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions about the griefrecovery process for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2),318329.

Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Grief recovery from the loss of a family business: A multi- andmeso-level theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 8197.

Shepherd,D.A.,Wiklund, J.,&Haynie, J.M.(2009).Movingforward:Balancingthenancialand emotional cost of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 134148.

Short, J., Ketchen, D., Combs, J., & Ireland, D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneur-ship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 615.

Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., & Broberg, J. C. (2009). Familyrms and entrepreneurial orientation in publicly traded rms: A comparativeanalysis of the S&P 500. Family Business Review, 22(1), 924.

Sirmon, D. G., Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., & Webb, J. W. (2008). The role of family inuencein rms strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 32(6), 979998.

Slavato, C., Chirico, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). A farewell to the business: Championing exitand continuity in entrepreneurial family rms. Entrepreneurship and RegionalDevelopment, 22(34), 321L 348.

Stanley, L. (2010). Emotions and family business creation: An extension and implica-tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 10851092.

Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders inthe future of management research. British Journal of Management, 1(Specialissue), 326.

Steier, L. P., & Miller, D. (2010). Pre- and post-succession governance philosophies inentrepreneurial family rms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 145154.

Stewart, A., & Miner, A. S. (2011). The prospects for family business in researchuniversities. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(1), 314.

Stockmans, A., Lybaert, N., & Voordeckers, W. (2010). Socioemotional weath andearnings management in private family rms. Family Business Review, 23(3),280294.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly,40, 371384.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurialresearch: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,25, 5780.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009). The extent and nature of opportu-nity identication by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,24, 99115.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Flores, M. (2010). The nature of entrepre-neurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 25(6), 541555.

Uhlaner, L. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Hoy, F. The entrepreneuringfamily: Is it time for a new paradigm? Small Business Economics Journal, in press

Uhlaner, L., Wright, M., & Huse, M. (2007). Private rms and corporate governance: Anintegrated and management perspective. Small Business Economics Journal, 29,225241.

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structures and competition in interrm networks: The paradoxof embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 3567.

van Essen, M., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, J.(2011). Do U.S. publicly-listed faimly rms differ? Does it matter? A meta-analysis.Working Paper Uttrecht University.

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizingentrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 25(4), 361375.

Westhead, P., & Howorth, C. (2006). Ownership and management issues associatedwith family rm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review,19(4), 301316.

Westhead, P., & Howorth, C. (2007). Types of private family rm: An explor