Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An entrepreneurial process perspective on succession in family firms

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We review and analyze previous literature on succession in family firms from an entrepreneurial process perspective. Through a three-step cluster analysis of 117 published articles on succession in family firms published between 1974 and 2010, we find several themes within which succession can be understood from an entrepreneurial process perspective where both the entry of new owners and exit of old owners are associated with the pursuit of new business opportunities. We identify gaps within each cluster and develop a set of research questions that may guide future research on succession as an entrepreneurial process. Since succession involves implications for individuals, families and firms, we suggest researchers should adopt a multilevel perspective as they seek answers to these research questions. Our review and analysis also underlines the need to focus on ownership transition rather than only management succession, and the importance of carefully defining both succession and family firm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. We use the phrase potential process of entrepreneurial exit and entry because of the basic truisms that not all startups are entrepreneurial (e.g. Shane 2003) and all successions are not entrepreneurial. We are interested in the general preconditions for entrepreneurship, such as entry, growth and harvest (exit) that can be related to ownership succession and transition.

  2. Cluster analysis consists of multivariate techniques whose primary purpose is to divide a set of objects into groups, based on the similarity of the objects for a set of specified characteristics.

  3. The variables related to level of analysis are individual, inter-personal/group, organizational and environmental; those related to phase of succession are general topics, planning succession, managing succession and post-succession; those related to the family- or firm members involved are incumbent/founder, successor, parent, offspring, manager/employee, shareholder and board of directors.

  4. In Table 8 we list prior literature reviews not considered in the cluster analysis. The studies included in the literature review (Tables 1–8) are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Reference List.

  5. Almost 50 % of the empirical studies in our review concern the USA, while 10% focus on Canada or the UK.

  6. Although the role of taxes is investigated in File and Prince (1996) and Bjuggren and Sund (2002), these are within-country studies and hence exclude comparative variations in institutional settings.

  7. The fact that we found no studies on the impact of governance change on innovativeness and growth may be because of our choice of search words. Had we included search words such as “business transfers,” “M&A” and “strategic renewa,” it is possible that more studies would have been found. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

References

Asterisk preceding a reference given in the Reference List indicates that the article is one of the 125 articles included in this review

  • Aldrich, H., & Cliff, J. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Martinez, M. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ambrose, D. (1983). Transfer of the family-owned business. Journal of Small Business Management, 21(1), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Family Business Survey (2007). Mass Mutual Financial Group, Kennesaw State University. Springfield, MA: Family Firm Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Aronoff, C. (1998). Megatrends in family business. Family Business Review, 11(3), 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Pathak, S., & Wennberg, K. (2010). Culture’s consequences for entrepreneurial behaviour. Paper presented at the 2010 Global Entrepreneurship Conference. London

  • *Ayres, G. (1990). Rough family justice: Equity in family business succession planning. Family Business Review, 3(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ayres, G. (1998). Rough corporate justice. Family Business Review, 11(2), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bachkaniwala, D., Wright, M., & Ram, M. (2001). Succession in South Asian family businesses in the UK. International Small Business Journal, 19(4), 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. D. (1975). Cluster analysis. Sociological Methodology, 1974, 1–54.

  • *Barach, J., & Ganitsky, J. (1995). Successful succession in family business. Family Business Review, 8(2), 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barnes, L., & Hershon, S. (1976). Transferring power in the family business. Harvard Business Review, 54(4), 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial districts and inter-firm cooperation in Italy (pp. 37–51). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Pérez-González, F., & Wolfenzon, D. (2007). Inside the family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 647–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Berenbeim, R. (1990). How business families manage the transition from owner to professional management. Family Business Review, 3(1), 69–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Birley, S. (1986). Succession in the family firm: The inheritor’s view. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(3), 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Birley, S. (2002). Attitudes of owner-managers’ children towards family and business issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bjuggren, P.-O., & Sund, L.-G. (2001). Strategic decision making in intergenerational successions of small- and medium-size family-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 14(1), 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bjuggren, P.-O., & Sund, L.-G. (2002). A transition cost rationale for transition of the firm within the family. Small Business Economics, 19(2), 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bjuggren, P.-O., & Sund, L.-G. (2005). Organization of transfers of small and medium-sized enterprises within the family: Tax law considerations. Family Business Review, 18, 305–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., Jaskiewicz, P., & Miller, D. (2011). Ownership versus management effects on performance in family and founder companies: A Bayesian reconciliation. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(4), 232–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braczyk, H.-J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (1998). Regional innovation systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brenes, E., Madrigal, K., & Molina-Navarro, G. (2006). Family business structure and succession: Critical topics in Latin American experience. Journal of Business Research, 59, 372–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brockhaus, Sr, R. (2004). Family business succession: Suggestions for future research. Family Business Review, 17(2), 165–177.

  • *Brown, F. H. (1993). Loss and continuity in the family firm. Family Business Review, 6(2), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brown, R. B., & Coverley, R. (1999). Succession planning in family businesses: A study from East Anglia, UK. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1), 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bruce, D., & Picard, D. (2006). Making succession a success: Perspectives from Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 306–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brun de Pontet, S., Wrosch, C., & Gagne, M. (2007). An exploration of the generational differences in levels of control held among family businesses approaching succession. Family Business Review, 20(4), 337–354.

  • *Cabrera-Suárez, K. (2005). Leadership transfer and the successor’s development in the family firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 71–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saa-Perez, P., & Garcia-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cadieux, L. (2007). Succession in small and medium-sized family businesses: Toward a typology of predecessor roles during and after instatement of the successor. Family Business Review, 20(2), 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J., & Hugron, P. (2002). Succession in women-owned family businesses: A case study. Family Business Review, 15(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni, R. (1991). Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovation networks: Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. In R. Camagni (Ed.), Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives (pp. 121–143). London: Belhaven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. (1984). Dynamics of publisher succession in newspaper organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G., & Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 570–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N., Gartner, W., Shaver, K., & Gatewood, E. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cater, J., & Justis, R. (2009). The development of successors from followers to leaders in small family firms: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 22(2), 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chau, T. (1991). Approaches to succession in East Asian business organizations. Family Business Review, 4(2), 161–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chittoor, R., & Das, R. (2007). Professionalization of management and succession performance. A vital linkage. Family Business Review, 20(1), 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Sharma, P. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 11(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J., Chua, J., Kellermanns, F., Matherne, C, I. I. I., & Debicki, B. (2008). Management journals as venues for publication of family business research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chua, J., Chrisman, J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and nonsuccession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers. Family Business Review, 16(2), 89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Churchill, N., & Hatten, K. (1997). Non-market-based transfers of wealth and power: A research framework for family business. Family Business Review, 10(1), 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Clifford, M., Nilakant, V., & Hamilton, R. (1991). Management succession and the stages of small business development. International Small Business Journal, 9(4), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Corbetta, G., & Montemerlo, D. (1999). Ownership, governance, and management issues in small and medium-size family businesses: A comparison of Italy and the United States. Family Business Review, 12(4), 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Correll, R. (1989). Facing up to moving forward: A third-generation successor’s reflections. Family Business Review, 2(1), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., Justo, R., & De Castro, J. O. (2012). Does family employment enhance MSEs performance?: Integrating socioemotional wealth and family embeddedness perspectives. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 62–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cucculelli, M., & Micucci, G. (2008). Family succession and firm performance: Evidence from Italian family firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Davis, P., & Harveston, P. (1998). The influence of family on the family business succession process: A multi-generational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(3), 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, A. (2009). Private equity investment decisions in family firms: The role of human resources and agency costs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 189–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Massis, A., Chua, J., & Chrisman, J. (2008). Factors preventing intra-family succession. Family Business Review, 21(2), 183–199.

  • Debicki, B., Matherne, C., Kellermanns, F., & Chrisman, J. (2009). Family business research in the new millennium. Family Business Review, 22(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *DeNoble, A., Ehrlich, S., & Singh, G. (2007). Toward the development of a family business self-efficacy scale: A resource-based perspective. Family Business Review, 20(2), 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. (2012). Impact of founder experience on exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38(4), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dimsdale, P. (1974). Management succession. Facing the future. Journal of Small Business Management, 12(4), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Diwisch, D., Voithofer, P., & Weiss, C. (2009). Succession and firm growth: Results from a non-parametric matching approach. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dumas, C., Dupuis, J., Richer, F., & St-Cyr, L. (1995). Factors that influence the next generation’s decision to take over the family farm. Family Business Review, 8(2), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dunn, B. (1999). The family factor: The impact of family relationship dynamics on business-owning families during transitions. Family Business Review, 12(1), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dyck, B., Mauws, M., Starke, F., & Mischke, G. (2002). Passing the baton: The importance of sequence, timing, technique and communication in executive succession. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dyer W., Jr, & Handler, W. (1994). Entrepreneurship and Family Business: Exploring the Connections. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 71–83.

  • Eckhardt, J., Shane, S., & Delmar, F. (2006). Multistage selection and the funding of new ventures. Management Science, 52(2), 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006a). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Implementing the Lisbon Community Programme for Growth and Jobs—Transfer of business, continuity through a new beginning. COM(2006) 33 Final, Brussels.

  • European Commission (2006b). Markets for business transfers. Fostering transparent marketplaces for the transfer of businesses in Europe—report of the expert group. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels.

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3), 519–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fahed-Sreih, J., & Djoundourian, S. (2006). Determinants of longevity and success in Lebanese family businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 19(3), 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fiegener, M., Brown, B. M., Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). A comparison of successor development in family and nonfamily businesses. Family Business Review, 7(4), 313–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fiegener, M., Brown, B. M., Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1996). Passing on strategic vision: Favored modes of successor preparation by CEOs of family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1996). Attributions for family business failure: The heir’s perspective. Family Business Review, 9(2), 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Foster, A. (1995). Developing leadership in the successor generation. Family Business Review, 8(3), 201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fox, M., Nilakant, V., & Hamilton, R. (1996). Managing succession in family-owned businesses. International Small Business Journal, 15(1), 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Galiano, A., & Vinturella, J. (1995). Implications of gender bias in the family business. Family Business Review, 8(3), 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Garcia-Álvarez, E., López-Sintas, J., & Gonzalvo, P. (2002). Socialization patterns of successors in first-to second-generation family businesses. Family Business Review, 15(3), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic, E., Lubatkin, M. H., & Schulze, W. S. (2004). Crossing the threshold from founder management to professional management: A governance perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 899–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gersick, K., Lansberg, I., Desjardins, M., & Dunn, B. (1999). Stages and transitions: Managing change in the family business. Family Business Review, 12(4), 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goldberg, S. (1996). Research note: Effective successors in family-owned businesses: Significant elements. Family Business Review, 9(2), 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goldberg, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1993). Self-confidence and managerial autonomy: Successor characteristics critical to succession in family firms. Family Business Review, 6(1), 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, I. R., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban Studies, 37(3), 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T., & Pistrui, J. (2002). Enterprising families domain: Family-influenced ownership groups in pursuit of transgenerational wealth. Family Business Review, 15(3), 223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handler, W. (1990). Succession in family firms: A mutual role adjustment between entrepreneur and next-generation family members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15, 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handler, W. (1991). Key interpersonal relationships of next-generation family members in family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(3), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handler, W. (1992). The succession experience of the next generation. Family Business Review, 5(3), 283–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handler, W. (1994). Succession in family business: A review of the research. Family Business Review, 7(2), 133–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handler, W., & Kram, K. (1988). Succession in family firms: The problem of resistance. Family Business Review, 1(4), 361–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harveston, P., Davis, P., & Lyden, J. (1997). Succession planning in family business: The impact of owner gender. Family Business Review, 10(4), 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harvey, M., & Evans, R. (1994). The impact of timing and mode of entry on successor development and successful succession. Family Business Review, 7(3), 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harvey, M., & Evans, R. (1995). Life after succession in the family business: Is it really the end of problems? Family Business Review, 8(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, H.-E., Kay, R., & Boerger, S. (2010). Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland 2010 bis 2014—Schätzung mit weiterentwickeltem Verfahren (Firm successions in Germany from 2010 to 2014—with advanced estimation methods). IfM Bonn: IfM-Materialien 198.

  • *Haveman, H. (1993). Ghosts of managers past: Managerial succession and organizational mortality. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 864–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Haveman, H., & Khaire, M. V. (2004). Survival beyond succession? The contingent impact of founder succession on organizational failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 437–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship: A weak link in the welfare state? Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across level: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of Management, 30(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw, (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • *Howorth, C., & Assaraf Ali, Z. (2001). Family business succession in Portugal: An examination of case studies in the furniture industry. Family Business Review, 14(3), 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Howorth, C., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2004). Buyouts, information asymmetry and the family management dyad. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 509–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, F., & Verser, T. (1994). Emerging business, emerging field: Entrepreneurship and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Huang, T. (1999). Who shall follow? Factors affecting the adoption of succession plans in Taiwan. Long Range Planning, 32(6), 609–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 36(9), 1017–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ibrahim, A., Soufani, K., & Lam, J. (2001). A study of succession in a family firm. Family Business Review, 14(3), 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, H. S. (1999). Owner as manager, extended horizons and the family firm. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Janjuha-Jivraj, S., & Woods, A. (2002). Successional issues within Asian family firms: Learning from the Kenyan experience. International Small Business Journal, 20(1), 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1997). A quantitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamei, K., & Dana, L. P. (2012). Examining the impact of new policy facilitating SME succession in Japan: From a viewpoint of risk management in family business. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 16(1), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kaslow, F. (1998). Handling transitions from mother to son in the family business: The knotty issues. Family Business Review, 11(3), 229–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Keating, N., & Little, H. (1997). Choosing the successor in New Zealand family farms. Family Business Review, 10(2), 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kesner, I. F., & Sebora, T. C. (1994). Executive succession: Past, present & future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 327–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, D. J, Jr., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kimhi, A. (1997). Intergenerational succession in small family businesses: Borrowing constraints and optimal timing of succession. Small Business Economics, 9(4), 309–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kirby, D., & Lee, T. (1996). Research note: Succession management in family firms in northeast England. Family Business Review, 9(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J. S., & Montagno, R. (1993). Family business succession in Korean and US Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(2), 132–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new explanatory model. Family Business Review, 18(4), 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lansberg, I. (1988). The succession conspiracy. Family Business Review, 1(2), 119–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansberg, I., & Astrachan, J. (1994). Influence of family relationships on succession planning and training: The importance of mediating factors. Family Business Review, 7(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, L. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305–328.

  • *Lee, K., Lim, G., & Lim, W. (2003). Family business succession: Appropriation risk and choice of successor. The Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 657–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Longenecker, J., & Schoen, J. (1978). Management succession in the family business. Journal of Small Business Management, 16(3), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K., & Moss, T. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.

  • MacMillan, I. C. (1993). The emerging forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Malone, S. (1989). Selected correlates of business continuity planning in the family business. Family Business Review, 2(4), 341–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mandelbaum, L. (1994). Small business succession: The educational potential. Family Business Review, 7(4), 369–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Marshall, J., Sorenson, R., Brigham, K., Wieling, E., Reifman, A., & Wampler, R. (2006). The paradox for the family firm CEO: Owner age relationship to succession-related processes and plans. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 348–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Harrison, R. (2006). After the exit: Acquisitions, entrepreneurial recycling and regional economic development. Regional Studies, 40(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Matthews, C. H., Moore, T., & Fialko, A. (1999). Succession in the family firm: A cognitive categorization perspective. Family Business Review, 12(2), 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McCollom, M. (1992). The ownership trust and succession paralysis in the family business. Family Business Review, 5(2), 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McGivern, C. (1989). The dynamics of management succession: A model of chief executive succession in the small family firm. Family Business Review, 2(4), 401–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenny, A. F., Payne, G. T, Zachary, M. A., & Short, J. C. Multilevel analysis in family business studies. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business. London: Sage Publications; 2013 (in press).

  • *Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003). Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 513–531.

  • *Motwani, J., Levenburg, N., Schwarz, T., & Blankson, C. (2006). Succession planning in SMEs: An empirical analysis. International Small Business Journal, 24(5), 471–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Murray, B. (2003). The succession transition process: A longitudinal perspective. Family Business Review, 16(1), 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nam, Y., & Herbert, J. (1999). Characteristics and key success factors in family business: The case of Korean Immigrant businesses in Metro-Atlanta. Family Business Review, 12, 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3), 211–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NUTEK. (2004). Generationsskiften I företag (Generational succession in companies). The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (NUTEK), B2004 (2). Stockholm.

  • Parker, S. C., & Van Praag, C. M. (2012). The entrepreneur’s mode of entry: Business takeover or new venture start? Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Peay, T., & Dyer W. Jr, (1989). Power orientations of entrepreneurs and succession planning. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Perricone, P., Earle, J., & Taplin, I. (2001). Patterns of succession and continuity in family-owned businesses: Study of an ethnic community. Family Business Review, 14(2), 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 617–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Post, J., & Robins, R. (1993). The captive king and his captive court: The psychopolitical dynamics of the disabled leader and his inner circle. Family Business Review, 6(2), 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Poza, E., & Messer, T. (2001). Spousal leadership and continuity in the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Poza, E., Hanlon, S., & Kishida, R. (2004). Does the family business interaction factor represent a resource or a cost? Family Business Review, 17(2), 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. B., & Hunt, H. K. (1992). Entrepreneurship and birth order: Fact or folklore. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 4(3), 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rogers, E., Carsrud, A., & Krueger Jr, N. (1996). Chiefdoms and family firm regimes: Variations on the same anthropological themes. Family Business Review, 9(1), 15–27.

