Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2005-5
An Exploratory Comparison of the Behavioral Dynamics of Top Management Teams in Family and Nonfamily New Ventures: Cohesion,Conflict,Potency,and Consensus
While some researchers propose that the combination of family and business creates a need for trade–offs in family and business demands, we argue that the social system of the family creates a synergy in the top management team (TMT) that is not present in TMTs with less “familiness.” We argue that the unique dynamics created by the social aspects of the family–owned firm will result in higher cohesion, potency, task conflict, and shared strategic consensus than those TMTs with less “familiness.” Discriminant analysis of three groups of TMTs (parental, familial, and nonfamily) was conducted on a sample of 224 TMTs of new ventures to explore our propositions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichH. & CliffJ. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–597.
2.
AmasonA.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.
3.
AmasonA.C. & SapienzaH.J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516.
4.
AndersonR. & ReebD. (2003). Founding–family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from S & P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
6.
BettenhausenK.L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345–381.
7.
BollenK.A. & HoyleR.H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504.
8.
CampionM.A., PapperE.M., & MedskerG.J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
9.
ChanY.E., HuffS.L., BarclayD.W., & CopelandD.G. (1997). Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 125–150.
10.
ChildJ. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1–22.
11.
ChinW.W., SalisburyW.D., PearsonA.W., & StollakM.J. (1999). Perceived cohesion in small groups: Adapting and testing the perceived cohesion scale in a small group setting. Small Groups Research, 30(6), 751–766.
12.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SharmaP. (2003). Current trends and future directions in family business management studies: Toward a theory of the family firm. 2003 Coleman White Paper Series.
13.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SteierL.P. (2002). The influence of national culture and family involvement on entrepreneurial perceptions and performance at the state level. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 113–130.
14.
CooperA.C., Gimeno–GasconF.J., & WooC.Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–396.
15.
CosierR. & HarveyM. (1998). The hidden strengths of the family business: Functional conflict. Family Business Review, 15, 59–70.
16.
CovinJ.G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439–463.
17.
CovinJ.G. & SlevinD.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.
18.
DavisP.S. & HarvestonP.D. (2001). The phenomenon of substantive conflict in the family firm: A cross–generational study. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 14–30.
19.
DessG.G. & OrigerN.K. (1987). Environment, structure, consensus in strategy formulation: A conceptual integration. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 259–277.
20.
EnsleyM., PearsonA., & AmasonA. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365–386.
21.
FlanaganJ.C. (1951). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.
22.
FloydS.W. & WooldridgeB. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: The foundation of effective implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27–39.
23.
GartnerW.B., ShaverK.G., GatewoodE., & KatzJ.A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 5–10.
24.
GersickK.E., DavisJ.A., HamptonM.M., & LansbergI. (1997). Generation to generation: Lifecycles of family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
GimenoJ., FoltaT., CooperA., & WooC. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistance of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750–783.
26.
GladsteinD. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.
27.
GoodmanP.S., RavlinE., SchminkeM. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 121–173), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28.
Gomez–MejiaL., Nunez–NickelM., & GutierrezI. (2002). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 81–95.
29.
GrossN. & MartinW.E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546–554.
GuzzoR.A., YostP.R., & CampbellR.J. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 87–106.
32.
HabbershonT.G., WilliamsM., & MacMillanI.C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451–465.
33.
HambrickD.C. & MasonP.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–207.
34.
HerronL. & RobinsonR. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 281–294.
35.
JamesL.R., DemareeR.G., & WolfG. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within–group inter–rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–310.
36.
JanisI. (1991). Groupthink. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. New York, NY: MacMillan.
37.
JehnK.A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value–based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.
38.
JehnK.A. (1995). A multi–method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
39.
KatzD. & KahnR. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
40.
KellermannsF. & EddlestonK. (2002). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Paper presented at the 62nd meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, August.
41.
KlimoskiR. & MohammedS. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–438.
42.
KoteyB. & MeredithG.G. (1997). Relationships among owner/manager personal values, business strategies, and enterprise performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(2), 37–64.
43.
LansbergI.S. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: The problem of institutional overlap. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 39–46.
44.
LesterS., MeglinoB., & KorsgaardM.A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 352–368.
45.
LingY., LubatkinM., & SchulzeB. (2001). Altruism, utility functions and agency problems at family firms. In C.S. Gailbraith (Ed.), Strategies and organizations in transition (pp. 171–188). UK: Elsevier Science, New York.
46.
LottA.J. & LottB.E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedents and consequence variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.
47.
MasoudY.A. & HaugR.S. (1997). Contextual determinants of strategic planning processes. The Journal of Management Studies, 34(5), 729–767.
48.
McGrathJ.E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehard, and Winston.
49.
MillerD. (1990). The Icarus paradox. New York, NY: Harper Business.
50.
MillerD. & FriesenP.H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25.
51.
MillerD. & FriesenP.H. (1983). