Check Attatchments - Research

B

A

‘ A b

R

S S

R A

I

O t ( i

h 2 c

RQ Business Research Quarterly (2017) 20, 28---44

www.elsevier.es/brq

BRQ Business Research

Quarterly

RTICLE

‘Where do you want to take your family firm?’’ theoretical and empirical exploratory study of family usiness goals

odrigo Basco

heikh Saoud bin Khalid bin Khalid Al-Qassimi Chair in Family Business, School of Business Administration, American University of harjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

eceived 7 September 2015; accepted 25 July 2016 vailable online 2 October 2016

JEL CLASSIFICATION L20

KEYWORDS Family firms; Family business goals; Socioemotional wealth; Family-oriented goals; Family business objectives

Abstract Family business scholars assume that family business goals represent the nature of the firm’s decision making and are driving forces (i.e., antecedents) of family firm behavior, per- formance, continuity, competitiveness, and sustainability. Without measuring family business goals, family business research----specifically, the family business theorizing process----is floating in the midst of assumptions used to justify observational descriptive data, such as differences between family and non-family firms and differences among various types of family firms. There remains a lack of clarity surrounding the theoretical definition of family business goals and an absence of methodological approaches to make the concept operative. In order to address this gap, this research applies an exploratory step-by-step methodology that combines both a the- oretical and an empirical approach. First, following an inductive literature review, I theorize family business goals as a multidimensional concept combining two scales: economic versus non-economic orientation and family versus business orientation. Second, by using a unique Spanish database of family business, I use the partial least squares structural equation model- ing method to confirm and extend the proposed theoretical multidimensional concept of family

business goals. © 2016 ACEDE. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC

reati

E f w e 2 w

BY-NC-ND license (http://c

ntroduction

ne of the main challenges that the family business field had o address was gaining external legitimacy in social science Pérez Rodríguez and Basco, 2011), but this research stream

s still in the adolescent stage (Gedajlovic et al., 2012).

E-mail address: [email protected]

b ( a

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.07.001 340-9436/© 2016 ACEDE. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is reativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

vecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

xternal legitimacy is a necessary but insufficient condition or achieving a mature stage of knowledge development, hich requires a theory----a family business theory----to xplain, describe, and predict the object of study (Basco, 015). The most common method for achieving legitimacy as to apply mainstream theories and approaches to family

usiness samples in order to understand the object of study i.e., the borrowed-research strategy). Despite knowledge dvancement, the field is still phenomenologically driven

an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://

m d s

t c b a u p B f t ( e m

a m c c t o i o c c o b m a m ( s m F q a f f a f i t

Where do you want to take your family firm?

because of this strategy. Specifically, the borrowed-research strategy has created a general consensus that the family is responsible for the distinctive behavior of family firms,1 but the observable differences between family and non-family firms and among types of family firms are assumed to be produced by specific family business goals and motivations.

The literature review shows that family business schol- ars have justified differences in firm goals because of the meaning that family members give to the firm, for ins- tance, emotional ownership (Pieper, 2010). This posture shifts the aim of the firm itself from purely profit maxi- mizer to utility maximizer. This shift changes the traditional profit-maximization model of the firm as an efficient black box to a human institution with different possible mean- ings. The latter posture leads to a broad variety of goals emerging, making the family firm unique and guiding the way resources are created, organized, and allocated----namely, an idiosyncratic decision-making process arises (Carney, 2005).

Family business goals have been studied since the nascent stage of the family business field (e.g., Astrachan and Jaskiewicz, 2008; Dunn, 1995; Lee and Rogoff, 1996; Tagiuri and Davis, 1992; Westhead and Howorth, 2007). However, there remains a lack of clarity surrounding the theoreti- cal definition of family business goals and an absence of methodological approaches to make the concept operative (Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2014). Consequently, family business research is mainly operating under presumptions regarding the specific goals that families incorporate into the firm----namely, objectives that have hardly been tested but may affect family firm behavior. Even though there are some exceptions (e.g., Kim and Gao, 2013) that attempt to measure family firms goals, these measures are incomplete and only combine proxy items (e.g., see Zellweger et al., 2013) without providing a systematic interpretation of the concept of family business goals.

This article proposes that the theory-building process for family business research needs to increase knowledge on the emerging goal patterns of two different logics----family logic and business logic----by incorporating new concep- tual (Pearson and Lumpkin, 2011), relational (Reay and Whetten, 2011), and methodological perspectives (Wilson et al., 2014). In order to address this gap, I approach the phenomenon (i.e., family business goals) as it relates to the interaction between the family and business logics by

applying an inductive research method. The aim is to create an exploratory step-by-step methodology combining both a theoretical approach and an empirical approach. This

1 Differences between family and non-family firms and have been demonstrated, for instance, in relation to innovation (Block et al., 2013; Classen et al., 2014), open innovation search strategies (Classen et al., 2012), entrepreneurial orientation (Boling et al., 2015), reputation (Deephouse and Jaskiewicz, 2013), environmental performance (Dekker and Hasso, 2014), and corporate misconduct (Ding and Wu, 2014), among other management and government decision making. Even more, because family firms are not a homoge- nous group, differences have been observed among types of family firms. More specifically, different degrees of family involvement in ownership, governance, and management affect firm behavior, for instance, regarding internationalization (Mazzola et al., 2013), strategic behaviors (Basco, 2014), and family leadership (D. Miller et al., 2013b).

n

o t b l e o

t r t e n f F s c

29

ethodology attempts to define concepts, explore data, and etermine to what extent theoretical representations are upported by empirical data from real life.

In the first step, using an inductive theoretical interpre- ation, I theorize family business goals as a multidimensional oncept formed by economic and social aspects that com- ines two scales: economic versus non-economic orientation nd family versus business orientation. In the second step, sing an inductive empirical approach, I operationalized the roposed multidimensional concept of family business goals. ecause the research aim is exploratory in nature, both actor analysis and partial least squares structural equa- ion modeling (PLS-SEM) were used to explore the data Hair et al., 2012a), which was composed of 25 goals. The mpirical exploration confirms and extends the proposed ultidimensional concept of family business goals. This research makes several contributions. Regarding

cademic contributions, this article has theoretical and ethodological implications. First, this article addresses the

all made by Miller and Le Breton-Miller (2014) about the urrent limitation in family business research of putting mul- iple priorities for family firms under the same umbrella f ‘‘socio-emotional wealth.’’ In this sense, this study is mportant for the theory-building process because it the- rizes about the dimensionality of family business goals by onsidering for whom goals are important and the specific ontexts created by the family-business relationship. Sec- nd, this article attempts to address the need for the family usiness field to develop operative concepts by ensuring the easurement accuracy of constructs/dimensions (Pearson

nd Lumpkin, 2011), specifically relating to the need to find ultifaceted and fine-grained measures of priorities or goals

Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2014). Empirically, this study elects and combines a set of measures and defines specific ethods to validate the concept of family business goals.

inally, this article theoretically and empirically answers the uestion of what makes family firms behave differently by ddressing Carney et al.’s (2015) suggestion that studying amily firm behavior (e.g., strategic choices) and firm per- ormance requires researchers to analyze firms’ economic nd non-economic preferences. Therefore, by focusing on amily business goals, this article sheds some light on test- ng the assumptions of family priorities and objectives in he firm, which may explain differences between family and on-family firms as well as among types of family firms.

This research also has practical implications for family wners, family members working in family firms, practi- ioners, and non-family minority investors in family firms ecause it provides a framework to understand the constel- ation of family business goals along two different scales: conomic/non-economic orientation and business/family rientation.

This paper is organized as follows. Next, I briefly explain he importance of family business goals for family business esearch as a way to position this study. Then, I develop he methodological part of the article by presenting the xploratory theoretical approach for defining family busi- ess goals as well as the exploratory empirical approach or operationalizing the concept of family business goals. inally, the article ends with a discussion and conclusion

ection, in which I present theoretical and practical impli- ations, limitations, and future research lines.

3

F

T o s t a s n s t d d a t p s g

i a a i p a t s a a l f M t t ( m r f ( m

i ( W r o a c a a S g a c t s

a e b o

i i a t i ( c i T e t

T

F c

S i a b ( s f a p o e a t

h p o c d d t e g b M t b i p a m m f a i b t a

i

0

amily business goals

he most common definition of family business is the one riginally proposed by Chua et al. (1999), which is an exten- ion of the principles derived from the behavioral theory of he firm (Cyert and March, 1963): ‘‘the family business is

business governed and/or managed with the intention to hape and pursue the vision of the business held by a domi- ant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a mall number of families in a manner that is potentially sus- ainable across generations of the family or families.’’ This efinition has some important characteristics that combine emographic perspectives (i.e., by defining the family firm s the explicit materialization of family participation within he firm, such as dominant family coalition) and behavioral erspectives (i.e., by defining the family firm as the intrin- ic materialization of family influence on the firm, such as overnance, management vision, and sustainability).

The abovementioned definition considers that the fam- ly’s influences and effects are manifested in governance nd management decision making, firm vision, and sustain- bility. To move the study of family business further, it s necessary to deepen our understanding of the implicit henomena of family business----namely, the juxtapositions nd collisions among family, business, and societal logics hat define the organization’s focus of attention and goal chema (Thornton et al., 2012). In this context, priorities nd goals may determine----to some extent----firm behavior nd performance. That is, the priorities that individuals col- ectively assign to the firm determine the destiny of the amily firm. For instance, this is what Miller and Le Breton- iller (2006) and Miller et al. (2011) mainly argued when

hey proposed that family firm goals affect resource alloca- ion. A similar thesis was proposed by Gomez-Mejia et al. 2011), who argued that socio-emotional wealth dimensions y affect firm behavior and firm performance. Several other

esearchers applied this premise to their models, including, or instance, Chrisman et al. (2014) and Zellweger et al. 2013), among others. Consequently, family business goals atter. Even though family business goals have been stud-

ed since the nascent stage of the family business field Dunn, 1995; Lee and Rogoff, 1996; Tagiuri and Davis, 1992; esthead and Howorth, 2007), there is a lack of theo-

etical integration when it comes to defining the concept f family business goals. Therefore, the basic question is s follows: what does ‘‘family business goals’’ mean? This all was raised by Miller and Le Breton-Miller (2014), who rgued that the way family business goals are measured nd incorporated into theoretical models is still puzzling. uch limitation is challenged by the unobservable nature of oals----namely, they cannot be observed directly in real life, s for example it is the goal ‘‘Good reputation in the business ommunity’’ which is an unobservable aspect. Therefore, he study of family business goals has to deal with unob- ervable constructs.

In order to address the aforementioned gap, this research

pproaches family business goals by theoretically consid- ring the juxtaposition of family and business logics and y applying an inductive research method. The methodol- gy was divided in two main steps, which are presented

f t a a

R. Basco

n the next section. In the first step, I explored the exist- ng literature to better understand the current knowledge bout family business goals. This literature review leads o the development of a multidimensional concept of fam- ly business goals based on the nature of goals themselves i.e., orientation). In the second step, I use the theoretical oncept as a frame to explore empirical data about fam- ly business goals using a sample of Spanish family firms. he aim of the latter section is to verify the match of the mpirical representation of family business goals with the heoretical proposed discourse.

heoretical exploratory approach

amily business goals as a multidimensional oncept

takeholder theory has been used to demonstrate that fam- ly firms not only serve the interests of multiple parties, such s employees, suppliers, and communities (Freeman, 1984), ut also the interests of one important actor: the family Cennamo et al., 2012; Zellweger and Nason, 2008). In this ense, when stakeholder theory is used in its descriptive orm (Donaldson and Preston, 1995), family firm is defined s a set of different stakeholder interests and demands with articular intrinsic values and goals. Therefore, like any ther firm, family firms have goals resulting from the influ- nce of owner-managers’ environmental, organizational, nd entrepreneurial contexts (Raymond et al., 2013) and he family context.

The family’s influence on shaping firm goals is not omogenous. The family is not a monolithic group of peo- le with similar demands. Within the family system, not nly are there family members who actually manage and ontrol the family firm but also family members who are e facto owners of the firm but are not involved in every- ay decision making. At the individual level, it is possible o express the family’s influence on firm goals by consid- ring how different family members----based on their own oals and their own positions in the family and in the usiness----can alter family business goals (Kotlar and De assis, 2013). This notion brings us to consider using an insti-

utional logic approach as an umbrella to understand family usiness goals. Thornton and Ocasio (1999, p. 804) defined nstitutional logic as ‘‘the socially constructed, historical atterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, nd rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their aterial subsistence, organize time and space, and provide eaning to their social reality.’’ Indeed, institutional logic

rames the means and ends of individual behavior (Friedland nd Alford, 1991). Specifically, individuals are embedded in nteractions based on collective identities that are formed y cognitive, normative, structural, and emotional connec- ions. When collective identities are institutionalized within

group, they generate a specific institutional logic. Therefore, the dominant institutional logics in which

ndividuals are embedded may act as a force determining

amily business goals. There are at least three institutions hat have different roots: business logic, community logic, nd family logic. These logics guide individuals in their ctions, and because of the importance of family members

E

I m a a c m

P

B d w d f c i e

t ( T o c ( 5 s o s i s

d a 1 m u e fi t ( a t 7 b i analysis and student analysis confirmed that there were no significant differences between the sample and the popula- tion in relation to firms’ legal format, sector of economic activity, location, or number of employees. The average

2 I conducted an exhaustive review of ownership, board of direc-

Where do you want to take your family firm?

within their firms, they transmit the weight of the insti- tutional logic’s footprint into the organization by defining types of internal and external relationships and the ways power and status are distributed. These micro-foundation processes (Thornton et al., 2012) imply that individuals’ (e.g., family members’) being embedded in multiple logics activates goals that focus their attention and thus determine organizational decision making. Therefore, the conditions for success and survival as well as change or stability come when the firm is able to legitimize its position in its envi- ronment by shaping organizational behavior (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983), thus making family firms different from non- family firms because of the specific logics available to individuals.

The constellation of goals that emerge at the firm level based on different logics is produced by the fuzzy boundaries among the family, the firm, and the external environment. Therefore, not only do goals in family firms combine the traditional discrimination between economic and non-economic aspects (responding to different stake- holder logics), but the nature of this classification is also demarcated by an underlying orientation based on family logic and business logic----that is, business orientation or family orientation. This juxtaposition is rooted in the fact that the family----as an owner and dominant group inside the firm----not only invests economic resources but also social and emotional resources. In this context, family firms are committed to the preservation of economic wealth and socio-emotional wealth (Berrone et al., 2012). The latter is defined as non-financial aspects of the firm that meet the family’s affective needs (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). The socio-emotional wealth dimension is important because it is the essence of family business goals (Zellweger et al., 2013).

Consequently, it can be argued that in family firms, eco- nomic and non-economic goals are combined with specific orientations, such as family and business orientations. Based on this demarcation, a multidimensional concept of family business goals between an economic versus non-economic orientation and a family versus business orientation can be formed. Using this frame, I review the current literature on family business goals to classify them. Fig. 1 shows the results of this process.

The proposed lens based on economic/non-economic and business/family parameters leads to the argument that the concept of family business goals is intrinsically multidimen- sional and covers a wide range of aspects. Therefore, the first research statement:

Research Statement 1: The underlying structure of family business goals shows that there are four different inter- related constructs at an abstract level combining economic versus non-economic orientation and family versus business orientation.

If the above proposition is empirically tested and corroborated, this would give some clue about the mul- tidimensionality of family business goals as a concept but not enough evidence for construct validity. Therefore, the subsequent step is to strengthen the operational level of

the concept by systematically analyzing construct validity. Therefore, the second research statement is as follows: Research Statement 2: The proposed concept of fam- ily business goals has to successfully pass four criteria:

t T r w

31

reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomo- logical validity, and content validity.

mpirical exploratory approach

n this section, the analysis is shifted from an inductive ethod based on a theoretical exploratory approach to

n indicative method based on an empirical exploratory pproach. The aim of this second step is to explore empiri- al data and to see to what extent the data fits the proposed odel.

opulation and sample

efore explaining the empirical exploratory approach, I escribe the data used in the analysis. The Spanish context as used to test the concept of family business goals. The ata for this research came from a unique study on Spanish amily firms. Spain is representative of the Latin European ulture (Gupta and Levenburg, 2010), for which the fam- ly serves as an important social and economic actor (Colli t al., 2003) that affects family firms.

Because there is no directory of family firms in Spain, he family firms had to be identified in an ex-post analysis Claver et al., 2009) based on specific demographic aspects. o be considered a family business, the firm had to meet one f the two criteria based on the premise of ‘‘family parti- ipants in business,’’ which has been used by other studies see the literature review made by Basco, 2013): (1) at least 1% of firm ownership is in the hands of members of the ame family and/or (2) more than one family member works n the board or in management positions. Regarding firm ize, firms with 50---500 employees were chosen (other stud- es consider similar ranges for small- and medium-sized firm, uch as Leitner and Güldenberg, 2010).

The criteria mentioned above were applied to two atabases: Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos (SABI) nd Dun & Bradstreet (DUN). From an original dataset of 6,000 Spanish firms in the chosen size range, 4450 firms et the family criteria.2 A stratified random sample was

sed, with stratification variables comprising the sector of conomic activity and the autonomous community (i.e., rst-level political division of Spain). Before the final ques- ionnaire was sent, academic and family business experts e.g., managing directors, chief executive officers [CEOs], nd directors who helped during the pre-test) were asked for heir analysis, reinforcing the validation process. In total, 32 firms responded to the survey between July and Octo- er 2004----a rate of 16.45%, which is similar to other studies n the Spanish context (Arosa et al., 2010). A chi-square

ors, and management composition based on name and surname. he system of surnames in Spain makes it possible to identify family elationships because women never take their husband’s surname, hereas children take both their father’s and mother’s surnames.

32 R. Basco

Family-orientedBusiness-oriented

Eco nom ic-orient ed

Construct 1:

“Bus ines s-or iented e cono mic goa l”

Fina ncial econo mic

Construct 2:

“Family-or ien ted e conomic goa l”

Family sec urity Family income an d fa mily fi nancial security

Desirable li festyle

Non-economi c-oriented

Construct 3:

“Bus ines s-or iented non-economic goa l”

Environmental sustainability prod uct and service developme nt operatio nal

Construct 4:

“Family-oriented non -economic goal”

Family har mon y Community image and rep utati on

Family le gacy

ity o

b S a

E

I c a o a o

n i o c t e c p ( u G L R i p 5

A T s f l i c e t b c S

a t

c f t t t o a i v

R

T f o t a a t t i f i

E A s e d f c t t g v f w p c u e

Figure 1 Dimensional

usiness was 25 years old and had a staff of 110 employees. eventeen autonomous regions and 23 sectors of economic ctivity were included.

mpirical research design

n the theoretical exploratory approach, the meaning of the oncept was framed as being multidimensional. This section ttempts to analyze the correspondence between the the- retical framework and empirical evidence. To address this im, I followed a sequence of steps to explore the concept f family business goals.

As was explained in the previous section, family busi- ess goals are an unobservable concept, but they can be dentified by combining an economic versus non-economic rientation and a family versus business orientation. To apture the meaning of the concept, it was necessary o define a set of items (i.e., indicators) (C. C. Miller t al., 2013a)----namely, aspects that capture subjective haracteristics of the concept in respondents’ answers to articular questions. In this exploratory section, 25 items see Table 1) representing potential family firm goals were sed. Items were obtained from different sources (e.g., upta and Govindarajan, 1984; Hienerth and Kessler, 2006; ee and Rogoff, 1996; Sorenson, 1999; Venkatraman and amanujam, 1987; Westhead and Howorth, 2007). The

mportance of each goal item was measured on a five- oint Likert scale (anchored at 1 = very little importance to

= extremely important).

nalysis he methodological inductive approach comprised two teps. The procedure started by carrying out an exploratory actorial analysis with the aim of examining the under- ining relationships of 25 family business goals (i.e., tems). This technique helped determine the emerging onstructs/dimensions (i.e., item groupings) based on the mpirical data. Then, the results from the exploratory fac- orial analysis were used to evaluate the correspondence etween the empirical model and the proposed theoreti- al model. Therefore, this analysis served to test Research

tatement 1.

To strengthen the analysis, the exploratory factorial nalysis was complemented with a second-generation mul- idimensional analysis. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the

I a f

f family business goals.

onstruct validity of the dimensions that emerged from the actorial analysis because its strength as an exploratory echnique (Hair et al., 2012a,b; Wold et al., 1984) suited he research aim (i.e., to discover the dimensionality of he family business goal concept). The traditional process f construct validation was performed by evaluating four spects (Hair et al., 2010; Hamann et al., 2013): reliabil- ty, convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomological alidity. Additionally, content validity was also analyzed.

esults

able 1 shows the descriptive information and correlation of amily business goal items. The exploratory analysis based n visual inspection shows that there are two pairs of items hat are highly correlated: (1) family loyalty and support nd family unity and (2) development of children’s skills nd possibilities for children. These results highlight poten- ial problems for construct validity because they indicate hat items are capturing the same information----namely, the tems overlap in capturing specific aspects of the concept of amily business goals. Therefore, to a certain extent, there s redundant information.

xploratory factorial analysis s was explained in the research design section, the next tep was to carry out a principal components analysis to xplore the underlying structure of the set of items and to etermine the types of constructs/dimensions that emerge rom the empirical data. I used Varimax rotation to identify onstructs because it more clearly separates the constructs, hereby simplifying the interpretation (Hair et al., 2010). In he first analysis, there was one item (i.e., cost-reduction oal) with a commonality of less than .30. This means that ery little of this item is taken into account in the final actor solution (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, this item as eliminated, and the exploratory factorial analysis was erformed again. In the subsequent analysis, without the ost-reduction goal item, all items had commonality val- es higher than .47, which is considered acceptable for an xploratory study (Hair et al., 2010).

To interpret the constructs/dimensions that emerged, used the factor loading value----that is, those items with

factor loading of around .50 or above were analyzed or reliability. Table 2 shows that six constructs/dimensions

W h e re

d o

you w

an t

to take

you r

fam ily

fi rm

?

33

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1. Sales growth 4.41 .79 1 2. Market share 4.01 .93 .42** 1 3. Net profit 4.23 .82 .37** .35** 1 4. Cash flow 4.02 .90 .27** .36** .57** 1 5. Sales ratio 4.14 .87 .40** .34** .54** .44** 1 6. Return on investment 4.00 .95 .30** .39** .44** .39** .48** 1 7. Product development 3.68 1.17 .12** .22** .14** .24** .20** .25** 1 8. Market development 3.86 1.00 .19** .31** .25** .29** .22** .28** .55** 1 9. Adapting to client needs 4.41 .75 .21** .20** .21** .24** .22** .27** .26** .24** 1 10. Staff development 3.96 .87 .23** .25** .28** .31** .32** .35** .31** .36** .33** 1 11. Environmental protection 3.90 1.06 .12** .22** .18** .25** .19** .30** .31** .31** .32** .46** 1 12. Customer satisfaction 4.55 .63 .17** .13** .27** .23** .21** .17** .08* .16** .40** .32** .35** 1 13. Service quality 4.46 .69 .11** .15** .22** .17** .19** .17** .17** .10** .37** .31** .33** .49** 1 14. Money available for family 3.44 1.14 .11** .19** .23** .22** .21** .26** .19** .25** .06 .29** .22** .10** .10** 1 15. Quality of life at work 4.04 .87 .11** .24** .17** .20** .20** .27** .17** .20** .23** .36** .40** .27** .23** .35** 1 16. Firm-generated family

security 3.99 .96 .12** .15** .18** .17** .19** .23** .13** .17** .19** .29** .23** .19** .18** .43** .43** 1

17. Time to be with family 3.57 1.11 .05 .17** .17** .16** .15** .21** .20** .24** .18** .29** .34** .20** .21** .35** .45** .39** 1 18. Family loyalty and support 4.04 .97 .09* .15** .13** .12** .13** .16** .13** .23** .22** .27** .30** .26** .20** .32** .37** .51** .51** 1 19. Family unity 4.07 .99 .05 .14** .11** .16** .10** .16** .14** .21** .23** .28** .26** .22** .17** .27** .32** .53** .47** .74** 1 20. Respected name in society 4.21 .92 .10** .20** .14** .17** .12** .17** .15** .18** .21** .25** .23** .20** .16** .26** .27** .37** .22** .35** .40** 1 21. Customer loyalty to family

name 4.11 .93 .09* .16** .10** .08* .11** .15** .13** .22** .19** .27** .27** .23** .22** .26** .29** .41** .33** .43** .46** .53** 1

22. Good reputation in the business community

4.32 .73 .15** .17** .18** .19** .19** .21** .15** .15** .24** .30** .22** .21** .17** .23** .29** .36** .22** .35** .36** .58** .55** 1

23. Family interest in the enterprise

4.20 .87 .14** .13** .15** .13** .12** .20** .12** .18** .18** .26** .24** .18** .18** .29** .28** .45** .32** .55** .58** .33** .44** .39** 1

24. Development of children’s skills

3.80 1.10 .13** .15** .15** .20** .18** .24** .20** .28** .20** .30** .26** .23** .17** .28** .30** .41** .36** .50** .51** .28** .42** .35** .51** 1

25. Generate possibilities for children

3.92 1.07 .14** .13** .20** .16** .20** .22** .17** .26** .13** .26** .22** .23** .15** .34** .25** .41** .34** .48** .51** .29** .40** .32** .53** .73** 1

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

34

R .

B asco

Table 2 Factorial analysis of family business goal items.

Family-oriented economic goal

Family-oriented non-economic-goal

Business-oriented economic goal

Business-oriented non-economic goal

Factor 1 Short-term family-oriented goal

Factor 2 Stewardship family-oriented goal

Factor 3 Long-term family-oriented goal

Factor 4 Short-term business-oriented goal

Factor 5 Stewardship business-oriented goal

Factor 6 Long-term business-oriented goal

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients .720 .864 .780 .801 .730 .705 Explain variance 9% 14% 9% 13% 9% 7%

Items Money available for family .625 Quality of life at work .711 Firm-generated family security

.512

Time to be with family .642 Family loyalty and support .677 Family unity .714 Family interest in the enterprise

.704

Development of children’s skills

.795

Generate possibilities for children

.814

Respected name in society .807 Customer loyalty to family name

.668

Good reputation in the business community

.784

Sales growth .653 Market share .585 Net profit .782 Cash flow .671 Sales ratio .754 Return on investment .627 Adapting to client needs .635 Staff development .378 Environmental protection .479 Customer satisfaction .769 Service quality .757 Product development .834 Market development .779

Where do you want to take your family firm? 35

Business – Family Orientation

Family-orientedBusiness-oriented

E co

n o m

ic –

N o n /e

co n o m

ic o

ri e n ta

tio n

Shot-term

Short-term Business-oriented Goa l Sales growth Market shar e

Net profit Cash flow Sales ratio

Return on investment

Short-term Family-oriented Goal Mone y available for fa mily

Quality of life at work Firm-generated fa mily security

Time to be with family

Long-term

Long-term business-oriented goal Product development Market development

Long-term Family Oriented Goal Respected name in society

Customer loyalty to family name Good reputation in the business community

Stewar dship

Stewardship Business-oriented Goal Adaptin g to clie nt needs

Staff development Environmental protection

Customer satisf action Service quality

Stewardship Family-orie nted Goa l Family loyal ty and suppor t

Family unity Family interest in the enterprise Development of chil dren’ s skills Generate possibilities for children

Figure 2 New dimensionality of family business goals.

Short-term business-

oriented goal

Business- oriented task performance

Family- oriented task performance

Stewardship business-

oriented goal

Long-term business-

oriented goal

Short-term family-

oriented goal

Stewardship family-

oriented goal

Long-term family-

oriented goal

usine

o i o f

w p l l e f o

Figure 3 Family b

emerged from the analysis. Based on the theoretical model and considering the items that fell in each construct (tak- ing into consideration factor loading), dimensions were labeled as follows: Factor 1 = short-term family-oriented, Factor 2 = stewardship family-oriented, Factor 3 = long-term family-oriented, Factor 4 = short-term business-oriented, Factor 5 = stewardship business-oriented, and Factor 6: long-term business-oriented. The naming process was based on current theory considering the items included in each dimension. The family and business orientation was kept in each category because it clearly emerged from the test, but the economic versus non-economic nature was modi-

fied by including two references captured by the way items were integrated: (1) temporal perception by considering long-term versus short-term orientation and (2) the focus

i i i

ss goal dimensions.

f attention on a diverse group of stakeholder by consider- ng stewardship family orientation or stewardship business rientation. Fig. 2 shows a visual classification that emerged rom the analysis.

A visual examination of factor loadings shows that there ere three items (i.e., staff development, environmental rotection, and firm-generated family security) that did not oad on any particular construct/dimension or loaded on at east two factors. These items are potential candidates for limination because they may cause problems when identi- ying and differentiating constructs/dimensions from each ther. Specifically, they may cause problems with discrim-

nate validity, which measures to what extent a construct s unrelated to another construct. Even with this potential ssue, these items were not removed prematurely because

36

R .

B asco

Table 3 Results of measurement model.

Family-oriented economic goal

Family-oriented non-economic-goal

Business-oriented economic goal

Business-oriented non-economic goal

Factor 1 Short-term family-oriented goal

Factor 2 Stewardship family-oriented goal

Factor 3 Long-term family-oriented goal

Factor 4 Short-term business-oriented goal

Factor 5 Stewardship business-oriented goal

Factor 6 Long-term business-oriented goal

AVE 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.50 0.47 0.78 Composite reliability 0.83 0.90 0.87 0.86 0.82 0.87 Cronbachs alpha 0.73 0.87 0.79 0.80 0.75 0.71

Items Money available for family 0.73 Quality of life at work 0.74 Firm-generated family security 0.79 Time to be with family 0.71 Family loyalty and support 0.81 Family unity 0.83 Family interest in the enterprise 0.78 Development of children’s skills 0.82 Generate possibilities for children

0.80

Respected name in society 0.83 Customer loyalty to family name 0.87 Good reputation in the business community

0.80

Sales growth 0.63 Market share 0.69 Net profit 0.74 Cash flow 0.68 Sales ratio 0.75 Return on investment 0.75 Staff development 0.80 Environmental protection 0.76 Customer satisfaction 0.60 Service quality 0.61 Adapting to client needs 0.65 Product development 0.87 Market development 0.89

Where do you want to take your family firm? 37

Table 4 Discriminant validity of dimensions.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Short-term business-oriented goal 0.71 2. Stewardship business-oriented goal 0.46 0.69 3. Long-term business-oriented goal 0.37 0.42 0.88 4. Short-term family-oriented economic goal 0.35 0.46 0.29 0.74 5. Stewardship family-oriented goal 0.27 0.41 0.28 0.61 0.81

t s

d m s o s v u

t a i e c 2 d A R a a c a v t v g t t s

i i p o s I ( g f

m e ( g

6. Long-term family-oriented goal 0.26

of the exploratory nature of this step. To continue with the analysis, items were considered part of a construct based on their factor loading. The latter decision also coin- cides with the theoretical interpretation of the factor. Staff development and environmental protection were included in Factor 5 because its factorial loading load was slightly higher than the rest of the factors and because these concepts have theoretically been considered as non-economic busi- ness items related to external stakeholders. Firm-generated family security was included in Factor 1 because its fac- torial loading was higher than .50. All the factors had Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above .70, which is consid- ered good according to generally accepted standards (Hair et al., 2010).

The above analysis demonstrates the multidimensional- ity of the family business goal concept. Therefore, Research Statement 1 is empirically supported. I can conclude that economic goals are one aspect of overall family business goals but not the only characteristic. In this sense, these results are in line with previous studies showing that family firms pursue business and family goals as well as economic and non-economic goals (Athanassiou et al., 2002; Chrisman et al., 2012; Lee and Rogoff, 1996; Zellweger et al., 2013) by considering different stakeholders. The empirical test reveals, to a certain degree, a match between the theo- retical interpretation of family business goals and empirical dimensions that capture the juxtaposition of family logic and business logic at the aggregate level.

Confirmatory factorial analysis Although the above findings are important, the exploratory factorial analysis does not allow us to determine the con- struct validity of the multidimensional concept of family business goals. In order to validate the concept and its dimensions, I used PLS-SEM. Fig. 3 shows the model under study, which includes all family business goal dimensions as exogenous dimensions (i.e., factors form the exploratory factorial analysis) as well as two new endogenous dimen- sions. The endogenous dimensions were used to demonstrate the nomological validity of the constructs. The reasoning for these relationships can be traced to the theoretical argu- ments discussed in the above section----namely, it is expected that goals guide decision making in firms (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011; Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2006). Following

this logic, two dimensions were selected at the corporate governance level that capture the family orientation and business orientation of the board of directors (i.e., board task performance). More information about the items used

s d s c

0.39 0.22 0.48 0.56 0.83

o capture both board task performance dimensions is pre- ented in Appendix A (see Basco and Voordeckers, 2015).

