758712
editorial2018
FBRXXX10.1177/0894486518758712Family Business ReviewHolt et al.
Introduction
Family Business Research as a
Boundary-Spanning Platform
Daniel T. Holt1, Allison W. Pearson1, G. Tyge Payne2,
and Pramodita Sharma3
Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from
here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
—Lewis Caroll
Anyone attending the annual conference of the Academy
of Management (AoM) has a sense of the size and scope
of the field of management. With nearly 20,000 mem-
bers spanning 120 countries,1 AoM is aptly described as
a “big tent” (George, 2014). By definition, all members
of the AoM identify themselves as management schol-
ars. Most members, however, more closely identify with
one or a few subfields of management (e.g., strategic
management, organizational behavior) and many may
also identify with fields or disciplines that reside outside
of management (e.g., economics, finance, marketing) or
even outside of business (e.g., anthropology, psychol-
ogy, sociology). By offering a choice of two of the 25
Divisions or Interest Groups (DIGs) as part of the regis-
tration fees, AoM acknowledges the varied interests of
its members and encourages cross-disciplinary research.
With no DIG solely focused on its domain of study,
family business scholarship mirrors this diversity of
interests, addressing issues across the domain of man-
agement. Despite this, family business, until about a
decade ago, was largely absent at AoM conferences. For
example, in 2004, only five of the 1,200 sessions of AoM
featured family business research; these were primarily
found in the Entrepreneurship Division’s preconference
workshops. Since then, smaller gatherings like IFERA
(International Family Enterprise Research Academy)
and FERC (Family Enterprise Research Conference)
emerged as important venues for family business schol-
ars to exchange their research, develop their networks,
and advance the field. As these have grown, scholars
have acknowledged the importance of these gatherings
but have also expressed concerns regarding the tendency
Family Business Review
2018, Vol. 31(1) 14­–31
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894486518758712
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518758712
journals.sagepub.com/home/fbr
of family business researchers to only talk among them-
selves (Zahra & Sharma, 2004). Responding to these
concerns, family business scholars have increased their
engagement across the AoM since 2004. At the 2017
AoM conference, family business research was featured
in 13 of the AoM’s 25 DIGs and represented 50 of the
438 accepted papers or 12 of 109 paper sessions within
the Entrepreneurship Division alone.2
Given that family firms are the dominant organiza-
tional form, there is still a long way to go before the
AoM conference adequately reflects the research atten-
tion these organizations deserve and, in turn, help nar-
row the gap between management research and practice
that has bothered many management scholars for
decades (e.g., Ghoshal, 2005; Hambrick, 1994; Rynes,
Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; Sharma, 2010; Vermeulen,
2007). Nevertheless, the boundary-spanning nature of
family business research is clearly evidenced. As we
highlight in Table 1, there appears to be wide-ranging
opportunities for scholars to contribute across the spec-
trum of management by developing stimulating research
programs in their various domains of interest using fam-
ily enterprises as a platform for discovery and examina-
tion of important phenomena. Indeed, being mindful of
the tendency of family business scholars to borrow from
other disciplines more than giving back (Shepherd,
2016; Wortman, 1994; Zahra & Sharma, 2004), we hope
to point to the potential power of a reciprocating mind-
set as we move forward. Consider agency theory, for
1
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
2
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
3
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel T. Holt, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9581,
Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Email: daniel.holt@msstate.edu
 Table 1.  Opportunities for Family Business Research across the Academy of Management.
a
Division/interest group Domain statement
Careers Theoretical and empirical issues related to the
(a) development of individuals’ careers; (b)
management strategies and planning of careers; (c)
relationships between human resource systems
and careers; (d) life cycle interactions between
individuals and work; (e) effects race, culture,
gender, demographic changes, and social changes
have on careers; (f) diversity of labor forces; (g)
structures and functions of internal labor markets
Conflict management Theoretical and empirical issues related to
the (a) nature and management of conflicts
at the individual, group, organizational,
interorganizational, and societal levels; (b)
power processes including influence, coalitions,
coercion, deterrence, and persuasion; bargaining
and negotiation, negotiator characteristics and
behaviors; (c) collaboration and competition; (d)
interventions of third parties (such as facilitation,
arbitration, mediation); and (e) influences of justice
(i.e., distributive and procedural) and dispute
resolution procedures
Critical management Theoretical and empirical issues related to the (a)
studies critiques of established management and societal
practices; (b) structural features of contemporary
society, such as the profit imperative, patriarchy,
racial inequality, and ecological irresponsibility; and
(c) radical alternatives that may address practical
shortcomings of managerial systems
 
15
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
Salvato, C., Minichill, A., & Piccarreta, R. (2012). Faster
route to the CEO suite: Nepotism or managerial
proficiency? Family Business Review, 25(2), 206-224.
McKee, D., Madden, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., &
Eddleston, K. A. (2014). Conflicts in family firms:
The good and the bad. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, &
P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business
(pp. 514-528). London, England: Sage.
Parks, C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2017).
Governance and stakeholder coupling
in family firms: The case of Blue Bell Ice
Cream.
Illustrative research questions
How do complex intrapersonal
identities—be they family, organizational,
or occupational—interact to facilitate
personal and organizational outcomes?
(Anteby, Chan, & DiBenigno, 2016)
How do occupational cultures evolve
within and across organizations? (Kossek
& Lautsch, 2018)
After conflicts are resolved, what
multilevel factors lead to the successful
implementation of agreements? (Jang,
Elfenbein, & Bottom, 2018)
What shapes forgiveness and revenge in
organizations? (Bies, Barclay, Tripp, &
Aquino, 2016)
What is the dark side of relationship-
based leadership approaches like LMX?