  • Ronstadt, R. (1986). Exit, stage left why entrepreneurs end their entrepreneurial careers before retirement. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Royer, S., Simons, R., Boyd, B., & Rafferty, A. (2008). Promoting family: A contingency model of family business succession. Family Business Review, 21(1), 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rubenson, G., & Gupta, A. (1996). The initial succession: A contingency model of founder tenure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(2), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C., Chirico, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). A farewell to the business: Championing exit and continuity in entrepreneurial family firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22, 321–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Santiago, A. (2000). Succession experiences in Philippine family businesses. Family Business Review, 13(1), 15–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). The questions we ask and the questions we care about: Reformulating some problems in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 707–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, B., & Crewson, P. (1997). Entrepreneurial origins: A longitudinal inquiry. Economic Inquiry, 35, 523–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Scholes, M., Wright, M., Westhead, P., Burrows, A., & Bruining, H. (2007). Information sharing, price negotiation and management buy-outs of private family-owned firms. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Seymour, K. (1993). International relationships in the family firm: The effect on leadership succession. Family Business Review, 6(3), 263–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (1997). Who is publishing the entrepreneurship research? Journal of Management, 23(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of enterpreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., & Irving, P. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., & Rao, S. (2000). Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 13(4), 313–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (2003a). Succession planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (2003b). Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 667–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., Chrisman, J., Pablo, A., & Chua, J. (2001). Determinants of initial satisfaction with the succession process in family firms: A conceptual model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shepherd, D., & Zacharakis, A. (2000). Structuring family business succession: An analysis of the future leader’s decision making. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. (2009). Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sonfield, M., & Lussier, R. N. (2004). First-, second-, and third-generation family firms: A comparison. Family Business Review, 17(3), 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sonnenfeld, J., & Spence, P. (1989). The parting patriarch of a family firm. Family Business Review, 2(4), 355–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stavrou, E. (1998). A four factor model: A guide to planning next generation involvement in the family firm. Family Business Review, 11(2), 135–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stavrou, E. (1999). Succession in family businesses: Exploring the effects of demographic factors on offspring intentions to join and take over the business. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), 43–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stavrou, E. (2003). Leadership succession in owner-managed firms through the lens of extraversion. International Small Business Journal, 21(3), 331–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stavrou, E., & Swiercz, P. (1998). Securing the future of the family enterprise: A model of offspring intentions to join business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stavrou, E., Kleanthous, T., & Anastasiou, T. (2005). Leadership personality and firm culture during hereditary transitions in family firms: Model development and empirical investigation. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2), 187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Steier, L. (2001). Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital. Family Business Review, 14(3), 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (2004). Entrepreneurial management and governance in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics and creative lives. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Swagger, G. (1991). Assessing the successor generation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 4(4), 397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tatoglu, E., Kula, V., & Glaister, K. (2008). Succession planning in family-owned businesses: Evidence from Turkey. International Small Business Journal, 26(2), 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thomas, J. (2002). Freeing the shackles of family business ownership. Family Business Review, 15(4), 321–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tylecote, A., & Visintin, F. (2008). Corporate governance, finance and the technological advantage of nations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 25(4), 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner, L. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K., & Hoy, F. (2012). The entrepreneuring family: A new paradigm for family business research. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Engleman, R. M. (2004). Event- and outcome-driven explanations of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, C. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, C. M., & Cramer, J. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand: Individual ability and low risk aversion. Economica, 68, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Venter, E., Boshoff, C., & Maas, G. (2005). The influence of successor-related factors on the succession process in small and medium-sized family businesses. Family Business Review, 18(4), 283–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vera, C., & Dean, M. (2005). An examination of the challenges daughters face in family business succession. Family Business Review, 18(4), 321–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, N. (2003). Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success. Organization Science, 14(2), 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D., & Cardon, M. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., Hellerstedt, K., & Nordqvist, M. (2011). Implications of intra-family and external ownership transfer of family firms: Short-term and long-term performance differences. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 352–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Westhead, P. (2003). Succession decision-making outcomes reported by private family companies. International Small Business Journal, 21(4), 369–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wortman, M. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: A conceptual and research-based paradigm. Family Business Review, 7(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wright, M., Thompson, S., & Robbie, K. (1992). Venture capital and management-led, leveraged buy-outs: A European perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yan, J., & Sorenson, R. (2006). The effect of Confucian values on succession in family business. Family Business Review, 19(3), 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, T., & Aldrich, H. (2012). Lost in translation: Cultural codes are not blueprints. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., Hayton, J., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family versus non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zahra, S., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17(4), 331–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T., & Sieger, P. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from The Swedish Research Council and Lars Erik Lundbergs Foundation. Mattias Nordqvist would also like to acknowledge the support from Carl-Olof and Jenz Hamrin Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jönköping International Business School, PO Box 1026, 551 11, Jönköping, Sweden

    Mattias Nordqvist, Massimo Bau’ & Karin Hellerstedt

  2. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Karl Wennberg

  3. The Ratio Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Karl Wennberg

Authors
  1. Mattias Nordqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl Wennberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimo Bau’
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karin Hellerstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattias Nordqvist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nordqvist, M., Wennberg, K., Bau’, M. et al. An entrepreneurial process perspective on succession in family firms. Small Bus Econ 40, 1087–1122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9466-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9466-4

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation