Dyer Handler

1042-2587-94-191$! 50Copyrighl 1994 byBaylor University

Entrepreneurship andFamily Business:Exploringthe ConnectionsW. Gibb Dyer, Jr.Wendy Handler

This article explores how the family influences an entrepreneur's career. There are variouspoints in time where family and entrepreneurial dynamics intersect. These include; (1) earlyexperiences in the entrepreneur's family of origin; (2) family involvement and support ofearly start-up activities; (3) empioyment of famiiy members in the new venture; and (4)involvement of famiiy members in ownership and management succession. The articieexpiores each of these four areas and suggests research questions that need to be exploredto develop a better understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurs and their fam-ilies.

If rom the early writings of Joseph Schumpeter until the present day, much of theresearch on enlrepreneurship has focused on answering two questions: Who is an en-trepreneur? and What does an entrepreneur need to do to start a successful business?Little theorizing and research has been conducted to explore what happens to entrepre-neurs after they build a successful enterprise. Indeed, the assumption seems to be thatonce a new enterprise is viable the entrepreneur's subsequent career path ceases to be ofinterest since it may not focus on traditional entrepreneurial activities.

Family business researchers, on the other hand, have largely been interested in whatbappens to entrepreneurs near the end of their working lives. The problem of succes-siontransferring leadership and ownership to the next generation of family membershas captivated most of the research interest. The reason for such interest can be attributedto the fact that succession is indeed a very troublesome problem for entrepreneurs, andthere are numerous, high-profile cases such as the Ford and DuPont families where thesuccession problem deeply affected the business and the family. Moreover, because ofthe difficulty in resolving the succession dilemma, founders have been more willing toask for outside belp in the form of eitber research or consulting on the successionquestion. Thus, entry into the world of family business has often occurred as theentrepreneur contemplates retirement.

The result of what could be characterized as two parallel streams of theory andpractice is a lack of integrated theory that would help us to better understand the complexand changing relationships between entrepreneurs and their families over time. In thisarticle we will attempt to tie these two streams of research together to show howentrepreneurs and their families are inextricably linked together and how we mightdevelop theory and research to further explore these linkages.

Fall 1994 71

INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP ANDFAMILY BUSINESS

If we take the perspective that we should study the dynamics of an entrepreneur'scareer from entry to exit, then there are several points along the career path where theentrepreneur's family membership and family relationships can affect the course of thecareer (Dyer, 1992). We have identified four "career nexuses" that reflect points in timewhere family and entrepreneurial dynamics intersect. These are:(1) Early experiences in the entrepreneur's family of origin;(2) Family involvement in the entrepreneur's start-up activities;(3) Employment of family members in the entrepreneurial firm; and(4) The involvement of family members in ownership and management succession.

We will now discuss each of these in tum.

The Entrepreneur's Family of OriginSome of the seminal work on the entrepreneurial personality has indicated the

important role that the entrepreneur's family plays in the development of certain entre-preneurial personality characteristics. Collins and Moore (1964) noted that the child-hoods of the entrepreneurs they studied were filled with poverty, insecurity, and neglect.Often the father was absent from the home. Kets de Vries interprets such data from apsychoanalytic perspective and suggests that such a childhood creates an individual whois "often inconsistent and confused about his motives, desires, and wishes, a personunder a lot of stress who often upsets us by his seemingly 'irrational,' impulsive activ-ities" (Kets de Vries, 1977, p. 35, 36). Such a childhood creates needs for control inentrepreneurs and a desire to create and control their own businesses in order to over-come what might be considered a hostile and threatening world. This personality typealso affects the way in which the entrepreneurial firm functions, influencing decisionmaking, employee reactions, and succession planning. Bird (1989) presents a summaryof the dynamics of this psychoanalytic perspective in Table 1.

Besides this psyehodynamic view, there are several other perspectives regarding theinfluence of the family on entrepreneurial behavior. McClelland (1965), for example,has described how parents who provide a nurturing, supportive, yet challenging envi-ronment in the home develop children who have high need for achievement. McClellandhas long argued that such a need is essential for entrepreneurial activity to take place.Other writers, such as Roberts and Wainer (1968), Ronstadt (1984), and Dyer (1992),have also indicated that entrepreneurs often come from homes where the father or motherwas self-employed. Thus, parental role models seem to encourage entrepreneurial be-havior. Finally, Dalton and Holdaway (1989) in their study of entrepreneurial careers,noted that many of the entrepreneurs they interviewed reported that they had significantfamily responsibilities at a young age and were given opportunities by the family toengage in entrepreneurial activities. In some cases this was out of necessity to help thefamily financially; in other cases the parents were interested in providing opportunitiesto help their children develop their skills and leam to accept responsibility. Such par-enting provides these children with the skills, values, and confidence they need toembark on an entrepreneurial career.

Family Involvement in Start-Up ActivitiesThe relationship of the entrepreneur's family to the new enterprise can be a signif-

72 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Table 1Psychoanalytic Model of Entrepreneurship

Social, cultural, historic, economic coniexl

Society thai supports the development of authoritarian personalityFamily poverty

AND

Childhood family dynatiiics

Father's: absence Mother's: dominanceremoteness nudurancevillainyrole model

RESULT IN

Disrupted, deprived childhoodConflicts in identification (love-hate)Splitting the good and bad (either-or thinking, closed-mindedness)Persistent feelings of dissatisfaction, rejection, powerlessness, low seif-esleem, distrust

THAT DEVELOP INTO

Young adulthood characterized by

Disorientation, goal-lessness, testingNon-conformity, rebelliousnessEnjoying setbacks (martyrdom, masochism)High need for controlSuspicious thinkingFear of being victimizedScanning the environment

THROUGH A SERIES OF CONSCIOUS CHOICES A PERSONENDS UP AS AN ENTREPRENEUR

Adulthood creation of an organization that is

AuthoritarianCentralizedLacking trust and delegationLacking planning, impulsiveA work environment of high dependency and power that is a function of centrality or closeness to the entrepreneurUnresolved regarding succession: Rivalry with sons

Coping with loss or losing control

From Bird. 1989.

icant factor determining the business's suecess or failure. The initial capital to fund thesame venture generally comes from personal and family assets. Thus, the family'sv^illingness to support the venture financially is a critical variable. In some instances, anentrepreneur's family or extended family not only provides needed capital, but providesother resources such as access to markets, sources of supply, technology, and even new

Fall, 1994 73

ideas. Dyer (1992) notes that some potential entrepreneurs were discouraged from start-ing their own businesses because their families were not supportive. The family wanteda stable income that would come with a more traditional occupation. The financialuncertainty of an entrepreneurial career was perceived as too big a burden for the familyto bear.

A family member may also become involved at the start-up (or buyout) as a partneror member of an entrepreneurial team. "The advantages are that (1) initial costs andearly losses may be more easily shared, (2) later success benefits the family as a whole,(3) the family can be together, and (4) trust" (Handler, 1990b, p. 272). "Copreneurs"or entrepreneurial couples involved in business together is one type of family memberinvolvement at the start-up. The experience of working together, and the dividing ofresponsibilities and decision making, is profiled in Kathy Marshack's paper in this issue.

Managing the obligations of both work and family has also been described as asource of conflict for the entrepreneur. Dyer (1992), in his study of over one hundredentrepreneurs, describes several entrepreneurs facing conflicts between work and fam-ily. Dyer quotes one entrepreneur saying: "My wife is very supportive but occasionallyhas to demand my attention. She gets fed up with me being gone all night and stuff,especially this spring, when I was traveling so much. It was very hard on her. It has beenstressful in a lot of ways" (Dyer, 1992, p. 77). Marital conflict, neglect of children, anddivorce can all be outcomes if work-family issues are not managed well by the entre-preneur. Goffee and Scase's (1985) study of entrepreneurial women illustrated how theirorientation to work and family had a profound impact on how they manage their careers.Cotiventional women entrepreneurs are highly committed to succeed as a wife andmother as well as be successful in business. Innovative women entrepreneurs are moreinterested in developing a successful business than in filling traditional sex roles. Do-mestic women entrepreneurs give high priority to their families, while giving the busi-ness less attention. Thus they prefer home-based businesses or other work that will notinterfere with their family obligations. Radical women entrepreneurs generally start theirbusinesses to champion women's issues; however such women do not adhere to tradi-tional business values. These entrepreneurial types as described by Goffee and Scase,point out that the entrepreneur's values regarding the family dramatically shape thedirection of the career and provide the structure for careers of entrepreneurial women.Through additional research we might discover that certain male entrepreneurs alsoorganize their businesses to meet the demands of both work and family.

Dyer (1992) has also noted that certain demands of an entrepreneurial career maymitigate against creating a successful family. Research on the dynamics of 3,000 fam-ilies conducted by Stinnett and DeFrain (1985) summarize five core dimensions of"strong families":

(1) High commitment to the family;(2) Appreciation expressed within the family;(3) Effective communication;(4) A sense of spiritual wellnessa commitment within the family to achieving some

higher purpose; and(5) The ability to cope with crises.

Dyer notes that because of the financial and time pressures related to starting a newenterprise, entrepreneurs may have difficulty developing such attributes in their families.Spouses and children may see the business and financial gain as more important than thefamily, and that the demands of the business leave the entrepreneur with little time tocommunicate with family members or work through family problems.


Employing Family Members ' ' '>One of the most important decisions that an entrepreneur makes concerns whether or

not to employ family members. Such a decision can have a tremendous impact on theentrepreneur, the business, and the family. In some cases, when a husband and wife orother family members decide to create a business together, family and entrepreneurialdynamics are brought into play even before the business is founded.

Historically, management theorists have deemed family involvement in an enterpriseas being antithetical to effective business practices. leading to corruption and nonrationalbehavior {Perrow, 1972; Dyer 1994). However, little empirical work has actually beendone to demonstrate a connection between family involvement and performance. Onemight argue that family firms may have a competitive advantage, since family memberswould likely trust one another (thus reducing monitoring costs). Davis (1982) alsosuggested that family businesses have high intentionality in terms of their level ofperseverance and commitment to see the business succeed. Regardless of whether suchfamily involvement leads to higher or lower performance, entrepreneurs have generallychosen to employ family members. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of all the firmsin the world today could be classified as family firms (Ward, 1987).

The problems inherent in working with family members are a function of the inter-section of two systems, the family and the firm. These systems are typically based ondifferent, and often incompatible, values. Some of these differences are noted in Table2. As the table suggests, there are several areas where conflicts are likely to arise. Goalsin a business generally relate to revenues and profits while the family's goals are tosupport and develop family members. Relationships are deeply personal in a family, butare of secondary importance in a business and tend to be impersonal in nature. Busi-nesses are run with formal rules and procedures for evaluation, while a family functionsmore informally and rewards family members for merely being a member of the family,not for specific deeds. The entrepreneur who employs family members is faced with theproblem of how to integrate or separate these two systems.

Much of the research in the family business arena has focused on how to manage theconflicts inherent in a family business (e.g. Lane, 1989; Lansberg, 1988; Prince, 1990;

Table 2

A Comparison of Family and Business Systems

Areas ofConflict

Goals

Relationships

Rules

Evaluation

Succession

Family Systems

Development and support of familymembers

Deeply personal, of primary importance

Informal expectations ("That's how we'vealways done it")

Members rewarded for who they are; effortcounts; unconditional love and support

Caused by death or divorce

Business Systems

Profits, revenues, efficiency, growth

Semipersonal or impersonal, of secondaryimportance

Written and formal rules, often withrewards and punishment spelled out

Support conditional on performance andresults; employees can be promoted orfired

Caused by retirement, promotion, or leaving

From Dyer, 1992

Fall, 1994 75

Rosenblatt, de Mik, Anderson, & Johnson, 1985; Kaye, 1991; Swartz, 1989; Ward,1987; Dyer, 1989). Such work has focused on issues surrounding the selection, social-ization, training, rewards, and promotion of family members as well as the impact offamily involvement on nonfamily employees. Other work has emphasized the impact offamiiy involvement on the culture of the organization (Miller & Rice. 1967; Dyer, 1986;McCollom, 1988; Astrachan, 1988); the firm's strategy (Ward, 1987; Daily & Dol-linger, 1992; Lyman, 1991), and organizational structure (Barry, 1975; Kahn & Hen-derson, 1992). Still other studies have attempted to understand family influence on thefirm by conducting cross-cultural studies (Donckels & Frohlich, 1991).

The Family and Succession PlanningThe problem of both ownership and management succession has largely been the

domain of research on family-owned businesses, for family dynamics come to theforefront during succession. Several streams of theory and research have emerged re-garding succession.

The role of founders and their resistance to plan for succession is one stream oftheory and research. Sonnenfeld (1988) found that there are various types of retirementstyles of founders or CEOs. "Monarchs" do not leave until they are forced out or die."Generals" also leave office only when forced out, but plan a return to power often torescue the company from an inadequate successor. "Ambassadors" leave willingly andbecome advisors to the firm. "Governors" rule for a term and then pursue other ven-tures.

Furthermore, writings by Levinson (1971), Barnes and Hershon (1976), Lansberg(1988), Handler and Kram (1988), and Dyer (1992) have discussed the psychosocialdynamics that make it difficult for the entrepreneur to contemplate transferring owner-ship and management to the next generation. Succession planning is in direct conflictwith the entrepreneur's needs for control, power, and meaning. Thus, one study ofHarvard-educated entrepreneurs noted that 48.9% planned to "never" retire, whileanother 23.3% didn't know when they would retire or were planning to retire sometimeafter age sixty-five (Duffy & Stevenson, 1984). Retirement is clearly not something thatis eagerly anticipated by the vast majority of entrepreneurs.

Lansberg (1988) suggests that the family, managers, suppliers, and customers mayplay a significant role in colluding against succession planning. The founder's familymembers may not want to accept the founder's mortality and may see the founder as theonly person able to manage family conflicts and keep the family together. Thus, they arereluctant to see the founder move out of a leadership role. The family may also beunwilling to upset the founder with discussions regarding retirement, for family mem-bers can be seen as being disloyal by suggesting retirement. Suppliers and customerswho are used to dealing with the founder may resist forming relationships with thenext-generation family members who are gaining in power. Thus, it is not at all sur-prising to leam that few entrepreneurs proactively engage in succession planning, oftento the detriment of the family and the business (Trow, 1961; Dyer, 1986, 1992).

The role of the next generation and their experience of succession is another im-portant stream of research. Handler (1992) found that the degree of mutual respect andunderstanding between next-generation successor and founder is a key factor affectingsuccession. Other critical factors were the degree to which next-generation career in-terests, psychosocial needs, and life-style needs were met through the firm. Also, thedegree of sibling accommodation rather than rivalry and the family's commitment toperpetuate the firm were important to the succession process. This study, as well asothers by Davis (1982), Patrick (1985), and lannarelli (1992), reinforces the importance


of not just looking at succession from the perspective of the entrepreneur, but insteadrecognizing his/her relationship to the heir. Considering the heir's perspective and in-cluding him/her in the planning process is critical to effective succession management.

The process of succession and the changing power relationships of the entrepreneurto the firm and the heir, is another focus of the succession literature. There is generalagreement that succession is more a process than an event (Churchill & Hatten, 1987;Handler, 1990a; Vancil, 1987). Churchill and Hatten distinguish four stages; (1) a stageof owner-management, where the owner is the only member of the family directlyinvolved in the business; (2) a training and development stage, where the offspringlearns the business; (3) a partnership stage between founder and successor; and (4) apower transfer stage, where responsibilities shift to the successor. Handler (1990a)found that succession represents a process of mutual role adjustment between founderand next-generation family member(s) (see Figure 1). Her qualitative interviews with 32individuals revealed a parallel process of next-generation family member gaining in-creasing involvement while the founder's role lessens in the firm. This succession danceinvolves the founder moving from sole operator (central and often sole family memberin the organization) to monarch (having preeminent power over others), to overseer/delegator, and finally to consultant who is disengaged or retired from the organization.At the same time, the next-generation family member moves from having "no role" oran undefined role, to helper, manager, and finally to leader and chief decision maker.Unfortunately, some founders never move beyond the monarch stage, insisting on main-taining control. Also, some heirs never progress beyond helper or manager because ofinability of their parent(s) to authorize their increased power.

The literature suggests that once the succession process beginseither intentionallyon the part of the founder or unintentionally in the event of the founder's death ordisabilityseveral dynamics related to the family occur. First, there is often a strugglewithin the family for control of ownership of the enterprise. This is generally the resultof family members having very different needs and goals for the business (Beckhard &Dyer, 1983). Moreover, the founder may leave assets to the family in such a way as tomake governance of the firm virtually impossible, destroying family harmony, andundermining the motivation of family members (Dyer, 1992). Thus decisions regardinghow to transfer ownership to family members, whether to sell the business to outsiders,or to sell the business to company employees through an employee stock ownership

Figure 1The Succession Process: Mutual Role Adjustment BetweenPredecessor and Next-Generation Family Member(s)PredecessorSoleOperator Monarch

4

Overseer/Delegator

4

No Role Helper Manager

Consultant

4

Leader/ChiefDecision maker

Next-Generation Family MemberFrom Handler. 1989.

Fall, 1994 77

program (ESOP) or some other mechanism, are all questions that arise during thetwilight of the entrepreneur's career. Tax and estate planning hecome critical in thedevelopment of a plan to transfer ownership. Estimating the firm's value, recapitalizingthe business, developing buy-sell agreements, and creating mechanisms to ensure thefinancial well-being of the founder in retirement are important activities that oftenaccompany the succession planning.

If the entrepreneur decides to turn over management of the enterprise to a famiiymember or a nonfamily employee, an additional set of questions arises such as:(1) How will the successor be selected?(2) How will he/she be trained?(3) Will the next generation of leaders be able to foster the entrepreneurial spirit of the

founder or offer new ideas to revitalize the business as leadership moves into thenext generation?

(4) What should happen to family members not selected for future leadership?(5) How will nonfamily employees be rewarded and motivated if they have no oppor-

tunities to reach top management positions?Answers to such questions have been discussed by Handler and Kram (1988), Poza

(1989), Dyer (1986, 1992), and others. As noted previously, the kinds of relationshipsbetween founders and successors have been reported as being the key to a successfultransition, for there are significant conflicts inherent in such a relationship (Levinson,197i; Barnes & Hershon, 1976; Davis & Tagiuri, 1989).

The nature of family relationships during the transition period also has been shownto be related to a successful succession process (Dyer, 1986). Families that have thefollowing characteristics appear to manage succession most effectively: (1) consistentviews regarding what is equitable; (2) well-developed contingency plans; (3) superor-dinate goals; (4) the ability to manage conflict effectively; and (5) a high level of trust.Such conditions not only serve to help the family remain healthy during the successionperiod, they also are related to helping the firm remain stable during the transitionperiod.

In summary, the role of the family becomes very significant in the life of theentrepreneur and the business once the process of succession begins. Much of theresearch indicates that entrepreneurs manage this process quite badly, to the detriment ofthemselves, their businesses, and their families. Moreover, managing such a transitionis highly complex since it involves family dynamics, nonfamily employees, businessdynamics, and technical legal and tax issues.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICEThe preceding discussion has presented a brief overview of the previous work that

has been done to examine the relationship between entrepreneurs and their families.There are still many gaps to fill in and questions to answer. The articles presented in thisspecial issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice have helped to raise importantissues related to theory, research, teaching, and practice that will need to be addressedas we try to move the field forward. To conclude this article, we would like to sum-marize some of the areas where more research and better practice are needed to under-stand the interactions between entrepreneurs and their families, and to help entrepreneurssucceed in managing the dynamics of these two worlds.

Understanding the Role of the Family in Developing EntrepreneursWe have noted the previous research that has described the role that the family has


played in encouraging people to start entrepreneurial careers. Whether one adheres to thepsychoanalytic framework, which emphasizes the "neurotic" aspects of entrepreneur-ship, or accepts the views of McClelland, which emphasize how nurturing, supportiveparents can stimulate entrepreneurial desires in their children, we need to move beyondsuch frameworks to develop a more comprehensive theory of how child-rearing practicesencourage or discourage entrepreneurial behavior. It is clear that certain ethnic groupssuch as Asian Americans have been far more successful in developing entrepreneurs thanHispanics or African Americans. While there are certainly explanations for these dif-ferences that go beyond child-rearing practices, we might learn much about what kindsof socialization experiences within tbe family lead to entrepreneurial behavior. Suchinformation could prove valuable to entrepreneurs who want to turn over tbe business totheir children and want their children to carry on the entrepreneurial tradition that theystarted. Such research might also help us develop curriculum and training that mightprove more useful in inculcating entrepreneurial values in our students than currentapproaches to teaching entrepreneurship.

Balancing the Demands of Work and FamilyAn entrepreneurial career is extremely demanding, fraught with long hours and high

stress. Balancing the needs of both the family and the business is not easy for theentrepreneur. Thus, more research needs to be done to understand how entrepreneursand their families adjust to an entrepreneurial lifestyle. Marshack's study in this specialissue helps to illuminate some of those dynamics as she compares copreneuriai coupleswith dual-career couples. And, as Goffee and Scase (1985) have shown, women entre-preneurs may find their careers as a reflection of their values regarding the family.Indeed, their orientation toward their families in many ways is the mechanism that theyuse to cope with the needs of work and family. Much more research needs to be doneto articulate the various approaches to coping with the demands of work and family andto understand how the work-family dilemma is managed by entrepreneurs.

The family can play a supportive role for the entrepreneur by providing money,contacts, labor, and other resources. The family can also be supportive of entrepreneur-ial endeavors and provide a safe haven from the vicissitudes of starting a new business.On the other hand, the family can also prove to be an obstacle to starting a new business,by providing few material resources and little or no social support. While much of theresearch on start-ups has suggested that resources such as capital, raw materials, andlabor are critical for the success of a new enterprise, the role of the family as one of the"success factors" needs to be studied more systematically. We might find that the roleof the family is a much more important determinant in business success than many of theother, more traditional factors.

Business and Family DynamicsAs has been noted, the assumptions underpinning business and family systems are

often antithetical, creating complex dilemmas for the entrepreneur. However, as wehave also noted, the commitment of the family to the success of the business can also bea very positive force in starting and growing a business. Thus, what is needed are morecomparative studies to better understand the differences between family and nonfamilyenterprises. While a few studies have been conducted (e.g. Daily & Dollinger, 1992),we know little about tbe relationship between the performance of family versus non-family firms. We know even less about the differences between different types of family

Fall, 1994 79

firms. For example, we could ask: do businesses that are family owned and familymanaged perform better than businesses that are family owned and professionally man-aged? To understand why there might be differences in performance in these varioustypes of family firms, we might compare how they select and train family and nonfamilyemployees, develop reward systems, and do strategic planning. Founder approaches tomediating the conflicts of family and firm also need additional research. We have justscratched the surface in many of these areas. We need more comparative, empiricalstudies to develop better theory, and we must also do more ethnographic work to betterunderstand how entrepreneurs view their world and attempt to cope with it.

Entrepreneurial SuccessionWhile we do know that succession is a critical problem facing entrepreneurs, there

is still little systemic research to illuminate the dynamics of the succession process andthe entrepreneur's role in providing for succession. Much of the entrepreneurship re-search to date has focused on the business start-up and neglected the important issuesthat exist later in the life of a business venture, when the entrepreneur faces retirementand succession. While certain work has helped to provide insight into the dynamics ofthe succession process, we need more comprehensive models to show how variousdynamics of succession (e.g. resistance to planning, founder-successor relationships,successor training) relate to one another. In-depth, clinical studies that track the dynam-ics of succession over time are likely to yield the greatest insights (Schein, 1987). Tbismay prove difficult to do, but to understand such a complex, dynamic process likesuccession, which may take place over several years, requires longitudinal, panel studieslike Scbein's (1978) to understand the changes in the founder, the family, and the firmthat occur over time. While such studies would allow us to do some comparisons, onemust keep in mind the fact that the nature of a given entrepreneur, the firm, and thefamily are likely to be rather unique and idiosyncratic. This suggests the need forin-depth case studies to generate theories that are well grounded and take into accountthe unique characteristics of succession processes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Such in-depth studies will likely produce surprises that can help to deepen our understanding ofthe succession process, and hopefully provide better guidance for entrepreneurs con-templating succession.

Research that is designed to address the issues we have just mentioned will not beeasy. As Brockhaus has pointed out in this issue, there are many pitfalls to be avoided.However, when we study the dynamics of the entrepreneurial career over time, theimportance of the role of the family in shaping that career becomes apparent. Rather thanignoring the connection between the entrepreneur and the family, future research andpractice should marry the interests of the fields of entrepreneurship and family businessto provide more robust theories, better research, and practical solutions to the dilemmasfacing entrepreneurs. Hopefully, this special issue will serve to encourage those in bothfields to make those connections.

REFERENCES

Astrachan, J. H. (1988). Family Fimi and community culture. Family Business Review. 1(2), 165-189.

Barnes, L. B., & Hershon, S. A. (1976). Transferring power in the family business. Harvard Business/? (July-August), I05-II4.


Barry, B. (1975). The developmenl of organization structure in the family firm. Journal of GeneralManagement. 3(1), 42-60. - ;

Beckhard. R., & Dyer, W. G.. Jr. (1983). SMR Forum: Managing change in the family firmi Issues andstrategics. Shan Management Review. 24(3), 60-61.

Bird. B. J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glcnview, IL: ScoU, Foresman.

Churchill. N. C , & Hatten, K. J. (1987). Non-market-based transfers of wealth and power: A researchframework for family businesses. American Journal of Small Business. / /(3). 51-64.Collins, O. F., & Moore. D. G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Daily. C. M . & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An cmpirieal examination of ownership structure in family andprofessionally managed firms. Family Business Review. 5(2), 117-136.

Dalton, G. W., & Holdaway, F. (1989). Preliminary findingsentrepreneur study. Working Paper,Brigham Young University.

Davis, J. A. (1982). The influence of life stage on father-son work relationships in family companies.Doctoral dissertation. Harvard Business School.

Davis, J. A., & Tagiuri, R. (1989). The influence of life stage on father-son work relationships in familycompanies. Eamily Business Review. 2(1), 41-16.

Donckels, R., & Frohlich. E. (1991). Are family businesses really different? European experiences fromSTRATOS. Family Business Review. 4(2), 149-160.

Duffy, P. B., & Stevenson, H. H. (1984). Entrepreneurship and self employment: Understanding thedistinctions. In J. A. Homaday, F. Tarplcy, Jr., J. A. Timmons, & K. A. Vesper (Eds.J. Frontiers ofentrepreneurship research, pp. 461-477. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1986). Cultural change in family firms: Understanding and managing business and familytransitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dyer, W. G,, Jr. (1988). Integrating professional management into a family owned business. FamilyBusiness Review. 2(3). 221-235.Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1992). The entrepreneurial experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1994). Potential contributions of organizational behavior to the study of family ownedbusinesses. Family Business Review, 7(2), 109-131.

Glaser, B., & Strauss. A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffee, R.. & Scase, R, (1985). Women in charge. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Handler, W. C. (1989). Managing the family firm succession process: The next-generation family mem-ber's experience. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Management.

Handler, W. C. (1990a). Succession in family finns: A mutual role adjustment between entrepreneur andn e x t - g e n e r a t i o n fami ly m e m b e r s . Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. I 5 ( \ ) . 3 7 - 5 1 .

Handler, W. C. (1990b). The family venture. In J. A. Timmons. L. E. Smoller, & A. L. M. Dirgee. Jr.,New venture creation: A guide to entrepreneurship, third ed. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.

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

Handier, W. C , & Kram, K. E, (1988). Succession in family firms: The problem of resistance. FamilyBusiness Review. /(4), 361-381.

Fall 1994 81

lannarelli, C. (1992). The socialization of leaders: A study of gender in family business. Doctoral disser-tation, University of Pittsburgh.

Kahn, J. A., & Henderson, D. A. (1992). Location preferences of family firms: Strategic decision makingor "Home Sweet Home'? Family Business Review, 5(3), 271-282.

Kaye, K. (1991). Penetrating the cycle of sustained conflict. Family Business Review, 4(1), 21-44.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977). The enireprcneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal ofManagement Studies, 14. 34-57.

Lane, S. H. (1989). An organizational development/team-building approach to consultation with familybusinesses. Family Busine.'ss Review, 2(1), 5-15.

Lansberg, L (1988). The succession conspiracy. Family Business Review, 1(2), 119-143.

Levinson, H. (1971). Conflicts that plague family business. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 90-98.

Lyman, A. R. (1991). Customer service: Does family ownership make a difference? Family BusinessReview. 4(3), 303-324.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be developed Harvard Business Review. Novem-ber-December, 7-16, 20-24.

McColiom, M. H. (1988). Integration in the family firm: When the family system replaces controls andculture. Family Business Review, 7(4), 399-417.

Miller, E. J., & Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of organization. London: Tavistock Publications.

Patrick, A. (1985). Family business: The offspring's perception of work satisfaction and their workingrelationship with their father. Doctoral dissertation. The Fielding Institute.

Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman.

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

Prince, R. A. (1990). Family business mediation: A conflict resolution model. Family Business Review,3(3), 209-223.

Roberts. E. B., & Wainer, H. A. (1968). New enterprise on Rte. 128. Science Journal. 4(12), 78-83.

Ronstadt. R. (1984). Entrepreneurship: Text, cases, and notes. Dover, MA: Lord.

Rosenblatt, P. C , de Mik, L., Anderson, R. M., & Johnson, P. A. (1985). The family in business. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Beverly Hilts. CA: Sage.

Sonnenfeld, J. (1988). The hero's farewell. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. D. (1985). Secrets of strong families. Boston: Little, Brown.

Swaitz. S. (1989). The challenges of multidisciptinary consulting to family-owned businesses. FamilyBusiness Review. 2(4), 329-339.

Trow, D. B. (1961). Executive succession in small companies. Administrative Science Quarterly. Septem-ber, 228-239.


Vancil, R. F. (1987). Passing the baton: Managing the process of CEO succession. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Ward, J. L, (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

W. Gibb Dyer, Jr. is Professor and Chair of the Department of Organizational Behavior, BrighamYoung University.

Wendy C. Handler, D.B.A.. is Assistant Professor of Management at Babson College; her expertiseis family business.

Fall, 1994 83

Documents

Dyer Handler