Based on the PLS-SEM technique, the test of the model isplayed in Fig. 3 is split into two analyses: a measurement odel analysis and a structural model analysis. Both analy-

es help determine the construct validity of all dimensions f the concept of family business goals. While the mea- urement model is used to determine reliability, convergent alidity, and discriminant validity, the structural model is sed to assess nomological validity.

Table 3 shows the main information necessary to assess he construct validity of the proposed constructs. The first nalysis consists of assessing reliability, which accounts for tem reliability, composite reliability, and average variance xtracted (AVE). Item reliability refers to the R2 value asso- iated with each item, with its construct (Hamann et al., 013) showing the strength between the item and the latent imension (i.e., construct) (acceptable value should be >.4). ll items in the model have an R2 value higher than .4. egarding composite reliability, which accounts for the reli- bility and consistency of the measured items representing

latent dimension (Hair et al., 2010), all constructs show omposite reliability higher than .60, which is considered n acceptable value. Finally, AVE measures the amount of ariance in a set of items that is accounted for through he latent dimension (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (acceptable alue should be >.5). All six dimensions of family business oals have AVE values very close to or higher than .5. With hese results, I can conclude that there is enough evidence o support the reliability of the family business goal dimen- ions.

The second construct validity analysis consists of assess- ng convergent validity, which refers the extent to which tems of a specific construct converge or share a high pro- ortion of variance in common (Hair et al., 2010). The value f standardized factor loadings (acceptable value > .5) and tatistical significance are used to assess convergent validity. n the model, all standardized factor loadings are above .50 see Table 3) and are statistically significant. These results ive enough evidence to accept convergent validity for the amily business goal dimensions.

The third step in assessing construct validity is to deter- ine the discriminant validity, which measures to what

xtent a construct is truly distinct from other constructs Hair et al., 2010). If the square root of the AVE is reater than all corresponding correlations among dimen- ions, then one can conclude that there is evidence of

iscriminate validity. As can be seen in Table 4, the quare root of the AVEs is greater than all corresponding orrelations.

38

Ta b

le

5

M u lt

i- gr

ou p

an al

ys is

---

st ru

ct u ra

l

m od

e l.

M od

e l

1 Fa

m il

y

vs .

n on

-f am

il y

p ar

ti ci

p an

ts

M od

e l

2 Sm

al l

vs .

m e d iu

m

fi rm

s M

od e l

3 Fo

u n d e r

vs .

se co

n d

or su

b se

q u e n t

ge n e ra

ti on

St ru

ct u ra

l

m od

e l

Pa th

co e ffi

ci e n ts

--- d if

fe re

n ce

p -V

al u e

Pa th

co e ffi

ci e n ts

--- d if

fe re

n ce

p -V

al u e

Pa th

co e ffi

ci e n ts

--- d if

fe re

n ce

p -V

al u e

Sh or

t- te

rm

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

e co

n om

ic

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 03

7

0. 63

5

0. 03

2

0. 60

9

0. 07

6 0.

72 4

Sh or

t- te

rm

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

e co

n om

ic

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 03

2

0. 61

8

0. 04

3

0. 34

4

0. 10

3

0. 17

1 St

e w

ar d sh

ip

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 00

3

0. 48

3

0. 03

1

0. 39

9 0.

00 5

0. 52

1 St

e w

ar d sh

ip

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 14

2

0. 90

0

0. 00

3

0. 48

8 0.

07 9

0. 24

1 Lo

n g-

te rm

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 00

3

0. 49

2

0. 02

6

0. 60

5 0.

10 4

0. 15

1 Lo

n g-

te rm

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 18

5

0. 02

8

0. 11

9

0. 11

2

0. 07

9

0. 78

3 Sh

or t-

te rm

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 09

2

0. 82

1

0. 06

7

0. 25

1

0. 05

6

0. 26

7 Sh

or t-

te rm

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 01

5

0. 42

8

0. 01

7

0. 58

2

0. 06

4

0. 24

9 St

e w

ar d sh

ip

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 00

4

0. 52

1

0. 05

4

0. 67

9

0. 01

1

0. 46

7 St

e w

ar d sh

ip

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 17

8 0.

96 2

0. 21

5

0. 98

1

0. 07

7

0. 76

4 Lo

n g-

te rm

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 08

5

0. 14

7

0. 16

3 0.

98 2

0. 09

5

0. 85

9 Lo

n g-

te rm

b u si

n e ss

-o ri

e n te

d

go al

→

fa m

il y-

or ie

n te

d

ta sk

p e rf

or m

an ce

0. 07

7

0. 17

5

0. 03

5 0.

65 4

0. 03

4

0. 65

0 i d b t i t e m e t n m t o b g H r t i t b g f g t

C I a a v m t ( ( c a c c l t g t e v t b t a

i T r d i o o f a

R. Basco

Finally, determining nomological validity is the final step n assessing construct validity. Nomological validity refers to etermining whether correlations among dimensions (i.e., elonging to the concept) and structural relationships with hird dimensions make theoretical sense as well as compar- ng structural relationships with similar studies that attempt o model similar relationships (Hair et al., 2010; Hamann t al., 2013). The correlations between dimensions in the odel are logical from a common-sense perspective. As was

xpected, the family business goal dimensions are related o each other, but at the same time, the correlations are ot big enough to overlap----that is, the constructs do not easure the same unobservable concepts. Moreover, I found

hat short-term business-oriented and stewardship business- riented goals are significantly related to business-oriented oard task performance, while stewardship family-oriented oal are related to family-oriented board task performance. owever, short- and long-term family-oriented goals are not elated to the proposed endogenous variables. Because of he exploratory nature of this research, this does not inval- date the nomological validity of the dimensions that form he concept, but these results open new lines of research ecause it seems that the effects of different family business oal dimensions on decision making are not the same. This orces researchers to theorize on the relationship between oals and decision making by considering the individual rela- ionship as well as the multidimensional relationship.

ontent validity n addition to the aforementioned construct validity, an nalysis of content validity is required to provide evidence bout the validity of the assessment instrument. Content alidity ‘‘is the degree to which elements of an assess- ent instrument are relevant to and representative of the

argeted construct for a particular assessment purpose’’ Haynes et al., 1995, p. 238). Following Haynes et al.’s 1995) recommendations, I took several steps to guarantee ontent validity. First, the theoretical part of the article ttempted to define the domain and dimensions of the oncept as one main requirement to frame the analysis of ontent validity. Items were collected from an exhaustive iterature review, which guaranteed the representation of he items for each dimension. That is, current knowledge uided the process for item selection. Second, the ques- ionnaire was reviewed by academic and family business xperts to evaluate consistency and guarantee the ex-ante alidation process (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1989). Third, he questionnaire was then pilot-tested using a small num- er of family business members who were not resampled in he main study. Finally, to ensure quality, the survey was dministered by a professional survey research firm.

Additionally, an ex-post validation procedure was applied n order to analyze whether items represent the domain. here is a high degree of consistency between the theo- etical interpretation of the dimensions and the empirical imensions that emerged from the analysis when consider- ng the underlying structure of the selected items. There is

ne exception in the dimension named short-term family- riented goal, which contains four items: money available or the family, firm-generated family security, quality of life t work, and time to be with family. The last two items did

W h e re

d o

you w

an t

to take

you r

fam ily

fi rm

?

39

Table 6 Multi-group analysis --- measurement model.

Model 1 Family vs. non-family

participants

Model 2 Small vs. medium firms

Model 2 Founder vs. second or subsequent generation

Measurement model Outer loadings difference

p-Value Outer loadings difference

p-Value Outer loadings difference

p-Value

Adapting to client needs ← stewardship business-oriented goal 0.012 0.542 0.009 0.416 0.007 0.476 Cash flow ← short-term business-oriented goal 0.061 0.215 0.060 0.769 0.025 0.639 Customer loyalty to family name ← long-term family-oriented goal 0.015 0.378 0.017 0.360 0.033 0.282 Customer satisfaction ← stewardship business-oriented goal 0.001 0.503 0.196 0.037 0.046 0.654 Development of children’s skills ← stewardship family-oriented goal 0.007 0.434 0.002 0.506 0.011 0.426 Environmental protection ← stewardship business-oriented goal 0.008 0.544 0.059 0.803 0.044 0.746 Family interest in the enterprise ← stewardship family-oriented goal 0.104 0.016 0.066 0.081 0.038 0.282 Family loyalty and support ← stewardship family-oriented goal 0.030 0.238 0.053 0.090 0.001 0.519 Family unity ← stewardship family-oriented goal 0.026 0.251 0.007 0.416 0.036 0.832 Firm-generated family security ← short-term family-oriented goal 0.025 0.653 0.080 0.905 0.038 0.737 Generate possibilities for children ← stewardship family-oriented goal 0.058 0.879 0.091 0.037 0.076 0.154 Good reputation in the business community ← long-term family-oriented goal 0.037 0.352 0.065 0.779 0.075 0.876 Market development ← long-term business-oriented goal 0.031 0.270 0.034 0.713 0.001 0.538 Market share ← short-term business-oriented goal 0.054 0.785 0.005 0.518 0.000 0.512 Money available for family ← short-term family-oriented goal 0.029 0.353 0.009 0.539 0.082 0.202 Net profit ← short-term business-oriented goal 0.114 0.060 0.011 0.425 0.057 0.825 Product development ← long-term business-oriented goal 0.010 0.550 0.076 0.085 0.034 0.288 Quality of life at work ← short-term family-oriented goal 0.000 0.505 0.051 0.252 0.111 0.921 Respected name in society ← long-term family-oriented goal 0.172 0.006 0.028 0.670 0.102 0.960 Return on investment ← short-term business-oriented goal 0.126 0.008 0.048 0.813 0.100 0.087 Sales growth ← short-term business-oriented goal 0.001 0.499 0.060 0.751 0.049 0.328 Sales ratio ← short-term business-oriented 0.002 0.527 0.065 0.143 0.080 0.167 Service quality ← stewardship business-oriented goal 0.195 0.032 0.131 0.107 0.050 0.674 Staff development ← stewardship business-oriented goal 0.067 0.869 0.003 0.491 0.022 0.359 Time to be with family ← short-term family-oriented goal 0.044 0.285 0.069 0.183 0.101 0.177

4

n N f n t l e b q w w a t w

e w o t i 1

R

A o a t s t a w s a p e o d o c s b a d d ( o a s fi s r t s w

D

T t t

t t h i b t r f s f t u p g w

b n n b d n t t a t d a w r

t t t w o a c m e o f o f n d

t t d b T c G l t s s

0

ot seem to clearly capture the meaning of the dimension. evertheless, the final decision was to leave these two items or several reasons. Having two items that are purely eco- omic and short-term oriented, the rest of the items have o be interpreted in similar sense. For instance, quality of ife at work has an economic meaning because the more conomically solid the firm is, the better the relationship etween the family and business systems and the higher the uality of working in the firm are likely to be. In a similar ay, when the firm is economically mature and big enough, it ill help strengthen the relationships between both systems nd increase the time that members share. It looks like par- icipants considered these goals to be related to economic ealth.

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that for this xploratory research, ex-ante and ex-post content validity as satisfactorily achieved by defining the content domain f interest, selecting and developing items that represent he domain, assembling the items into the questionnaire nstrument, and relying on ‘‘appeals to reason’’ (Nunnally, 978, p. 93) to interpret the dimensions.

obustness

dditional tests were performed to check the consistency f the results. The aim of the robustness tests was to ssess the stability of the proposed model in capturing he concept of family business goals. Therefore, the con- istency of the model was verified through the use of hree control variables: affiliation of respondents, firm size, nd generation. For each of these variables, the dataset as split into two groups, and group comparison analy-

es were performed (PLS-based group comparisons). This pproach does not rely on distributional assumptions and roduces a bootstrap analysis, which tests group differ- nces. Three multigroup comparison analyses were carried ut for each control variable. First, because not all respon- ent were family members, differences between two groups f participants----family and non-family respondents----were hecked. In Model 1 (Tables 5 and 6), of the 25 relation- hips in the measurement model, only five were different etween both groups (see p-values), a marginal number, nd the relationships were stronger for the family respon- ent group. Second, regarding firm size, the sample was ivided into two groups: small and medium firms. In Model 2 Table 6), of the 25 relationships in the measurement model, nly five were different between both groups (see p-values),

marginal number, and the relationships were stronger for mall firms. Finally, regarding the generation managing the rm, the sample was divided in two groups: founder and econd/subsequent generations. In this analysis, only one elationship was significant. Consequently, we can conclude hat the proposed model is consistent because the dimen- ions of the concept of family business goals remain stable ithin different groups.

iscussion and conclusion

he motivation of this investigation was grounded in the fact hat the borrowed-research strategy (i.e., the application of heories, measures, and constructs from mainstream fields

r s i p

R. Basco

o family business samples) that has been used extensively in he family business field (Pérez Rodríguez and Basco, 2011) as limitations in explaining the specific behavior of fam- ly firms. Even though most research has shown differences etween family and non-family firms and among different ypes of family firms, almost all current studies have theo- etically assumed that these differences are produced by amily effects on firm goals and priorities. Without mea- uring what specifically causes differences in firm behavior, amily business research----specifically the family business heorizing process----is floating in the midst of assumptions sed to justify observational descriptive data. This has hap- ened because despite these assumptions, family business oals have hardly been viewed using an integrated frame- ork to conceptualize the concept or empirically test it.

To address this problem----that is, to move research eyond the presumption level----this article argued that it is ecessary to better understand the concept of family busi- ess goals. More specifically, it was proposed that family usiness goal concept has to address two issues: (1) the imensionality of family business goals, which is about the ature of the concept itself, and (2) the operationaliza- ion of the concept of family business goals, which is about he selection and combination of measures (i.e., items) nd methods to make the concept operative. To deal with hese aims, an exploratory step-by-step methodology was eveloped by combining both a theoretical approach and n empirical approach. With this methodology, the concept as defined, the data were explored, and the theoretical

epresentations through empirical data were tested. In the first methodological step, based on an induc-

ive theoretical interpretation of family business goals, I heorized that family business goals are formed based on he nature of economic and non-economic goals combined ith specific orientations----namely, family and business rientations----because of the juxtaposition of family logic nd business logic. This led to family business goals being onsidered as a multidimensional concept. In the second ethodological step, which was based on an inductive

mpirical approach, the proposed multidimensional concept f family business goals was operationalized. The concept of amily business goals was empirically tested, and evidence f the concept’s multidisciplinary nature was found. There- ore, this article concludes that family business goals are ot a one-dimensional construct nor are they likely to be escribed with one simple item (i.e., measure).

This article extends the current line of research related o family business goals in two different ways. First, even hough several studies have highlighted the importance of ifferent family firms by defining lists of potential family usiness goals (e.g., Dunn, 1995; Lee and Rogoff, 1996; agiuri and Davis, 1992; Westhead and Howorth, 2007) or apturing partial aspects of the concept (e.g., Kim and ao, 2013; Zellweger et al., 2013), this article adds new

ight by attempting to capture the underlying structure of he plethora of family business goals. Consequently, this tudy provides a certain order to interpret the multidimen- ional aspects of family business goals and to address the

ecent call made by Priem and Alfano (2016). Second, this tudy extends previous research, which shows that fam- ly members----based on their own objectives and their own ositions in the family and in the business----can alter family

a ( s e c a r c fi fi ( s f a F p w

o a c c e w fi s t

L

A s a f b

t n a s p fi L r i fi a d s o i t m s p g f

Where do you want to take your family firm?

business goals (Kotlar and De Massis, 2013), by exhaustively identifying the general goals that can emerge from the bar- gaining process.

Theoretical and practical implications

This research makes several contributions to the academic and practical spheres. Regarding academic contributions, this article has theoretical and methodological implications. First, this research addressed the call made by Miller and Le Breton-Miller (2014) about the current limitation in family business research of putting family firms’ multiple prior- ities under the same umbrella of socioemotional wealth. In this sense, this article contributes to the family busi- ness theory-building process because it theorizes about the dimensionality of family business goals by re-assembling fragmented knowledge about goals and conceptualizing it based on the nature of the possible stakeholders for whom the goals are important and on the family-firm context in which the goals are decided upon. Therefore, recog- nizing the nature of family business goals, this research opens new doors to move family business research for- ward. One important future research path is to ask why the proposed dimensionality emerges----that is, to better explore the antecedents of different family business goal dimensions as Zellweger et al. (2013) recently did theoret- ically using identity theory. For instance, in the proposed model, the family’s concern for organizational reputation may be related to long-term family-oriented and steward- ship business-oriented goals.

Second, this research attempts to address the need for the family business field to make operative con- cepts by assuring the measurement accuracy of its constructs/dimensions (Pearson and Lumpkin, 2011), specif- ically the need to find multifaceted and fine-grained measures for family firm priorities (Miller and Le Breton- Miller, 2014). Even though researchers have recognized that different goals exist in family firms, there have been no empirical attempts to dismantle the underlying structure of family business goals. Empirically, this study selected and combined a set of measures and defined specific methods to validate the concept of family business goals. Consequently, the scheme for understanding and analyzing family business goals may serve as a reference frame for future research to reduce the current diffusion regarding the interpreta- tion and operationalization of family business goals (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2012; Kim and Gao, 2013). The conclusion that can be drawn from this article is that not all goals are the same, nor do they have the same meaning. Even more, not all family-oriented goals can be grouped in the same category.

Finally, it is expected that the contributions from this article will theoretically and empirically materialize to answer the question of what makes family firms behave differently by addressing the suggestion made by Carney et al. (2015) that studying family firm behavior (e.g., strate- gic choice) and firm performance requires researchers to

analyze firms’ economic and non-economic preferences. So far, researchers have recognized differences in firm behavior without clearly understanding what causes these differences, or they have assumed that different goals may

c N o a

41

ct as driving forces but have not measured them explicitly with some exceptions; see Chrisman et al., 2013). In this ense, this research sheds some light by identifying differ- nt aspects (i.e., dimensions) of family business goals that an affect management and government decision making nd strategic posture. Future studies should address these elationships theoretically and empirically. Moreover, the oncept of family business goals can also be connected to rm performance. In this sense, this article may explain the rm performance typology proposed by Zellweger and Nason 2008). That is, the overlapping, causal, synergetic, and sub- titutional characteristics of firm performance are based on amily business goals and their effects on firm behavior as

condition to achieve different firm-performance targets. amily business goals could be considered a new research aradigm in the family business field, which may help clarify hy differences in family business behavior happen.

This research also has practical implications for family wners, family members working in the firm, practitioners, nd non-family minority investors in family firms. Specifi- ally, this research provides a framework to understand the onstellation of family business goals moving across differ- nt scales. Understanding and measuring goals in a holistic ay is essential in allowing stakeholders not only to evaluate rms’ progress and evolution while contemplating diverse takeholder needs and the family-business context but also o interpret and discern past and future competitive actions.

imitations and future research lines

side from the abovementioned implications, this study has everal limitations, which not only represent the bound- ries for its contributions but also provide opportunities for uture research aimed at extending knowledge about family usiness goals.

Even though this research represents a step forward in he effort to conceptualize and operationalize family busi- ess goals, how to incorporate family business goals into

family business theory is still puzzling. Future empirical tudies have to incorporate family business goals as inde- endent dimensions that precede behavioral dimensions and rm performance following the research line of Miller and e Breton-Miller (2006) and Gomez-Mejia et al. (2011). Such esearch efforts may shed some light on questions regard- ng why family firms behave differently than non-family rms and, even more, why there are behavioral differences mong different types of family firms. However, due to the imensionality of family business goals, it could be neces- ary to theorize on and empirically prove how dimensions f family business goals affect different aspects of fam- ly business behavior----that is, not all dimensions will have he same influence on management and governance decision aking. Also, of course, the study of family business goals

hould be integrated with the concept of family business erformance since there is an intrinsic relationship between oals and performance. In this sense, the current concept of amily business goals could be combined with the theoreti-

al model of firm performance developed by Zellweger and ason (2008). These authors posited that the dimensionality f firm performance (based on economic and non-economic spects) could create different types of relationships among

4

d s t i t v

d s r s p i I d c f d b t g e a d s i

c w c t s i c a s o h ( a i c f f b m D f W b

c s i q i c i g c fi a

i i r o e u w g

A

S b j

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

2

imensions of firm performance (e.g., overlapping, causal, ynergistic, substitutional relationships). However, based on he theoretical proposal, such relationships may be rooted n goals because goals affect behavior, which leads firms o achieve different dimensions of firm performance with arying intensity.

The second limitation of the proposed model is that it oes not incorporate the time dimension into the analy- is. However, there is a long tradition in family business esearch suggesting that time could be an important dimen- ion because family members (e.g., different generations) articipate differently in family firms, which may alter fam- ly business goal dimensions (i.e., Basco and Calabrò, 2015). t could be very useful to recognize and understand how ifferent dimensions of the family business goal concept hange over time, specifically by considering the number of amily generations involved in the firm. This is an important istinction because even though time and generation could e highly correlated, the strategies families use to deal with he transmission of ownership and management may affect oals. That is, even as time passes, a prune ownership strat- gy could maintain the family business within a close circle nd reduce the number of family members involved, thereby ecreasing agency problems (owner-owner) and maintaining ome specific family business goals no matter the generation n charge.

Third, based on the inductive theoretical approach, the onceptual model of family business goals is non-contextual, hile the inductive empirical approach is focused on a spe- ific context (i.e., Spain). Future studies should replicate his research in different environments. Such a research trategy would bolster the family business theorizing process n two different ways. First, new theoretical and empiri- al studies extending the current research line would help chieve consensus for a theory of family business goals by upporting or discrediting it (Tsang and Kwan, 1999). Sec- nd, using different contexts to replicate this research may elp contextualize the concept of family business goals Whetten, 2009). Beyond this, it could be possible to develop

theory of the context (Whetten, 2009) related to fam- ly business goals----namely, to understand how the context ould affect dimensions of family business goals. Fourth, the amily business goal scale used in this study was adapted rom existing research. However, alternative methods can e used to improve the scale, for instance, the Delphi ethod or hybrid Delphi method (Landeta et al., 2011). The elphi method is a group of techniques that can be used to orm a single opinion from a group of individuals (Rowe and right, 1999; Sniezek, 1990). Therefore, this method could e used to validate and refine the current scale.

Finally, future research should investigate micropro- esses that exist at the intersection of family, firm, and ociety logics that create some specific balance within fam- ly business goals. That is, future research should address the uestion of what mechanisms are responsible for the fam- ly business goal dimensions. Moreover, future studies should onsider the points of view of other important stakeholders n order to capture the various nuances of family business

oals. Research using more than one informant could help reate a better picture of family business goals by con- rming the dimensions of the concept discovered in this rticle in more than one group of similar stakeholders and by

C

R. Basco

dentifying the relative importance of these dimensions n each group of stakeholders. Additionally, this line of esearch may assist in detecting variations in the dimensions f the family business goal concept for different stakehold- rs, which may be a promising line of research for better nderstanding the antecedents of family business behavior hen several stakeholders with different balances of these oal dimensions intervene in the firm.

ppendix A. Supplementary data

upplementary data associated with this article can e found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/ .brq.2016.07.001.

eferences

rosa, B., Iturralde, T., Maseda, A., 2010. Outsiders on the board of directors and firm performance: Evidence from Spanish non- listed family firms. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 1, 236---245.

strachan, J.H., Jaskiewicz, P., 2008. Emotional returns and emo- tional costs in privately held family businesses: advancing traditional business valuation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 21, 139---149.

thanassiou, N., Crittenden, W.F., Kelly, L.M., Marquez, P., 2002. Founder centrality effects on the Mexican family firm’s top management group: firm culture, strategic vision and goals, and firm performance. J. World Bus. 37, 139---150.

asco, R., 2015. Family business and regional development. A the- oretical model of regional familiness. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 6, 259---271.

asco, R., 2014. Exploring the influence of the family upon firm performance: does strategic behaviour matter? Int. Small Bus. J. 32, 967---995.

asco, R., 2013. The family’s effect on family firm performance: a model testing the demographic and essence approaches. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 4, 42---66.

asco, R., Calabrò, A., 2015. Who should sit there? Effects of family- oriented objectives on board composition. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. (forthcoming).

asco, R., Voordeckers, W., 2015. The relationship between the board of directors and firm performance in private family firms: a test of the demographic versus behavioral approach. J. Manag. Organ. 21, 411---435.

errone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25, 258---279.

lock, J.H., Miller, D., Jaskiewicz, P., Spiegel, F., 2013. Economic and technological importance of innovations in large family and founder firms: an analysis of patent data. Fam. Bus. Rev.

oling, J.R., Pieper, T.M., Covin, J.G., 2015. CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family and nonfamily firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 40, 891---913.

arney, M., 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 29, 249---265.

arney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E.R., Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., 2015. What do we know about private family firms? A meta- analytical review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 39, 513---544.

ennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2012. Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement:

why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36, 1153---1173.

hrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Pearson, A.W., Barnett, T., 2012. Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered

H

H

H

H

H

H

K

K

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

P

P

P

P

R

Where do you want to take your family firm?

non-economic goals in small firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36, 267---293.

Chrisman, J.J., Memili, E., Misra, K., 2014. Nonfamily managers, family firms, and the winner’s curse: the influence of noneco- nomic goals and bounded rationality. Entrep. Theory Pract. 38, 1103---1127.

Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P., Steier, L.P., Chua, J.H., 2013. The influence of family goals, governance, and resources on firm outcomes. Entrep. Theory Pract. 37, 1249---1261.

Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P., 1999. Defining the family business by behaviour. Entrep. Theory Pract. 27, 19---39.

Classen, N., Carree, M., Gils, A., Peters, B., 2014. Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: an exploratory analysis. Small Bus. Econ. 42, 595---609.

Classen, N., Van Gils, A., Bammens, Y., Carree, M., 2012. Accessing resources from innovation partners: the search breadth of family SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 50, 191---215.

Claver, E., Rienda, L., Quer, D., 2009. Family firms’ international commitment the influence of family-related factors. Fam. Bus. Rev. 22, 125---135.

Colli, A., Pérez, P.F., Rose, M.B., 2003. National determinants of family firm development? Family firms in Britain, Spain, and Italy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Enterp. Soc. 4, 28---64.

Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Deephouse, D.L., Jaskiewicz, P., 2013. Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemo- tional wealth and social identity theories. J. Manag. Stud. 50, 337---360.

Dekker, J., Hasso, T., 2014. Environmental performance focus in private family firms: the role of social embeddedness. J. Bus. Ethics, 1---17.

Ding, S., Wu, Z., 2014. Family ownership and corporate misconduct in U.S. small firms. J. Bus. Ethics 123, 183---195.

Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 65---91.

Dunn, B., 1995. Success themes in Scottish family enterprises: philosophies and practices through the generations. Fam. Bus. Rev. 8, 17---28.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 77---90.

Freeman, C.E., 1984. strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.

Friedland, R., Alford, R.R., 1991. Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In: Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. , pp. 232---263, Chicago.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J.J., Kellermanns, F.W., 2012. The adolescence of family firm research. J. Manag. 38, 1010---1037.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., De Castro, J., 2011. The bind that ties: socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5, 653---707.

Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Adm. Sci. Q. 52, 106---137.

Gupta, A.K., Govindarajan, V., 1984. Business unit strategy, man- agerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Acad. Manag. J. 27, 25---41.

Gupta, V., Levenburg, N., 2010. A thematic analysis of cultural vari- ations in family businesses: the CASE project. Fam. Bus. Rev. 23,

155---169.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivari- ate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River.

43

air, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2012a. Partial least squares: the better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Plann. 45, 312---319.

air, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M., Ringle, C.M., 2012b. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Plann. 45, 320---340.

amann, P.M., Schiemann, F., Bellora, L., Guenther, T.W., 2013. Exploring the dimensions of organizational performance: a con- struct validity study. Organ. Res. Methods 16, 67---87.

aynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., Kubany, E.S., 1995. Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol. Assess. 7, 238---247.

ienerth, C., Kessler, A., 2006. Measuring success in family busi- nesses: the concept of configurational fit. Fam. Bus. Rev. 19, 115---134.

inkin, T.R., Schriesheim, C.A., 1989. Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 561---567.

im, Y., Gao, F.Y., 2013. Does family involvement increase business performance? Family-longevity goals’ moderating role in Chinese family firms. J. Bus. Res. 66, 265---274.

otlar, J., De Massis, A., 2013. Goal setting in family firms: goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrep. Theory Pract. 37, 1263---1288.

andeta, J., Barrutia, J., Lertxundi, A., 2011. Hybrid Delphi: a methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in profes- sional contexts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78, 1629---1641.

ee, M.-S., Rogoff, E.G., 1996. Research note: comparison of small businesses with family participation versus small businesses without family participation: an investigation of differences in goals, attitudes, and family/business conflict. Fam. Bus. Rev. 9, 423---437.

eitner, K.-H., Güldenberg, S., 2010. Generic strategies and firm performance in SMEs: a longitudinal study of Austrian SMEs. Small Bus. Econ. 35, 169---189.

azzola, P., Sciascia, S., Kellermanns, F.W., 2013. Non-linear effects of family sources of power on performance. J. Bus. Res. 66, 568---574.

iller, C.C., Washburn, N.T., Glick, W.H., 2013a. Perspective----the myth of firm performance. Organ. Sci. 24, 948---964.

iller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., 2014. Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrep. Theory Pract. 38, 713---720.

iller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., 2006. Priorities, practices and strate- gies in successful and failing family businesses: an elaboration and test of the configuration perspective. Strateg. Organ. 4, 379---407.

iller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R.H., 2011. Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: social context, iden- tity, and institutional logics. J. Manag. Stud. 48, 1---25.

iller, D., Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., 2013b. Is family leadership always beneficial? Strateg. Manag. J. 34, 553---571.

unnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

earson, A.W., Lumpkin, G.T., 2011. Measurement in family business research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 24, 287---291.

érez Rodríguez, M.J., Basco, R., 2011. The cognitive legitimacy of the family business field. Fam. Bus. Rev. 24, 322---342.

ieper, T.M., 2010. Non solus: toward a psychology of family busi- ness. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 1, 26---39.

riem, R.L., Alfano, F., 2016. Setting new directions for the mana- gement discipline through family business research. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg.

aymond, L., Marchand, M., St-Pierre, J., Cadieux, L., Labelle, F.,

2013. Dimensions of small business performance from the owner- manager’s perspective: a re-conceptualization and empirical validation. Entrep. Reg. Dev., 1---32.

4

R

R

S

S

T

T

T

T

T

V

W

W

W

W

Z

Zellweger, T.M., Nason, R.S., Nordqvist, M., Brush, C.G., 2013.

4

eay, T., Whetten, D.A., 2011. What constitutes a theoretical contri- bution in family business? Fam. Bus. Rev. 24, 105---110.

owe, G., Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15, 353---375.

niezek, J.A., 1990. A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information. Gr. Organ. Manag. 15, 5---19.

orenson, R.L., 1999. Conflict strategies used by successful family businesses. Fam. Bus. Rev. 12, 325---339.

agiuri, R., Davis, J.A., 1992. On the goals of successful family companies. Fam. Bus. Rev. 5, 43---62.

hornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., 1999. Institutional logics and the histori- cal contingency of power in organizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry. Am. J. Sociol. 105, 801---843.

hornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M., 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. OUP, Oxford.

olbert, P.S., Zucker, L.G., 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil

service reform, 1880---1935. Adm. Sci. Q. 28, 22---39.

sang, E.W.K., Kwan, K.-M., 1999. Replication and theory devel- opment in organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24, 759---780.

R. Basco

enkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V., 1987. Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. J. Manag. 13, 109---122.

esthead, P., Howorth, C., 2007. Types’ of private family firms: an exploratory conceptual and empirical analysis. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 19, 405---431.

hetten, D.A., 2009. An examination of the interface between con- text and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Manag. Organ. Rev. 5, 29---55.

ilson, S.R., Whitmoyer, J.G., Pieper, T.M., Astrachan, J.H., Hair Jr., J.F., Sarstedt, M., 2014. Method trends and method needs: examining methods needed for accelerating the field. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 5, 4---14.

old, S., Ruhe, A., Wold, H., Dunn III, W.J., 1984. The collinear- ity problem in linear regression. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 5, 735---743.

ellweger, T.M., Nason, R.S., 2008. A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Fam. Bus. Rev. 21, 203---216.

Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An orga- nizational identity perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 37, 229---248.