How might vertical and horizontal
cultures differ in the development of
cronyistic behaviors? (Khatri, Tsang, &
Begley, 2006)
How societal logics, like patriarchy, shape
the relationship between organizations’
financial and nonfinancial aims? (Zhao &
Wry, 2016)
(continued)
16
Table 1. (continued)

Example of family business sessions/papers at the

2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
Division/interest group Domain statementa articles of interest (in italics) Illustrative research questions

Entrepreneurship Theoretical and empirical issues related to the Governance and emotions at the interface When, how, why, and for whom stocks of
(a) facets that influence the emergence of for more meaningful entrepreneurial and emotions change during entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial opportunities and/or new family businesses (2017). A paper session. processes? (Shepherd, 2016)
economic activities in multiple contexts (i.e.,
actors [entrepreneurs and family business owners], How emotion stocks influence the
actions, resources, environmental influences and consequences of failure? (Brundin &
outcomes associated); and (b) characteristics, Härtel, 2014)
actions, and challenges of owner-managers and
their businesses
Gender and diversity in Theoretical and empirical issues related to the Jimenez, R. M. (2009). Research on women in family How are different types of diversity (i.e.,
organizations (a) intersection of gender with race, class, and firms: Current status and future directions. Family based on surface-level vis-a-vis deep-
institutionalized systems of power; (b) impact of Business Review, 22(1), 53-64. level attributes) related to financial and
group diversity on well-being and effectiveness nonfinancial outcomes? (Roberson,
at individual, group, and organizational levels; (c) Holmes, & Perry, 2017)
impact of occupational structures, organizational
structures, policies, practices, and discourses on
marginalized and dominant groups; (d) experiences
of members of different social groups (e.g.,
groups differentiated by gender, race, ethnicity,
class, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, nationality, religion, culture); (e)
intersection of work, family, and community in
relation to one’s social position; and (f) institutional
and structural barriers to equality and equity
across social groups
Health care Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a) Hutcheson, J. O., Jaffe, D., & Gilliland, K. (2013). What is the role of family-controlled firms
management the performance of health care workers and Addiction in the family enterprise. Family Business in private health care and the medical
organizations; (b) health-related public policy (e.g., Review, 26(1), 104-107. tourism industry?
access to care, competition, cost control and
quality of care); (c) management of health care
organizations (e.g., health care finance, marketing)
  Kaye, K. (1996). When the family business is a Are family-owned medical centers
sickness. Family Business Review, 9(4), 347-368. more or less effective in managing
the economic (i.e., efficiency) and
noneconomic (i.e., quality of care)
paradox?
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Division/interest group Domain statementa
Human resources (HR) Theoretical and empirical issues related to the (a)
recruitment, selection, allocation, development,
utilization, evaluation, compensation, and retention
of people as resources in work organizations; and
(b) employment relationship
International Theoretical and empirical issues related to the
management (a) cross-border management of operations,
including multi-country, multi-unit, strategy
formulation and implementation; (b) evolving
organizational forms and management practices
in cross-border business; (c) differential impact of
institutional forces (e.g., cultural, social, economic,
technological, political) on strategies, organizational
forms, and management practices; (d) international
competitiveness of firms, industries, and nations;
and (e) comparative management practices across
two or more countries
Management consulting Theoretical and empirical issues related to the (a)
consulting process; (b) roles and responsibilities
of academics in the field; (c) role of consultants
in leading change initiatives; (d) management of
consulting firms (e.g., ethics, marketing); and (e)
evolving roles of consultants (in organizations and
society)
17
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
Tabor, W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2017). The
“familization” of the professional family
firm: A theoretical recruiting framework.
Xu, K., Hitt, M. A., & Miller, S. R. (2017).
A decision making perspective of the
international entry mode of choice.
Cater, J. J., & Young, M. (2017). The
evolving leadership roles and leadership
styles of women in family firms.
Illustrative research questions
How stakeholders influenced by firms’ HR
systems satisfy competing objectives?
(Jackson, Shuler, & Jiang, 2014)
What is the impact of family ownership on
HR systems? (Tsao, Chen, Lin, & Hyde,
2009)
How and why do family firms
internationalize? (Pukall & Calabrò,
2014)
How does strategy formulation and
implementation processes of firms
operating in emerging markets differ
from those of firms in developed
markets? (Marquis & Raynard, 2015)
How advice is given, judged, and weighted
by individuals and groups?
What organization- and group-level
outcomes are linked to timely and
effective advising? (Strike et al., 2018)
(continued)
18
Table 1. (continued)
Division/interest group Domain statementa
Management education Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a)
and development instructional methods across cultures and
environments (to include online learning and
benchmark practices in coaching and outcome
assessment); (b) technology; (c) management
education; (e) institutional structures or education
policies; and (f) learning theories and learning styles
Management history Theoretical and empirical issues related to the (a)
chronological development of contemporary
managerial concepts, techniques, behaviors, and
practices; (b) disciplines learning from and avoiding
mistakes of the past; (c) rediscovery of existing
knowledge and integrating it into contemporary
investigations; (d) history, traditions, and evolution
of businesses and industries; (e) historical
influences of diverse individuals and groups on
managerial thought and practice; and (f) unification
of fragmented concepts and literatures through
historical lessons
Management spirituality Theoretical and empirical issues related to the
and religion (a) influences of faith, spirituality and religion
on principles and practices in management; (b)
meaning of work; (c) impact of spirituality and
spiritual leadership in the workplace; (d) purpose
of business; (e) effects of religious pluralism in the
workplace; and (f) elements of individual religious
and spiritual beliefs that cultivate awareness and
promote wisdom
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
D’Allura, G. M. (2017). Bridging emotions
into family firms: The business of theatre
as a tool for management coaching.
Colli, A., Howorth, C., & Rose, M. (2013). Long-term
perspectives on family business. Business History, 55,
841-854.
Cruz, A. F. D., Carradus, A., Zozimo, R.
(2017). The role of faith-led organization
practices on family businesses: A two case
study.
Illustrative research questions
What are some of the unique nuances of
family business education and learning?
(Salvato, Sharma, & Wright, 2015)
How does research utilization differ within
organizational and other nonscientific
contexts? (Kieser, Nicolai, & Seidl, 2015)
How do rhetorical tools mold, shape,
and sustain how key events are
remembered, interpreted, and carried
forward as collective memories?
(Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014)
Drawing on samples of the oldest firms
in the world, how particular events
(or strategy-making episodes) shape
frameworks and practices overtime?
(Vaara & Lamberg, 2016)
How and when do individuals disengage
certain value sets (i.e., religious values
or identities); and what consequences
does this disengagement have on
organizations? (Putnam, Fairhurst, &
Banghart, 2016)
How does religion and spirituality
influence entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition and entrepreneurial
capabilities? (Tracey, 2012)
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Division/interest group Domain statementa
Managerial and Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a) social
organizational construction, culture, and cognition; (b) the nature
cognition and role of mental models and representations;
(c) judgment, decision making, sense making/
meaning making, categorization, and attribution
processes; (d) individual differences, non-conscious
forms of cognition (e.g., intuition), emotion,
ideology, identity/identification, image, reputation;
and (e) knowledge creation, management,
and institutionalism as well as individual and
organizational learning and memory; and (f)
communities of practice
Operations and supply Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a)
chain management operations strategy; (b) product and service
development; (c) supply chain, project, and quality
management; and (d) the intersection of operations
with human resources, the environment, and
information technology
Organization and Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a)
management theory strategic choice; (b) resource dependence theory;
(c) organizational ecology and institutional theory;
(d) critical, feminist, cognitive, and postmodern
theorists; (e) quality improvement; (f) strategic
alliances; (g) new technology implementation;
(h) organizational restructuring; governance and
control; and (i) strategic global diversity
19
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
Whetten, D., Foreman, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2014).
Organizational identity and family business. In L.
Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage
handbook of family business (pp. 480-497). London,
England: Sage.
Miller, D., & Le-Breton Miller, I. (2005). Managing
for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage
from great family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Implications of family ownership: Tradition,
involvement, vocation and (sometimes)
malfeasance (2017). A paper session.
Illustrative research questions
How do people reconcile multiple and
contradicting emotions at different
organizational levels? (Shepherd, 2016)
How are managerial cognitions
transformed into capabilities? (Eggers &
Kaplan, 2013)
Is the internal competition for resources
different in family vs. nonfamily firms?
(Chen & Miller, 2012)
How do organizations cope with multiple,
potentially competing institutional
logics and demands (i.e., family firms)?
(Soleimanof et al., 2018)
When and under what conditions do
firms change their strategic repertoires?
(Chen & Miller, 2012)
(continued)
20
Table 1. (continued)

Example of family business sessions/papers at the

2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
a
Division/interest group Domain statement articles of interest (in italics) Illustrative research questions

Organization Theoretical and empirical issues related to the Longevity and resilience at the interface How do managers use tools like
development and (a) causes and dynamics of different forms of family, business and the environment experimentation or crowdsourcing to
change and types of change (e.g., emergent change, (2017). A paper symposium. evaluate potential alternatives, mitigating
evolutionary change); (b) forms, processes, and uncertainty and organizational risk?
types of interventions (e.g., individual, group, and (Eggers & Kaplan, 2013)
large scale) and how their use and effectiveness
is influenced; (c) leadership and facilitation of What temporal dimensions have been
organization change and development; (d) reactions integrated in family business research?
and responses of individuals to change (e.g., (Sharma, Salvato, & Reay, 2013)
readiness, engagement, resistance); (e) contextual
influences on change (e.g., organizational type,
industry structure and dynamics); (f) system
goals and measures of change success; and (g)
paradigms and methods that address values such
as sustainability, justice, dignity, and integrity in
change contexts, generating ethical, positive, and
meaningful change
Organizational behavior Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a) Behavioral issues in family firm continuity How do dual decision and accountability
individual characteristics (e.g., values, personality) and success: Examining the family-business structures influence employees’
and processes (e.g., learning, motivation, emotions, interface (2017). A paper symposium. performance? (Tabor, Chrisman,
and decision making; (b) interpersonal processes Madison, & Vardaman, 2018)
(e.g., trust, justice, social exchange); (c) group/
team characteristics (e.g., diversity, cohesion) and What unique insights are found from
processes (e.g., development, decision making, research on values, goals, leadership,
cooperation); (d) organizational processes and power, trust, and justice in family versus
practices (e.g., goal setting, work design, feedback, nonfamily firms? (Gagné, Sharma, & De
rewards); (e) the influences of contexts on Massis, 2014)
individuals and groups; and (f) relationship that
individual, interpersonal, group, and contextual
factors have with key organizational outcomes
(e.g., performance, creativity, attachment,
citizenship behaviors, stress, absenteeism,
turnover, deviance, ethical behavior)
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Division/interest group
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
a
Domain statement articles of interest (in italics) Illustrative research questions

Organizational Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a) Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., Shanine, K., & Kacmar, M. How do family communication patterns
communications and interpersonal communication means (e.g., verbal, (2017). Introducing the family: A review of family influence followership and leadership
information systems nonverbal, and electronic communication), science with implications for management research. in organizations? (James, Jennings, &
directions (e.g., vertical, horizontal, diagonal), Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 309-341. Breitkruz, 2012)
and infrastructure; (b) intergroup and intragroup
communication; (c) the application, adoption,
and management of information technology and
systems in business and society; (d) communication
and information strategy and policy; (e) virtual
teams, virtual work, and virtual organizations;
(f) the management of information systems
professionals, e-communications; information
systems development; IT-related change,
e-business, e-commerce, and e-markets; (g) privacy
and ethics; (h) knowledge work, knowledge
workers, and knowledge networks
Organizations and the Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a) Cordeiro, J. J., Galeazzo, A., Shaw, T. S. What types of normative values do
natural environment ecological sustainability performance, and crisis (2017). CSR-focused director networks, managers hold; and how do those values
management; (b) environmental philosophies and family control, and CSR performance: guide corporate relationships with
strategies; (c) environmental product and service Evidence from India. society? (Bansal & Song, 2017)
industries; (d) pollution control, prevention, and
minimization; (e) environmental auditing and What is the role of household enterprise
information systems; (f) managing human resources at the base of the pyramid? (Gras &
for sustainability; (g) natural resources and systems Nason, 2015)
management; (h) interactions of environmental
stakeholders; (i) environmental policies, attitudes,
and decision making; and (j) international/
comparative studies
Public and nonprofit Theoretical and empirical issues related to Feliu, N., & Botero, I. C. (2016). Philanthropy in family How nonfinancial performance
(a) the distinctive qualities of the public and enterprises: A review of literature. Family Business measurement can be leveraged to
nonprofit sectors; (b) decision making, strategy, Review, 29(1), 121-141. introduce performance-enhancing
organizational behavior, and human resource interventions? (Kelman, 2007)
management within public and nonprofit
organizations; (c) collaboration and conflict among What predicts contractor performance;
public, nonprofit, and private organizations; (d) the impact of relational/trust-based
service and community-building; and (e) networks models versus principal-agent models?
involving public and nonprofit organizations (Kelman, 2007)

  (continued)

21
22
Table 1. (continued)
Division/interest group Domain statementa
Research methods Theoretical and empirical issues related to
(a) epistemology; (b) experimental and
nonexperimental research design; (c) survey
research; (d) ethnography; (e) evaluative research;
(f) cross-cultural and comparative methods;
(g) measurement development, evaluation, and
construct validation; (h) statistical modeling; (i)
casual mapping; (j) historical analysis; (k) discourse
analysis; and (l) textual analysis
Social issues in Theoretical and empirical issues related to
management (a) individual and organizational ethics; (b)
the influence of organizational and systemic
governance on ethics; (c) the interactions among
stakeholders, goals, and systems; and (d) the
organization’s responsibilities to stakeholders and
the stakeholders; responsibilities to organizations
Strategic management Theoretical and empirical issues related to the (a)
organization’s strategic decision-making processes,
considering behavioral strategy, governance,
innovation and strategic renewal, and strategic
formulation, implementation, and planning; and (b)
antecedents and contextual factors that predict
when some firms perform better than others over
time, considering alliances, networks, inter- or
intraorganizational relationships, internal resources
and capabilities, the strategic management of
critical inputs, and strategic leadership; and (c)
consequences of some firms performing better
than others over time, considering performance
and firm/competitive heterogeneity
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
Evert, R. E., Martin, J. A., McLeod, M. S., & Payne,
G. T. (2016). Empirics in family business research:
Progress, challenges and the path ahead. Family
Business Review, 29(1), 17-43.
Hsiao, Y. C. (2017). Outside and family
governance power for firm performance:
Why organizational capabilities matter?
Family corporate governance: Agency,
behavioral, and institutional lenses (2017).
A paper session.
Illustrative research questions
How can organizational-level constructs
be measured in private firms? (Holt,
Pearson, Carr, & Barnett, 2017)
How might nested levels in organizations
be better identified and assessed?
(Payne, Pearson, & Carr, 2016)
How does organizational identification,
beyond dependence (e.g., the source
of income), influence social behaviors?
(Briscoe & Gupta, 2016)
What social issues have been addressed
in family business research? (Van Gils,
Dibrell, Neubaum, & Craig, 2014)
How do noneconomic goals influence
resource deployment decisions? (Jiang,
Kellermanns, Munyon, & Morris, 2018)
How do individual-level propensities,
biases, and heuristics shape collective,
organizational, and strategic contexts;
and how interventions can constrain
problematic influences? (Felin, Foss, &
Ployhart, 2015)
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
a
Division/interest group Domain statement
Strategizing activities Theoretical and empirical issues related to the
and practices (a) day-to-day work, activities, and practices of
strategists (at all levels of management), with an
interest in how this work socially accomplishes
a wide range of individual, organizational, and
societal outcomes; and (b) way that factors such as
training, knowledge, identity and emotions affect
individuals’ strategy making activities
Technology and Theoretical and empirical issues related to (a)
innovation the strategic management of technology; (b)
management innovation, technology, and product development,
implementation, use, and diffusion; (c) intellectual
capital; (d) the integration of technically oriented
activities into organizations; (d) technical project
management; (e) behaviors and characteristics
of technical professionals; and (f) technological
forecasting and policies, predicting the impacts
of technologies on organizational forms and
commerce
a
Descriptions are based on the division and interest group descriptions provided by the Academy of Management (Source: http://aom.org/DIG/).
23
Example of family business sessions/papers at the
2017 AoM (in bold) and/or reviews or illustrative
articles of interest (in italics)
Chirico, F., Nordqvist, M., Colombo, G., & Mollona, E.
(2012). Simulating dynamic capabilities and value
creation in family firms: Is paternalism an “asset”
or a “liability”? Family Business Review, 25(3), 318-
338.
De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2012).
Research on technological innovation in family
firms: Present debates and future directions. Family
Business Review, 26(1), 10-31.
Illustrative research questions
How are individual experiences encoded
into routines and subsequently
assembled into capabilities? (Eggers &
Kaplan, 2013)
Knowing managers have disagreements
about strategic capabilities, how do they
become aware of and understand their
organizations’ capabilities (existing and
potential)? (Eggers & Kaplan, 2013)
How does purposeful action—including
the initiation of search behaviors to
accumulate new and useful routines—
affect capabilities that improve
innovation adaptation? (Eggers & Kaplan,
2013)
24 Family Business Review 31(1)
instance. While the roots of this theory lie in financial
economics (e.g., Jensen & Meckling, 1976), when this
perspective was applied to the study of family firms, its
assumptions and boundaries were broadened and clari-
fied revealing four distinct types of agentic costs: (1)
shareholders versus managers (classic agency), (2) con-
trolling/family shareholders versus noncontrolling
shareholders (principal–principal agency), (3) share-
holders versus creditors, and (4) family shareholders
versus family-at-large shareholders (Villalonga, Amit,
Trujillo, & Guzman, 2015). Similarly, the resource-
based view and stewardship theory found new energy
when considered with respect to family firms (see
reviews by Madison, Holt, Kellermanns, & Ranft, 2016;
Rau, 2014).
As we address more fully in the next section, the
review articles in this issue, along with the previous
review issue of Family Business Review (FBR)3 and
other similar outlets (e.g., the Sage Handbook of Family
Business), are likely to point to many opportunities for
family business research that crosses boundaries and
contributes to the broader field of management (and
beyond). To fulfill this promise, however, the prevailing
mind-set that family business is a niche context to study
management issues must change to reflect the reality
that any management theory is incomplete if its assump-
tions and boundaries have not been tested in family
firms. Theories emerging from research on family firms
are likely to apply to nonfamily firms as well, albeit in
modified forms. We conclude this introductory article
by sharing a few opportunities to deepen understanding
of the phenomena of interest to researchers in different
DIGs by building and testing theory in family firms.
Leveraging the Family Business to
Expand Management Research
Family business scholarship is postured to inform, lead,
enrich, and guide managerial research in unique ways
because of the “reciprocal influence of family and busi-
ness” in all organizations (Zahra & Sharma, 2004, p.
333). Researchers from various disciplines, such as eco-
nomics, sociology, and psychology, have acknowledged
the importance of exploring reciprocal relationship
between family structures, relationships, and events on
key individual and organizational outcomes (e.g.,
Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Shukla, Carney, & Gedajlovic,
2014; Von Schlippe & Schneewind, 2014). Individuals
within all firms—family-based organizations or not—
must navigate personal, and often emotion-laden, deli-
cate, relationships that can complicate many interactions
within and outside organizational boundaries (Shepherd,
2016). This suggests that many issues and phenomena
currently considered within the domain of family busi-
ness have broader implications. As such, family busi-
nesses can serve as a platform for study that can
potentially expose many untapped opportunities to
explore complex and nested relationships across levels
of study and time, using multitheoretic lenses.
The four articles in this issue4 critically examine the
gaps between “what we know” and “what we need to
know” regarding four important, yet distinct, topic
areas. These articles examine (1) how institutional the-
ory has helped resolve theoretical inconsistencies in
understanding family firm behaviors and can guide
deeper understanding of family firms; (2) how the
involvement of nonfamily members in family firms
present opportunities and challenges for the firm by
examining the literature across pre-employment-,
employment-, and outcome-related issues; (3) how the
introduction of psychological concepts help us under-
stand the mechanisms of advice giving and taking, using
an input–process–output framework to categorize and
integrate the literature; and (4) how a social psychologi-
cal lens enables understanding of the locus and drivers
of socioemotional wealth (SEW), proposing that SEW
will be understood more clearly if a social, motivational,
cognitive, and affective perspective is applied. Each
review reveals opportunities for future research includ-
ing insights into how family business research can con-
tribute to the “big tent” of management.
Article 1: The Intersection of Family Firms
and Institutional Contexts
Based on a review of 124 articles published in 24 top-
ranked journals over three decades, Soleimanof,
Rutherford, and Webb (2018) summarize the role of
institutional theory in explaining family businesses’
behavior and how this perspective can resolve contra-
dictory findings in the literature. They explain why the
interactions of family firms with their institutional con-
texts can be different from those of nonfamily firms. In
synthesizing the selected literature, the authors distin-
guish between studies aimed to understand the influence
of formal or informal institutions on family firms, from
Holt et al. 25
those directed to understand how family firms influence
these institutions. This review confirms three unproduc-
tive biases previously observed in the family business
literature: the neglect of family in research; a focus on
North America and Western Europe in research; and a
tendency to borrow from institutional theory more than
giving back to it (e.g., Jaskiewicz et al., 2017). Important
opportunities to simultaneously contribute to institu-
tional theory while deepening knowledge on family
firms are identified and highlighted.
The importance of context in firm behavior lies at the
core of institutional theory. This literature has long recog-
nized family as one of the seven key societal institutions
subject to reciprocal influence with business organiza-
tions (e.g., Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio,
1999); the other six are market, state, corporation, profes-
sion, religion, and community. Institutional theorists have
also had a long-standing interest in understanding coping
strategies of organizations operating amid “institutional
voids” when formal institutions that prescribe a frame-
work for economic transactions and maintaining order in
the system are absent or poorly developed (e.g.,
Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury,
2011). Also of interest to this literature have been the sub-
jects of balancing the demands of multiple coexisting
“institutional logics” that guide societal behaviors and
economic transactions, and how firms attempt to influ-
ence their environments (e.g., Goodrick & Reay, 2011;
Greenwood, Diaz, Li, & Lorente, 2010; Martin, Currie,
Weaver, Finn, & McDonald, 2017). By highlighting key
works along each of these dimensions, Soleimanof et al.
(2018) argue that family business scholars are well posi-
tioned to make important theoretical contributions to
institutional theory.
An intriguing line of research is to consider differ-
ences between family and cultural institutions in under-
studied regions of the world where family firms are the
predominant organizational form. For example, research
on family firms in Africa, the second largest continent of
the world with several fast-growing economies, could
shed light on how firms overcome institutional voids in
business support systems and structures that govern
resource availability. Or, how household enterprise sur-
vives and grows at the base of the pyramid where over
four billion of the world’s population lives for under $2 a
day? By bringing to attention the important early steps
focused in these directions (e.g., Gras & Nason, 2015;
Webb, Pryor, & Kellermanns, 2015), Soleimanof et al.
(2018) open many avenues for interesting projects that
may be particularly appealing to researchers in the
Critical Management Studies, Entrepreneurship,
Organization and Management Theory, Social Issues in
Management, and Organization and Natural Environment,
among others (see Table 1).
Article 2: Nonfamily Members in Family Firms
Tabor, Chrisman, Madison, and Vardaman (2018) sys-
tematically review 82 articles published in 34 journals
over three decades to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the roles, impact, and challenges asso-
ciated with the involvement of nonfamily members in
family firms. While the authors categorized the article
topics into three broad themes (pre-employment consid-
erations, employment considerations, and employment
outcomes), the literature is found to be quite fragmented
in terms of topics studied and theoretical perspectives
applied. For instance, in addition to some more common
theories that one might expect to be utilized in this lit-
erature (e.g., resource-based view, agency, stewardship),
there are also cases where less common perspectives
have been drawn upon including fairness, social
exchange, equity, leader–member exchange, and signal-
ing theories. Overall, these authors demonstrate the
diversity of the literature, highlighting that there is much
yet to be explored.
Among others, Tabor et al. (2018) identify several
opportunities to explore and better understand behav-
ioral issues such as justice, commitment, and human
resource (HR) management systems using family busi-
ness as a platform. For instance, behavioral scholars,
who typically define justice as employees’ perceptions
of the fairness of procedures and equitable outcomes of
resources (e.g., wages), have conducted little research
directed at understanding the nuances of when multiple
distribution rules or allocation principles may prevail at
different levels of organization (Rupp, Shapiro, Folger,
Skarlicki, & Shao, 2017). Individuals respond to injus-
tice by engaging in withdrawal behaviors such as lower
involvement and turnover, though it is recognized that
work rules and tight labor markets may dissuade such
deviant behaviors encouraging other substitute behav-
iors (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017). Yet
little is understood about substitute behaviors, their
influence on individuals, or how the informal culture
and climate may mitigate some of the formal inconsis-
tences that are instilled when multiple distribution rules
are present.
26 Family Business Review 31(1)
In family firms, nonfamily members may perceive
inequities in comparison to family members due to
greater accountability, expectations, and demands.
These perceived inequities may manifest through ineq-
uitable compensation or reward systems. Understanding
the antecedents and consequences of such perceptions
may add to insights for the justice research that consid-
ers equitably distributed outcomes as fair. Multiple dis-
tribution or allocation rules may be expected by
nonfamily members in family firms, so understanding
the fairness criteria applied by nonfamily employees
would contribute to the foundational equity tenets of
justice theory (e.g., Rupp et al., 2017). An examination
of such issues would not only extend our understanding
of the justice literature but would also offer a new per-
spective on why family businesses succeed despite the
often-discussed bifurcated or asymmetric treatment of
family and nonfamily members (Tabor et al., 2018).
Tabor et al.’s (2018) review also provides a road map
to contribute to organizational behavior and human
resource management research by isolating and examin-
ing the unique phenomena of interest to scholars inter-
ested in these domains of study. For example, in the
pre-employment phase, nonfamily background issues
are unique to the family firm, and have yet to find a
place in HR theory. Likewise, in the employment phase,
justice and socialization for nonfamily employees may
be quite different from such training for family employ-
ees. From an HR outcomes perspective, noneconomic
goals are unique to family firms and not yet integrated in
theory. These opportunities in family firm research can
expand our broad understanding of organizational
behavior and HR systems. In addition, many interesting
projects may be appealing to researchers in the
Managerial and Organizational Cognition DIGs as well
those more practice-oriented DIGs like Management
Consulting, Strategizing Activities and Practices, and
Health Care Management (see Table 1).
Article 3: Family Business Advising
Strike, Michel, and Kammerlander (2018) incorporate
the work done by family business scholars (52 articles)
with that of psychologists (36 articles) to explore the
microfoundations of advising within family businesses.
Advising research from the psychology literature has
built on behavioral psychology foundations (e.g., Simon,
1947), taken individual- or dyadic-level perspectives,
and examined the processes involved in advice taking
and advice giving. These processes are typically exam-
ined through experimental designs where participants
imagine themselves in the role of advisor (e.g., Effron &
Miller, 2015). In contrast, family business research is
commonly conducted with formal and informal advisors
to family firms and largely explores the relationship
between advising and its economic or noneconomic out-
comes at the firm or family levels. Strike et al. (2018)
point out that while different, each perspective provides
important insights into the nuances of advising and to
facilitate key outcomes for family firms. They suggest
that family business research could learn from the psy-
chologists regarding how advice is given, judged, and
weighted by individuals and families. In turn, psycholo-
gists could learn more from family firm advising schol-
ars regarding organization- and family-level outcomes
that are linked to timely and effective advising offered in
real problem-solving contexts.
Strike et al. (2018) also highlight the insightful quali-
tative studies that show how advisors can increase com-
petencies within family firms. This research is consistent
with several studies of microfoundations that have
examined knowledge-based assets like capabilities and
competences (Felin et al., 2015). Capabilities are often
said to reside at the organizational level and reflect the
organization’s capability to sense, shape, and seize
opportunities. Little attention, however, has been given
to the factors and processes that help disseminate these
capabilities throughout organizations, which offers up
several opportunities for future research. In short, this
review opens many interesting research directions for
management scholars, but particularly those who iden-
tify with the Careers, Conflict Management, and
Management Consulting, and Organizational Behavior
divisions of AoM.
Article 4: The Social Psychology of
Socioemotional Wealth
Jiang, Kellermanns, Munyon, and Morris (2018) ana-
lyze 416 papers published in 25 journals to examine a
topic at the heart of many family business studies: socio-
emotional wealth (SEW). They highlight how research-
ers have melded the behavioral and strategic traditions
of family business scholarship with long-standing psy-
chological assumptions about how family members’
affective, cognitive, motivational, and social consider-
ations operate within their business, shaping SEW. They
examine the extent to which SEW has become reified,
Holt et al. 27
which occurs when abstract concepts like SEW are
treated as something concrete and devoid of the varia-
tion and human behavior that causes them.
Jiang et al.’s (2018) discussion highlights two gener-
ally accepted ideas in family business research. First,
family firms differ from nonfamily firms and among one
another as they make strategic trade-offs in their pursuit
of both financial and nonfinancial outcomes. We add
that as nonfamily firms also face these same trade-offs,
insights from family business research may find applica-
tions in other organizations as well. For instance, entre-
preneurship research shows that social enterprises often
have dual identities because they pursue both utilitarian
(i.e., product-oriented, economic) and normative (i.e.,
people-oriented, social) goals (Moss, Short, Payne, &
Lumpkin, 2011). Second, family firms have varying
socioemotional concerns influenced by the extent of
ownership discretion to pursue those concerns and pre-
vailing capabilities to achieve the desired results. That
is, an understanding of the microfoundations of SEW or
the noneconomic utilities within firms furthers our
understanding of the broader construct of sustainable
organizational performance of key interest to strategic
management scholars (Richard, Devinney, Yip, &
Johnson, 2009). At the same time, this line of inquiry
can deepen our understanding of the microfoundations
that govern emotional resources and outcomes within
groups and firms. In addition to insights for the family
business literature, such research can shed light on group
emotions (Menges & Kilduff, 2015) or how entrepre-
neurs build emotional resources to further their ventures
and gain legitimacy (Shepherd, 2016). This perspective
of SEW opens opportunities to understand the flow of
emotions within and between groups in a firm and how
these forces shape strategic opportunities. The micro-
foundations perspectives taken by Jiang et al. (2018)
point to the potential of unpacking how firm-level vari-
ables originate, emerge, and change as a result of indi-
viduals and the interactions among them—topics of
interest to researchers in several DIGs such as Managerial
and Organizational Cognition, and Organization
Development and Change.
Moving Forward
The articles in this review, which systematically review
710 articles and are guided by two theoretical perspec-
tives (i.e., institutional theory, Soleimanof et al., 2018;
socioemotional wealth Jiang et al., 2018) and address
two key topics (i.e., nonfamily employees, Tabor et al.,
2018; advising, Strike et al., 2018), offer several excit-
ing research directions and, as importantly, insights into
how family business research can function as a bound-
ary-spanning platform for management research. To
fully capitalize on these opportunities, however, family
business researchers must challenge themselves to
clearly articulate how their research pursuits will not
only shed light on unique behaviors and dilemmas of
family firms but also enrich the scholarly conversations
being held across the Academy.
According to Hollenbeck (2008), two effective ways
to frame a contribution are consensus shifting and con-
sensus creating. Consensus shifting occurs when a manu-
script identifies widely held assumptions and challenges
them to modify existing theory. Consensus creation
occurs by clarifying the lines of debate and providing a
way forward. Reviews in this issue present opportunities
for scholars to both shift and create consensus for both
family business research specifically and management
research generally. Studies examining institutional com-
plexities, for instance, may shift the consensus regarding
the inconsistencies between family and other institu-
tional logics (Soleimanof et al., 2018). Similarly, widely
held assumptions regarding the need to have a uniform
set of rules to positively influence distributive justice can
be challenged by extending the work reviewed by Tabor
et al. (2018). Strike et al. (2018) and Jiang et al. (2018)
highlight opportunities to create consensus among schol-
ars on how macro-level variables originate and change
based on individual- or group-level influences.
Beyond the reviews in this issue, it is important to
contemplate the opportunities that can help family busi-
ness researchers move from the sidelines of academe to
a more central and foundational position. With an over-
lap of two major sociological systems of family and
business, the exploration of family firms opens unique
research opportunities for all management scholars that
can enrich management theory and guide practice. To
aid in this effort, Table 1 lists the domain of each DIG of
the AoM, highlights where family business research was
featured in the 2017 conference, and shares key articles
that may interest researchers in each domain. As such,
Table 1 provides a starting point for scholars to further
explore theories and phenomena that can both inform
and be informed by family business research. For exam-
ple, family business research clearly aligns with the
Careers Division’s interest in the development of indi-
viduals’ careers and the interactions between individuals
28 Family Business Review 31(1)
and work. Therefore, family business researchers might
respond to calls for studies that address how complex
intrapersonal identities—be they family, organizational,
or occupational—interact to facilitate personal and orga-
nizational outcomes (Anteby et al., 2016).
FBR’s first review introduction article noted that
“family business is on the threshold of its next era”
with the included reviews representing “the past, pres-
ent, and future of family business research” (Short,
Sharma, Lumpkin, & Pearson, 2016, p. 12). Building
on this legacy, it is our hope that the articles in this
issue can be leveraged to fulfill the aspirations that
“family business scholars are poised to help build the
foundation of knowledge” for topics that have “posi-
tive implications for individuals, families, organiza-
tions, and societies” (Shepherd, 2016, p. 156). Family
business researchers can take the conversations across
the spectrum of the AoM to places where they have
not yet gone by creating and shifting consensus in
important directions.
Notes
1. For the most recent numbers, please check: http://aom.
org/about/
2. Information provided by 2017 Entrepreneurship
Division’s Program Chair Don Neubaum.
3. Review articles published in FBR are available on the
journals’ website: http://journals.sagepub.com/topic/
collections/fbr-1-selected_review_articles/fbr
4. Like the previous review issue (Family Business Review,
March 2016), the articles featured in this special issue
emerged from an open call for proposals. After the ini-
tial screening of proposals, a select group of authors were
invited to develop and submit fully developed manu-
scripts that went through an extensive multiround, dou-
ble-blind, peer-review process leading to the acceptance
of these four papers.
References
Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of
family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embedded-
ness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573-
596.
Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016). Three
lenses on occupations and professions in organizations:
Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Management
Annals, 10, 183-244.
Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but not the same:
Differentiating corporate responsibility from sustainabil-
ity. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 105-149.
Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2016).
A systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations.
Academy of Management Annals, 10, 245-318.
Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around
organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 671-
727.
Brundin, E., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2014). Emotions in family
firms. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.),
Sage handbook of family business (pp. 529-548). London,
England: Sage.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics:
Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform.
Academy of Management Annals, 6, 135-210.
Chirico, F., Nordqvist, M., Colombo, G., & Mollona, E.
(2012). Simulating dynamic capabilities and value cre-
ation in family firms: Is paternalism an “asset” or a “liabil-
ity”? Family Business Review, 25, 318-338.
Colli, A., Howorth, C., & Rose, M. (2013). Long-term per-
spectives on family business. Business History, 55, 841-
854.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A.
V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with
theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals,
11, 479-516.
De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2012).
Research on technological innovation in family firms:
Present debates and future directions. Family Business
Review, 26, 10-31.
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Cognition and capabili-
ties: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Management
Annals, 7, 295-340.
Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2015). Do as I say, not as I’ve
done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of
advising others against it. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 131, 16-32.
Evert, R. E., Martin, J. A., McLeod, M. S., & Payne, G. T.
(2016). Empirics in family business research: Progress,
challenges and the path ahead. Family Business Review,
29, 17-43.
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoun-
dations movement in strategy and organization theory.
Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575-632.
Feliu, N., & Botero, I. C. (2016). Philanthropy in family enter-
prises: A review of literature. Family Business Review,
29, 121-141.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back
in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In:
W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institution-
alism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gagné, M., Sharma, P., & De Massis, A. (2014). The study
of organizational behavior in family business. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23, 643-656.
Holt et al. 29
George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 1-6.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying
good management practices. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 1, 107-120.
Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institu-
tional logics: Changes in the professional work of phar-
macists. Work and Occupations, 38, 372-416.
Gras, D., & Nason, R. S. (2015). Bric by bric: The role of the
family household in sustaining a venture in impoverished
Indian slums. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 546-563.
Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010).
The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogene-
ity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21,
521-539.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., &
Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and orga-
nizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5,
317-371.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the academy actually mat-
tered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11-16.
Hollenbeck, J. R. (2008). The role of editing in knowledge
development: Consensus shifting and consensus cre-
ation. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinus, & W. H.
Starbuck (Eds.), Journal editing: Opening the black box
(pp. 16-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Holt, D. T., Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Barnett, T. (2017).
Family firm(s) outcomes model: Structuring financial and
nonfinancial outcomes across the family and firm. Family
Business Review, 30, 182-202.
Hutcheson, J. O., Jaffe, D., & Gilliland, K. (2013). Addiction in
the family enterprise. Family Business Review, 26, 104-107.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspira-
tional framework for strategic human resource manage-
ment. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 1-56.
James, A. E., Jennings, J. E., & Breitkruz, R. (2012). Worlds
apart? Re-bridging the distance between family science
and family business research. Family Business Review,
25, 87-108.
Jang, D., Elfenbein, H., & Bottom, W. (2018). More than a
phase: Form and features of general theory of negotiation.
Academy of Management Annals, 12, 318-356.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., Shanine, K., & Kacmar, M. (2017).
Introducing the family: A review of family science with
implications for management research. Academy of
Management Annals, 11, 309-341.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm:
Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership struc-
ture. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Jiang, D. S., Kellermanns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., & Morris, M.
L. (2018). More than meets the eye: A review and future
directions for the social psychology of socioemotional
wealth. Family Business Review, 31, 125-157.
Jimenez, R. M. (2009). Research on women in family firms:
Current status and future directions. Family Business
Review, 22, 53-64.
Kaye, K. (1996). When the family business is a sickness.
Family Business Review, 9, 347-368.
Kelman, S. (2007). Public administration and organization
studies. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 225-267.
Khatri, N., Tsang, E. W., & Begley, T. M. (2006). Cronyism: A
cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(1), 61-75.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical rel-
evance of management research: Turning the debate on
relevance into a rigorous scientific research program.
Academy of Management Annals, 9, 143-233.
Kossek, E., & Lautsch, B. (2018). Work-life flexibility for
whom? Occupational status and work-life inequal-
ity in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of
Management Annals, 12, 5-36.
Madison, K., Holt, D. T., Kellermanns, F. W., & Ranft, A.
L. (2016). Viewing family firm behavior and governance
through the lens of agency and stewardship theories.
Family Business Review, 29(1), 65-93.
