Upload
hanhu
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARE FAMILY BUSINESSES DIFFERENT?
A COMPARISON OF MANAGERIAL TRANSITIONS
Mr Max Smith
Lecturer, School of Commerce,
The Flinders University of South Australia,
GPO Box 2100,
Adelaide South Australia 5001.
Telephone: +61 8 82013897
Facsimile: +61 8 82012644
Email: [email protected]
SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
RESEARCH PAPER SERIES: 03-9
ISSN: 1441-3906
1
INTRODUCTION
The transition from entrepreneurial to professional management among family
businesses has received little attention from researchers in Australia, despite the fact
that deficiencies in the managerial abilities of such firms is reportedly one of the
primary causes of their premature failure (Boeker & Karichalil, 2002; Flamholtz,
1986; Moores & Mula, 2000). This is surprising given the relative importance of
family business to the Australian economy. For example, the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS), in its Business Longitudinal Survey (BLS), determined that
approximately half of all Australian businesses are family businesses (ABS, 1997). In
other countries, the percentage may be higher, depending on the definitions used. For
instance, in the US nearly 80% of businesses are considered family firms and these
‘businesses produce half of the U.S. gross national product and employ half of the
nation’s workforce’ (Moores & Mula, 2000, p. 92).
To help address the identified gap in the literature, this study attempts to determine
the differences, if any, between the management transition processes of family
businesses compared to non-family businesses. This is achieved by building on a
study previously undertaken by Smith (2003) that empirically examined the transition
of Australian manufacturing Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) from
entrepreneurial to professional management.
PAST RESEARCH
The Management Transition of SMEs
According to Mintzberg and Waters (1990), all companies will professionalise their
management with increasing size; and a significant body of literature related to SMEs
outlines the managerial implications of the development of the small firm from start-
up to growth and beyond (Adizes, 1999; Hofer & Charan, 1984; Loan-Clarke et al.,
2000; Olson & Terpstra, 1992; Smith & Whittaker, 1998; Thomson & Gray, 1999).
As Boeker and Karichalil (2002, p.818) put it, ‘theorists studying the life cycle of
start-up firms have maintained that management styles and capabilities must change
as a firm evolves from an entrepreneurial focus on creating a market opportunity to
operation as an established business’. Accordingly, two key determinants of the most
appropriate management system for any given firm is its size and the stage of the
2
organizational life cycle it has attained. For the vast majority of firms, these two
determinants will be closely related to each other.
The essence of life cycle theory is that firms progress through a number of distinct
phases or stages as they grow and develop, and a relatively large number of theories
and models have been proposed to explain the process (Adizes 1999; Churchill &
Lewis 1983; Dodge & Robbins 1992). The number of stages of development that
firms are said to progress through range from a minimum of three to the ten proposed
by Adizes (1989). Hanks et al (1993) provide an excellent comparison of the
important Life-Cycle Stage Models. An associated theme for much of this material is
that the period where a firm moves from one stage to another is often associated with
organisational instability (Moores & Mula, 2000; Mount et al, 1993). Additionally,
studies of the organisational life cycle suggest that ‘as organizations progress through
growth stages, they become progressively more specialized’ (Hanks & Chandler,
1994, p.24).
A common theme for much of this material then, is the eventual need for a transition
from entrepreneurial management to professional management. In this context,
entrepreneurial management is characterised by the centrality of the founder, ad hoc
planning and control, an informal structure, very basic budgeting practices and a
‘loosely defined, “family” – oriented culture’ (Flamholtz, 1986, p.42), among other
things. In contrast to this, professional management is said to be more profit oriented,
to have less focus on an individual as leader, to have in place formal planning,
organization and control programs and to utilise more sophisticated budgeting
techniques. In addition, this type of management is characterised by a well-defined
culture and consultative or participative leadership styles (Flamholtz, 1986).
The point in an SME’s life cycle when transition is appropriate is a contentious issue
(Olson & Terpstra, 1992), but a term used by some scholars (Clifford, 1973; Whisler,
1988) to describe a company that has reached this point is the ‘threshold firm’.
According to Daily and Dalton (1992, p.25) the ‘threshold firm is characterized by a
firm that is at (or near) the point of transition from entrepreneurial to professional
management’. Based on his experience as a consultant to small growing businesses,
Flamholtz (1986) proposed that the transition point of the threshold firm occurs when
3
the SME’s sales reach approximately 10 million US dollars. Beyond this level of
sales, it is very difficult for the founding entrepreneur ‘to control all that is happening’
(Flamholtz 1986, p.25) in the company.
Another relevant proposition, put forward by Montoya et al (1993), is their ‘brick
wall’ contention. Ostensibly related solely to the marketing manager, but in fact
dealing with the full functional areas of professional management, they take an
essentially psychological approach, outlining the internal resistance many founders
may have to the transition to professional management. As they put it, ‘getting over
the ‘brick wall’ requires significant shifts in the entrepreneur’s basic orientation’
(Montoya et al, 1993 p. 209). After ‘shadowing’ fifty nine relevant entrepreneurs for
1-2 weeks and utilising discussion sessions, they concluded the ‘most likely cause of
failure, after start-up difficulty has been overcome, are problems encountered in the
transition from one-person, entrepreneurial, organic style of management to a
functionally organised, professional management team’ (Montoya et al, 1993, p.219).
However, in contrast to Flamholtz (1986), they also concluded that the threshold or
transition point occurs when sales range between 1.5 and 2 million US dollars. The
literature on the transition point of growing SMEs from entrepreneurial to
professional management is therefore subject to ambiguity.
An apparent weakness in the literature relates to how transitions between clearly
identified stages of growth are managed by the SME (Ennis, 1999). That is, although
much work has been carried out on identifying the various stages and even suggesting
when a transition between stages is necessary, very little has been written on how the
owner manager/CEO should implement these changes or indeed what the nature of
the transition process itself is.
Mount et al (1993) attempt to redress this situation by classifying transitions between
stages as a life-cycle phase in their own right. According to their five-stage model of
small business development, there are three relatively stable stages of growth
interspersed with two relatively unstable transition phases. The initial stable state has
the business ‘owner-operated’, which after the first transition becomes ‘owner-
managed’, which after the second transition heads toward full functional management.
According to Mount et al (1993) the transition to an owner-managed organization
4
requires the small business owner to share his/her decision-making authority and
‘resistance to doing so can result in a long stressful transition’ (Mount et al, 1993,
p.114). Similarly, the transition to emergent functional management, with the
‘addition of specialists and/or middle managers will demand substantially more
delegation of decision-making, which can pose difficult problems’ (Mount et al.,
1993, p.114) for small business owners. According to Mount et al (1993), transitions
are explicitly designated as separate phases that are inherently unstable, primarily
because of the owner/entrepreneur’s perceived difficulty adapting to the professional
management environment while at the same time remaining focussed on ‘the practices
necessary to permit growth and survival’ (Dodge & Robbins, 1992, p.27).
Smith’s (2003) Transition Model of Australian Manufacturing SMEs
Smith’s (2003) research applied a number of management related variables available
from Australia’s Business Longitudinal survey (BLS) to the development taxonomy
of Australian manufacturing SMEs created by McMahon (2001). This taxonomy was
developed by applying cluster analysis to a longitudinal panel of 871 manufacturing
SMEs, each of whom had provided four consecutive years of data via Australia’s
BLS. This survey was undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for
the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 on behalf of the federal government and copies of the
questionnaires can be obtained from the ABS. The resultant development pathways
of Australian manufacturing SMEs determined by McMahon (2001) fell into three
categories – low, moderate and high growth, and appear to be consistent with the life
cycle stages of SME growth literature generated in the past.
By dividing the 871 cases used in McMahon’s (2001) study into the three
development pathways identified and then empirically examining the data derived
from applying management related variables to the cases in each of these groups,
Smith (2003) proposed the professional management transition model shown in figure
1.
The model shows that typically, as Australian manufacturing SMEs progress through
development pathways, they also embark on the path to professional management.
The beginning of this process occurs at point A where, on average, a significant
increase in the number of outside managerial staff employed by moderate growth
5
SMEs compared to low growth SMEs is apparent. This phenomenon is consistent
with the psychological ‘brick wall’ and threshold point proposed by Montoya et al
(1993). Although there is a quantum leap in the number of managerial staff employed
at this point, these SMEs generally do not yet have management professionals
covering all functional areas such as, for example, marketing. In addition, the vast
majority of founders are still working within the SME at this point (Smith, 2003).
At point C, however, although the percentage of SMEs utilizing other managerial staff
has barely changed (i.e. the percentage is essentially the same for both moderate and
high growth SMEs), the average number of these staff employed per SME has almost
doubled. In addition, it is at this point where a relatively large number of founders
decide to exit from the direct management of the business and there is evidence of a
jump in marketing professionals’ involvement in these companies (represented by the
line BC). Combined, the findings tend to signify that SMEs at this point have
achieved a relatively complete functional management system that has evolved and
progressively grown from its initial beginnings at point A (Smith, 2003).
Figure 1
Professional Management Transition Model
10
9 C
8
7 B
6
5 A
l
Number of other
managerial staff
4
3
2
1
Low
Brick Wal
6
Moderate High
SME GROWTH PATHS
Smith (2003) further proposed that point C was demographically consistent with the
threshold point outlined by Flamholtz (1986) and that this apparent contradiction with
Montoya et al (1993) could be resolved if the full functional management point (C)
was distinguished from the threshold point (A). Smith (2003) also demonstrated that
this model is consistent with, and could be applied to, Mount et al’s (1993) Stages of
Development Model.
The Management Transition of Family Businesses
The study of the transition of family business management systems as they grow has
many similarities with the SME literature outlined earlier. This is understandable
given that family businesses, particularly in their early stages of development,
generally form a subset of the SMEs under examination (Chromie et al 1995).
Accordingly, organizational life cycle theory has been applied to family businesses
(Holland & Oliver 1992; Hollander & Elman 1988; Moores & Barrett 2002; Moores
& Mula 2000; Ward 1987), as has the study of organizational growth and the
consequent need for the specialization of management (Gersick et al 1999; McGivern
1989; Reid & Adams 2001; Van den Berghe & Carchon 2002; Ward 1987). The
process of professionalisation in family businesses has also been the subject of
attention (Craig & Moores 2002; Dyer 1989; King et al 2001; Moores & Barrett
2002; Moores & Mula 2000), as well as the management of the resulting transition
(Gersick et al 1999; Greiner 1997; Moores & Mula 2000; Whisler 1988).
In general, many of the findings from these studies are similar to those generated by
the SME literature. However, family businesses, in some areas, have also been
observed to have significant managerial differences from non-family businesses. For
example, the governance of family businesses is considered more complex when
compared to non-family businesses (King et al 2001; Reid & Adams 2001; Sharma et
al 1997; Westhead et al 2001), essentially because, unlike non-family firms, ‘the
family firm consists of two social systems – the family and the firm – which, although
interwoven, frequently have conflicting aims and ideals (Barry 1989, p.302). In
addition, the tenure of family CEOs has been determined to generally be significantly
7
longer than the tenure of CEOs in non-family businesses (Barry 1989; Cromie et al
1995; Reid & Adams 2001). For example, Van den Berghe & Carchon (2002) found
that on average, general managers remain appointed 6.3 years longer in Belgian
family firms than in Belgian non-family firms. Similarly, Westhead et al (2001)
found that CEOs of English family businesses were on average, appointed for 7.6
years longer than CEOs of English non-family businesses. These findings are
important particularly given that Schulze et al’s (2001) study of American family
businesses found a negative relationship between CEO tenure and firm performance.
In addition, family firms are said to be characterized by smaller management teams
than non-family businesses (Cromie et al 1995), although Westhead et al’s (2001)
study found no significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore, Reid and
Adams’ (2001) comparative study of Northern Ireland family businesses found that in
comparison to non-family businesses, family firms are less likely to have
owner/directors who hold a university degree, among other things.
Reid and Adams’ (2001) study also found that a smaller percentage of family
businesses had a business plan compared to non-family businesses, but the difference
(65% versus 77%) was apparently not significant. Similarly, Westhead’s (1997)
study provided weak support for the ‘proposition that planning-related issues would
be emphasized by non-family rather than family companies’ (p. 145). Both these
studies, although providing limited support for Chaganti and Schneer’s (1994) finding
that planning is less prevalent in family firms, are perhaps not enough to override the
findings of Cromie et al’s (1995) study that ‘found that planning was particularly
prevalent in family firms with a long-term focus on securing family wealth’
(Westhead 1997, p. 153). The literature on planning within family businesses is
therefore another area of ambiguity.
HYPOTHESES
Given the preceding material, the overall hypothesis for this study is as follows:
H0: There is no difference between the managerial development processes of
family businesses and non-family businesses
H1: There is a difference between the managerial development processes of
family businesses and non-family businesses
8
However, a number of sub-hypotheses can be proposed for investigation. Namely:
H2: The average tenure of family business CEOs is longer than the average
tenure of non-family business CEOs;
H3: On average, family businesses have smaller management teams than non-
family businesses;
H4: On average, directors of family businesses are less likely to have
university degrees than directors of non-family businesses;
H5: On average, family businesses will utilize a business plan less often than
non-family businesses.
RESEARCH METHOD
To test these hypotheses, the study divided the sample of 871 Australian
manufacturing SMEs used in Smith’s (2003) study into family businesses and non-
family businesses and then applied the same management related variables of the
original study to the two groups in order to compare and contrast the results. The use
of this approach is considered justified given the relative paucity of comparative
studies between family and non-family businesses, as well as between high growth
and low growth companies (Mertz et al 1994; Sharma et al 1997; Westhead 1997).
The definition of a family business used in this study is in accord with that put
forward by Gasson et al (1988) and Ram and Holliday (1993). Namely, ‘whether
members of an “emotional kinship group” perceive their firm as being a family
business’ (Westhead et al 2001, p. 370). This definition is adopted as a matter of
convenience rather than design as this is a specific question contained within the BLS,
the data source for this study. The use of other definitions, such as, the family group
owning more than 50% of the business’ shares or whether a firm is managed by
members from the family group (Westhead et al, 2001) is prevented by the absence of
appropriate screening questions in the BLS.
As mentioned earlier, the cases used in this and Smith’s (2003) study were derived
from McMahon’s (2001) study that extracted a development taxonomy from
manufacturing SMEs in Australia’s BLS. The manufacturing sector was chosen
because of its importance to the Australian economy and because dealing with one
9
sector reduces cross industry differences. Furthermore, these cases were all legally
organized as proprietary companies. McMahon (2001) considered this appropriate
because these companies are generally of more interest to SME researchers and
because his primary concern was ‘with SME growth and development, and it is more
likely that these will be evident in businesses legally organized as proprietary
companies’ (McMahon 2001, p. 200).
The cases used in this study were all firms employing fewer than 200 persons and
were ‘alive’ for the four financial years 1994-95 to 1997-98. However, only the data
generated in the last three years of this period was utilized because the question
identifying the firm as a family business or not, was not introduced until the second
year of the longitudinal survey. In addition, not all of the variables used in this study
were available for all three years. This is because the questionnaire itself was subject
to minor modification each year in response to the informational needs and concerns
of interested stakeholders and the compact the Australian Bureau of Statistics put
forward that it would not increase the number of variables being collected over the
period of the survey. This meant that any new questions could only be added at the
expense of existing questions.
Variables used in this research are either categorical in nature or, if metric, have
irregular distributional properties (that is, they are non-normally distributed).
Transformation of metric variables to produce normal distributions is avoided because
of difficulties of interpretation often created by such procedures. Thus, non-
parametric/distribution free techniques of statistical analysis, such as Chi Square and
Kruskial-Wallis tests, are employed exclusively.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In examining the results, it should be kept in mind that the BLS was not specifically
designed to be a marketing research instrument and, as such, the results presented
here relate to items that were available for analysis rather than those that would
ideally be obtained. Table 1 shows that, for family businesses, there is no significant
difference between the percentage of SMEs with working proprietors, working
partners or working directors over the three growth paths for each of the three years
10
covered. This is in stark contrast to the non-family businesses where significant
negative differences between growth paths are evident. Unlike family firms then, as
non-family firms’ growth increases the number of working founders decreases.
However, the biggest difference occurs between the moderate and high growth paths
implying that this process is accelerated in the upper growth paths.
Table 1
Percentage (number) of SMEs who had working proprietors, working partners or working directors
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square stat
1996 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
96.3% (336)
82.6% (228)
92.8% (90)
66.0% (70)
87.5% (7)
45.2% (14)
3.242 2 .198
28.131 2 <.0005
1997 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
92.9% (325)
81.3% (226)
90.7% (88)
64.8% (68)
87.5% (7)
41.9% (13)
.753 2 .686
29.019 2 <.0005
1998 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
91.7% (321)
81.0% (226)
89.7% (87)
57.1% (60)
87.5% (7)
48.4% (15)
.528 2 .768
31.601 2 <.0005
Mean Fam. Bus. Non Fam Difference
93.6% 81.6% 12.0%
91.1% 62.6% 28.5%
87.5% 45.2% 42.3%
Table 2 shows very little difference between family and non-family businesses’
utilization of other full-time managerial employees over growth paths. Both groups
display significant negative differences over growth paths with the biggest difference
evident between the low growth and moderate growth stages. This is similar to
Smith’s (2003) findings for SMEs in general indicating a very strong tendency to
utilise other managerial staff once moderate growth levels are reached relative to low
growth levels and is consistent with Montoya et al’s (1993) ‘brick wall’ proposition.
The closeness of the moderate and high growth path figures in table 2 should not be
interpreted as meaning moderate and high growth SMEs have the same level of ‘other
managerial employees’. As shown in table 3, the average median number of other
11
Table 2
Percentage (number) of SMEs utilising other full-time managerial employees
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square stat.
1996 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
46.9% (164)
56.3% (157)
93.8% (91)
95.3% (101)
87.5% (7)
93.5% (29)
71.549 2 <.0005
64.085 2 <.0005
1997 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
51.4% (180)
60.9% (170)
93.8% (91)
97.2% (103)
100% (8)
100% (31)
62.665 2 <.0005
63.612 2 <.0005
1998 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
54.9% (192)
60.9% (170)
94.8% (92)
95.3% (101)
100% (8)
96.8% (30)
57.372 2 <.0005
55.301 2 <.0005
Mean Fam. Bus. Non Fam Difference
51.1% 59.4% (8.3%)
93.8% 95.9% (2.1%)
95.8% 96.8% (1.0)
managerial staff for high growth SMEs is significantly higher than the average
median number of these staff for moderate growth SMEs, particularly for family
businesses. So although there is a huge jump between low and moderate/high SMEs
Table 3
Median (mean) number of other full-time managerial employees
Low
Growth Moderate Growth
High Growth
Kruskial-Wallis stat.
1996 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
0 (1.2)
1 (1.5)
4 (4.4)
5 (5.5)
9 (9.5)
7 (8.1)
117.861 2 <.0005
163.318 2 <.0005
1997 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
1 (1.3)
1 (1.7)
4 (4.8)
5 (5.7)
8.5 (10.3)
8 (8.8)
125.06 2 <.0005
169.037 2 <.0005
1998 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
1 (1.4)
1 (1.7)
4 (4.6)
5 (5.5)
9.5 (11.3)
8 (9.8)
118.243 2 <.0005
153.822 2 <.0005
Mean Fam. Bus. Non Fam Difference
0.7 1.0
(0.3)
4.0 5.0
(1.0)
9.0 7.7 1.3
12
in the number who employ other managerial staff (from roughly half to nearly all
SMEs), on average, the actual number of staff employed increases with growth.
There is also a difference between family and non-family businesses evident in table
3, in that, on average, the use of additional other full-time managerial employees
across growth paths appears more linear than is the case for non-family businesses.
That is, although there is a significant jump in numbers (3.3) between low growth and
moderate growth family businesses, unlike non-family firms there is an even bigger
jump (5) between moderate and high growth family businesses who, on average, hire
an additional 2.3 other full-time managerial employees than high growth non-family
firms.
Table 4, showing the percentage of managerial staff with tertiary qualifications of a
business nature for 1994-95 displays significant positive differences between growth
paths for both groups, as does table 5, showing the percentage of newly employed
full-time managers for the same year. Both of these results are consistent with the
‘brick wall’ concept mentioned earlier.
Table 4
Percentage (number) of SMEs having managerial staff with tertiary
qualifications in business management, commerce or administration (1994-95)
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square stat.
Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
Difference
32.6% (114)
38.7% (108)
(6.1%)
63.9% (62)
75.5% (80)
(11.6%)
100% (8)
90.3% (28)
9.7%
42.977 2 <.0005
61.372 2 <.0005
However, although table 5 shows very similar results between family and non-family
firms, in relation to the number of firms having staff with tertiary business
qualifications, the data in table 4 once again shows a more linear progression across
growth paths for family businesses relative to non-family firms. In particular, the
jump between moderate growth and high growth family firms is more than double
13
that of non-family businesses and is more than the jump between low growth and
moderate growth family firms.
Table 5
Percentage (number) of SMEs with a full-time manager, newly employed in 1994-95
Low
Growth Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square stat.
Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
Difference
10.6% (37)
16.1% (45)
(5.5%)
29.9% (29)
32.1% (34)
(2.2)
50% (4)
51.6% (16)
(1.6%)
29.285 2 <.0005
26.826 2 <.0005
Table 6 shows that for non-family firms, the percentage of SMEs using formal
strategic or business plans is significantly positively related to growth paths, with
moderate and high growth firms, on average, nearly twice as likely than low growth
firms to make use of them. The big difference between the low growth and
moderate/high growth non-family businesses is once again similar to Smith’s (2003)
findings for SMEs in general and adds further support to the ‘brick wall’ contention.
Table 6
Percentage (number) of SMEs that used a formal strategic or business plan
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square stat.
1995/96 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
28.9% (101)
30.8% (86)
47.4% (46)
63.2% (67)
37.5% (3)
51.6% (16)
11.922 2 .003
35.072 2 <.0005
1996/97 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
26.9% (94)
29.7% (83)
41.2% (40)
53.8% (57)
25% (2)
64.5% (20)
7.587 2 .023
28.339 2 <.0005
1997/98 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
28.3% (99)
34.4% (96)
35.1% (34)
56.6% (60)
50% (4)
64.5% (20)
3.183 2 .204
22.272 2 <.0005
Mean Fam. Bus.
Non Fam Difference
28.0%
31.6% (3.6%)
41.2%
57.9% (16.7%)
37.5%
60.2% (22.7%)
14
The results for family firms are very different however. Although there is evidence of
a jump between the low growth and moderate growth firms, the level of the jump is,
on average, only approximately half that of non-family businesses. In addition,
although the percentage of moderate and high growth family firms using formal
business plans are relatively close, as is the case for non-family firms; the percentage
of non-family firms in these upper paths using formal business plans is about 50 per
cent higher than the corresponding family businesses. In fact, for all three growth
paths, family firms are, on average, less likely to use formal business plans than non-
family businesses and the gap between the two groups increases with each stage.
Table 7 shows positive differences across growth paths for the percentage of non-
family firms comparing performance with other businesses. However, in this case ,
the biggest difference is between the high and moderate growth firms. Given that the
use of performance comparisons is the hallmark of a marketing professional, this
finding is consistent with the contention that high growth non-family businesses are
Table 7
Percentage (number) of SMEs that compared performance with other businesses
Low Growth
Moderate Growth
High Growth
Chi Square
1995/96 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
18.9% (60)
16.8% (45)
24.2% (22)
29.1% (30)
50.0% (4)
42.9% (12)
5.517 2 .063 14.468 2 .001
1996/97 Fam. Bus
Non Fam
15.1% (53)
15.4% (43)
26.8% (26)
18.9% (20)
25% (2)
41.9% (13)
7.346 2 .025 13.179 2 .001
1997/98 Fam. Bus.
Non Fam
16.6% (58)
15.8% (44)
22.7% (22)
22.6% (24)
12.5% (1)
29% (9)
2.93 2 .351 4.863 2 .088
Mean Fam. Bus.
Non Fam Difference
16.9%
16.0% 0.9%
24.6%
23.5% 1.1%
29.2%
37.9% (8.7%)
15
more likely to have marketing specialists in place than low or moderate growth non-
family firms (Smith, 2003). Once again, this is consistent with Smith’s (2003)
findings for SME’s in general.
However, in this regard, family businesses show a marked contrast to non-family
businesses. As table 7 shows, the figures for low and moderate growth firms are very
similar between the two groups, but the percentage jump between moderate growth
and high growth firms is over three times larger for non-family businesses (i.e. 14.4%
as compared to 4.6%). That is, on average, high growth family firms are less likely to
compare performance with other businesses relative to high growth non-family
businesses.
DISCUSSION
Although this study is unable to directly measure the tenure of CEOs in the firms
sampled, the results outlined in table 1, showing that family businesses are different to
non-family businesses in that they maintain a relatively stable percentage of working
proprietors, partners or directors across growth paths appears to be consistent with H2.
These findings are very much what would be expected if H2 was the case and
certainly indicate significant differences between the two groups in this area.
Both family and non-family firms show a jump in the use of other full-time
managerial staff between the low and moderate growth firms. While only half of the
low growth firms use other managerial staff, nearly all moderate and high growth
firms from both groups use them. So while no differences between family and non-
family firms is evident here, the results are similar to Smith’s (2003) study showing
that both family and non-family businesses may be subject to Montoya et al’s (1993)
‘brick wall’.
The findings in relation to H3 are that while, on average, family businesses have
smaller management teams than non-family businesses, this only applies to low and
moderate growth firms. For high growth firms the opposite is the case with family
firms on average having a larger management team than non-family firms. This
finding is interesting not only for its inherent worth, but also because it validates
Mertz et al’s (1994) call for more comparative studies between high growth and low
16
growth firms and may provide some clue for the discrepancy in results between
Cromie et al’s (1995) and Westhead et al’s (2001) studies in this regard. For
instance, if this study had not applied McMahon’s (2001) taxonomy to the two groups
of firms (i.e. family and non-family businesses) and instead had simply averaged the
results of the two non-segmented groupings, then the result would certainly have been
that, on average, family businesses have smaller management teams than non-family
businesses.
The study’s findings that more non-family businesses in 1994-95 on average had
managerial staff with university degrees than family businesses for low and moderate
growth firms, but not for high growth firms, is valuable for the same reasons. That is,
the different behaviour of high growth family businesses would not have been
apparent without the application of McMahon’s (2001) taxonomy. In addition,
although this study has no way of determining whether it is the director or other
managerial staff who hold the degree/s, the results for low and moderate growth firms
are consistent with H4, while the results for high growth firms are not.
The findings relating to business plans are much less ambiguous with H5 finding
strong support across all growth paths. The increase in the difference between the
two groups’ use of formal business plans across growth paths is consistent with
resistance to, or at least a slower adoption of, professional management practices by
family businesses in the face of growth related imperatives. Such a proposition is
supported by the results shown in table 7 where once again a marked difference
between family and non-family firms is apparent in relation to comparing
performance with other businesses, but only for those in the high growth stage of
development.
Having said this, slower adoption of professional management practices is unexpected
given the results in tables 3 and 4, showing high growth family businesses have, on
average, more other full-time managerial staff and that for 1994-95, more of these
firms had managerial staff with tertiary qualifications in business management,
commerce or administration than for non-family businesses. That is, although high
growth family firms are, on average, employing more managerial staff and more of
17
these have business related tertiary qualifications, they are still not carrying out some
of the practices indicative of full functional professional management as often as non-
family firms at the same growth stage. In fact, the majority of family firms are not
carrying out these practices at all. For family firms at the high growth stage then,
there appears to be a difference between employing qualified management personnel
and adopting professional management practices.
CONCLUSION
Table 8 provides a summary of the study’s findings in relation to each of the sub-
hypotheses proposed. As indicated, each of the hypotheses is supported, although
some have qualifications as outlined previously, which indicates the issues may be
more complex than that outlined in the literature. Even where these qualifications
exist, for example H3 and H4, the issues show strong differences between family and
non-family businesses even if the direction of these differences is not as predicted.
Overall then, it would appear safe to reject the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no
difference between the managerial development processes of family businesses and
non-family businesses.
Table 8
Summary of sub-hypotheses and related findings
Hypotheses Supported/Not supported Findings
H2: Tenure of family business CEOs longer
Supported Strong difference between FB & NFB in relation to working proprietors over growth paths (Table 1)
H3: Smaller management teams of family businesses
Supported for low & moderate growth FB only. High growth FB still different to high growth NFB (opposite direction)
High growth FBs found to have larger management teams than NFBs (Table 3)
H4: Directors of family businesses less likely to have University degrees
Supported for low & moderate growth FB only. High growth FB still different to high growth NFB (opposite direction)
More high growth FBs had managerial staff with tertiary qualifications in business than NFBs (Table 4)
H5: Business plans used less by family businesses
Strongly supported across all growth paths
Difference between FB & NFBs increases with growth (Table 6)
18
Beyond the sub-hypotheses, even though it is apparent that both family and non-
family businesses fit within Smith’s (2003) model, there are still differences between
them. For instance, although there is evidence of a ‘brick wall’ and full functional
management point for both groups, an incidental finding of this study is that high
growth family firms are less likely to utilise professional management practices
despite generally having higher numbers of other managerial employees who have
tertiary qualifications in business. Why this is the case is beyond the scope of this
study but should hopefully be addressed by future research. For instance, it would be
interesting to determine whether this behaviour is associated with the long tenure of
family business CEOs.
Another incidental finding is that in some areas, high growth family firms are
different from high growth non-family firms even though there is little difference
between the two groups for low and moderate growth firms. That is, family and non-
family businesses may behave in a similar way on some issue at low and moderate
levels of growth, but not once high growth levels are reached. This is important
because it may indicate that the two groups progress in a similar manner as they grow
until the reach the high growth stage where they diverge with each other. It may also
be important from a methodological perspective because even after controlling for
industry sector and the legal form of organization, if the cases used in this study had
not been segmented into McMahon’s (2001) taxonomy, this information would not
have been apparent.
The findings presented in this paper then are valuable in a number of ways. Firstly,
they provide strong empirical support for much of the literature in this area that, in
some cases hitherto, was only conceptually based. Secondly, beyond empirically
confirming past research, this paper also adds to the scholarly understanding of family
firms by outlining a level of complexity in some areas perhaps not apparent in earlier
studies. The study also presents findings from an Australian perspective. Given that
these findings support literature predominantly based on research carried out
overseas, this study gives further credence to the universality of the literature.
Finally, the study provides directions for further research and gives support for the use
of methodologies that utilise comparisons between high growth and low/moderate
growth family firms.
19
REFERENCES
Adizes, I. (1999). Managing Corporate Life Cycles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-
Hall.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997). A Portrait of Australian Business. Canberra,
ABS.
Barry, B. (1989). "The development of organization structure in the family firm."
Family Business Review 2(3): 293-315.
Birley, S. (2001). "Owner-manager attitudes to family and business issues: A 16
country study." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26(2): 63-76.
Boeker, W. and R. Karichalil (2002). "Entrepreneurial transitions: factors influencing
founder departure." Academy of Management Journal 45(3): 818-826.
Chaganti, R. and J. A. Schneer (1994). "A study of the impact of owner's mode of
entry on venture performance and management patterns." Journal of Business
Venturing 9: 243-260.
Churchill, N. and V. Lewis (1983). "The five stages of small business growth."
Harvard Business Review 61(3): 30-50.
Clifford, D. K. (1973). "Growth pains of the threshold company." Harvard Business
Review 61(5): 143-154.
Craig, J. and K. Moores (2002). "How Australia's Dennis Family Corp.
professionalized its family business." Family Business Review 15(1): 59-70.
Cromie, S., B. Stephenson and D Monteith (1995). "The management of family firms:
An empirical investigation." International Small Business Journal 13(4): 11-
34.
Daily, C. M. and D. R. Dalton (1992). "Financial performance of founder-managed
versus professionally managed small corporations." Journal of Small Business
Management 30(2): 25-34.
Daily, C. M. and M. J. Dollinger (1991). "Family firms are different." Review of
Business(Summer/Fall): 3-5.
Daily, C. M. and M. J. Dollinger (1992). "An empirical examination of ownership
structure in family and professionally managed firms." Family Business
Review 5(2): 117-136.
Dodge, H. R. and J. E. Robbins (1992). "An empirical investigation of the
organizational life cycle." Journal of Small Business Management 30(1): 27-.
20
Dyer, W. G. (1989). "Integrating professional management in family owned
business." Family Business Review 2(3): 221-235.
Ennis, S. (1999). "Growth and the small firm: Using causal mapping to assess the
decision-making process." Qualitative Market Research 2(2): 147-160.
Flamholtz, E. G. (1986). How to make the Transition from Entrepreneurship to a
Professionally Managed Firm. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Gasson, R., G. Crow, A. Errington, J. Hutson, T. Marsden and D.M. Winter (1988).
"The farm as a family business: A review." Journal of Agricultural Economics
39(1): 1-41.
Geeraerts, G. (1984). "The effect of ownership on the organization structure of small
firms." Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 232-237.
Gersick, K. E., I. Lansberg, M. Desjardins and B. Dunn, (1999). "Stages and
transitions: Managing change in the family business." Family Business
Review 12(4): 287-297.
Greiner, L. E. (1997). "Evolution and revolution as organizations grow: A company's
past has clues for management that are critical to future success." Family
Business Review 10(4): 397-.
Hanks, S. H. and G. Chandler (1994). "Patterns of functional specialization in
emerging high tech firms." Journal of Small Business Management(april): 23-
36.
Hanks, S. H., C. J. Watson, E. Jansen and G.N. Chandler (1993). "Tightening the life-
cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-
technology organizations." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(2): 5-29.
Hofer, C. W. and R. Charan (1984). "The transition to professional management:
Mission impossible?" American Journal of Small Business 9(1): 1-11.
Holland, P. G. and J. E. Oliver (1992). "An empirical examination of the stages of
development of family business." Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship
4(3): 27-38.
Hollander, B. S. and N. S. Elman (1988). "Family-owned businesses: An emerging
field of inquiry." Family Business Review 1(2): 145-164.
King, S. W., G. T. Solomon and L.W. Fernald Jr. (2001). "Issues in growing a family
business: A strategic human resource model." Journal of Small Business
Management 39(1): 3-13.
21
Litz, R. A. (1995). "The family business: Toward definitional clarity." Academy of
Management Journal Best papers proceedings 1995: 100-104.
Litz, R. A. (1997). "The family firm's exclusion from business school research:
Explaining the void; addressing the opportunity." Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice(Spring): 55-71.
Loan-Clarke, J., G. Boocock, A. Smith and J. Whittaker (2000). "Competence-based
management development in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multi-
stakeholder analysis." International Journal of Training and Development 4(3):
176-195.
Matlay, H. (2002). "Training and HRD strategies in family and non-family owned
small businesses: a comparative approach." Education and Training 44(8/9):
357-369.
McGiven, 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.
McMahon, R. G. P. (2001). "Deriving an empirical development taxonomy for
manufacturing SMEs using data from Australia's business longitudinal
survey." Small Business Economics 17(3): 197-212.
Mertz, G. R., P. B. Weber and V.B Laetz (1994). "Linking small business
management with entrepreneurial growth." Journal of Small Business
Management 32(4): 48-60.
Mintzberg, H. and T. Waters (1990). Employment Outlook. Paris, OECD.
Montoya, M. M., G. S. Omura and R. Calantone (1993). Getting over the brick wall
with the marketing manager. Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship
Interface. G. Hills, R. LaForge and D. Muzyka. Chicago, Institute for
Entrepreneurial Studies: 209-221.
Moores, K. and M. Barrett (2002). Profiles and patterns that work. Learning Family
Business: Paradoxes and Pathways. Aldershot, Ashgate: 131-149.
Moores, K. and J. Mula (2000). "The salience of market, bureaucratic, and clan
controls in the management of family firm transitions: Some tentative
Australian evidence." Family Business Review 13(2): 91-106.
Mount, J., J. T. Zinger and G.R. Forsyth (1993). "Organizing for development in the
small business." Long Range Planning 26(5): 111-120.
22
Olson, P. D. and D. E. Terpstra (1992). "Organizational structural changes: Life-cycle
stage influences and managers' and interventionists' challenges." Journal of
Organizational Change Management 5(4): 27-40.
Ram, M. and R. Holliday (1993). "Relative merits: Family culture and kinship in
small firms." Sociology 27(4): 629-648.
Reid, R. S. and J. S. Adams (2001). "Human resource management - a survey of
practices within family and non-family firms." Journal of European Industrial
Training 25(6): 310-320.
Schulze, W. S., M. H. Lubatkin R. N. Dino and A.K. Buchholtz (2001). "Agency
relationship in family firms: Theory and evidence." Organization Science
12(2): 99-116.
Sharma, P., J. J. Chrisman and J.H. Chua (1997). "Strategic management of the family
business: Past research and future challenges." Family Business Review 10(1):
1-28.
Smith, A. and J. Whittaker (1998). "Management development in SMEs: What needs
to be done?" Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 5(2):
176-.
Smith, M. S. (2003). "From entrepreneurial to professional management: A transition
model from Australian manufacturing SMEs." Small Enterprise Research
11(1): 3-21.
Thomson, A. and C. Gray (1999). "Determinants of management development in
small businesses." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
6(2): 113-.
Van den Berghe, L. A. A. and S. Carchon (2002). "Corporate governance practices in
Flemish family businesses." Corporate Governance an International Review
10(3): 225-245.
Ward, J. L. (1987). Overcoming barriers to long-term business health. Keeping the
Family Business Healthy. London, Jossey-Bass: 20-53.
Westhead, P. (1997). "Ambitions 'external' environment and strategic factor
differences between family and non-family companies." Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 9: 127-157.
Westhead, P., M. Cowling and C. Howorth (2001). "The development of family
companies: Management and ownership imperatives." Family Business
Review 14(4): 369-385.
23