Marquis, C., & Raynard, M. (2015). Institutional strategies in
emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9,
291-335.
Martin, G., Currie, G., Weaver, S., Finn, R., & McDonald,
R. (2017). Institutional complexity and individual
responses: delineating the boundaries of partial auton-
omy. Organization Studies, 38, 103-127.
McKee, D., Madden, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston,
K. A. (2014). Conflicts in family firms: The good and
the bad. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.),
Sage handbook of family business (pp. 514-528). London,
England: Sage.
Menges, J. I., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Group emotions: Cutting
the Gordian knots concerning terms, levels of analysis, and
processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9, 845-928.
Miller, D., & Le-Breton Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the
long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great
family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Moss, T. W., Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Lumpkin, G. T.
(2010). Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory
study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 805-830.
Payne, G. T., Pearson, A. W., & Carr, J. C. (2016). Process and
variance modeling: Linking research questions to meth-
ods in family business research. Family Business Review,
30, 11-18.
Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A. (2014). The internationalization
of family firms: A critical review and integrative model.
Family Business Review, 27, 103-125.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016).
Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organiza-
30 Family Business Review 31(1)
tions: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management
Annals, 10, 65-171.
Rau, S. B. (2014). Resource based view of the firm. In L.
Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook
of family business (pp. 321-339). London, England: Sage.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G.
(2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards
a methodological best practice. Journal of Management,
35, 718-804.
Roberson, Q., Holmes, O., & Perry, J. (2017). Transforming
research on diversity and firm performance: A dynamic
capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Annals,
11, 189-216.
Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research
strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between
historical theory and organization theory. Academy of
Management Review, 39, 250-274.
Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., &
Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis of the conceptualiza-
tion and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time
for reassessment? Academy of Management Annals, 11,
919-959.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the
great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between
practitioners and academics. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 340-355.
Salvato, C., Minichill, A., & Piccarreta, R. (2012). Faster route
to the CEO Suite: Nepotism or managerial proficiency?
Family Business Review, 25, 206-224.
Salvato, C., Sharma, P., & Wright, M. (2015). Learning pat-
terns and approaches to family business education around
the world: Issues, insights and research agenda. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 14, 307-320.
Sharma, P. (2010). Advancing the 3Rs of family business
scholarship: Rigor, relevance, reach. In A. Stewart, G. T.
Lumpkin, & J. Katz (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneur-
ship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 12, pp. 383-400).
Bingley, England: Emerald.
Sharma, P., Salvato, C., & Reay, T. (2014). Temporal dimen-
sions of family enterprise research. Family Business
Review, 27, 10-19.
Shepherd, D. A. (2016). An emotions perspective for advanc-
ing the fields of family business and entrepreneurship:
Stocks, flows, reactions, and responses. Family Business
Review, 29, 151-158.
Short, J. C., Sharma, P., Lumpkin, G. T., & Pearson, A. W.
(2016). Oh, the places we’ll go! Reviewing past, pres-
ent, and future possibilities in family business research.
Family Business Review, 29, 11-16.
Shukla, P. P., Carney, M., & Gedajlovic, E. (2014). Economic
theories of family firms. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, &
P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business (pp.
100-118). London, England: Sage.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of deci-
sion-making processes in administrative organizations.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Soleimanof, S., Rutherford, M. W., & Webb, J. W. (2018).
The intersection of family firms and institutional contexts:
A review and agenda for future research. Family Business
Review, 31, 32-53.
Strike, V. M., Michel, A., & Kammerlander, N. (2018).
Unpacking the black box of family business advising:
Insights from psychology. Family Business Review, 31,
80-124.
Tabor, W., Chrisman, J. J., Madison, K., & Vardaman, J. M.
(2018). Nonfamily members in family firms: A review and
future research agenda. Family Business Review, 31, 54-79.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the
historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive
succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-
1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801-843.
Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical
review of current trends and future directions. Academy of
Management Annals, 6, 87-134.
Tsao, C., Chen, S., Lin, C., & Hyde, W. (2009). Founding-
family ownership and firm performance: The role of high-
performance work systems. Family Business Review, 22,
319-332.
Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J. A. (2016). Taking historical embed-
dedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance
strategy process and practice research. Academy of
Management Review, 41, 633-657.
Van Gils, A., Dibrell, C., Neubaum, D. O., & Craig, J. B.
(2014). Social issues in the family enterprise. Family
Business Review, 27, 193-205.
Vermeulen, F. (2007). I shall not remain insignificant: Adding
a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 754-761.
Villalonga, B., Amit, R., Trujillo, M., & Guzman, A. (2015).
Governance of family firms. American Review of
Financial Economics, 7, 635-654.
Von Schlippe, A., & Schneewind, K. A. (2014). Theories from
family psychology and family therapy. In L. Melin, M.
Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of family
business (pp. 47-65). London: England: Sage.
Webb, J. W., Pryor, C. G., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015).
Household enterprise in base-of-the-pyramid markets:
The influence of institutions and family embeddedness.
Africa Journal of Management, 1, 115-136.
Whetten, D., Foreman, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2014).
Organizational identity and family business. In L. Melin,
M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of fam-
ily business (pp. 480-497). London: England: Sage.
Wortman, M. S., Jr. (1994). Theoretical foundations for fam-
ily-owned businesses: A conceptual and research based
paradigm. Family Business Review, 7, 3-27.
Holt et al. 31
Zahra, S. A., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research:
A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-
346.
Zhao, E. Y., & Wry, T. (2016). Not all inequality is equal:
Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to under-
stand microfinance lending to women. Academy of
Management Journal, 59, 1994-2020.
Author Biographies
Daniel T. Holt is an associate professor of Management in
the College of Business at Mississippi State University. He
received his PhD in Management from Auburn University.
Prior to joining the faculty at Mississippi State University, he
served in the U.S. Air Force, serving as an engineer in Central
America, Asia, and Middle East. Daniel’s research interests
include family business, entrepreneurship, measurement meth-
ods, and organizational change.
Allison W. Pearson is the giles distinguished professor and
associate vice president for Academic Affairs at Mississippi
State University.
G. Tyge Payne is the Georgie G. Snyder professor of Strategic
Management and a Jerry S. Rawls Professor of Management at
Texas Tech University. He currently serves as the Editor of
Family Business Review.
Pramodita Sharma is a professor and the Daniel Clark
Sanders Chair in Family Business at the Grossman School of
Business, University of Vermont. A visiting professor at the
Kellogg School of Management’s Center for Family
Enterprises, she served as the editor of Family Business
Review from 2009 to 2017.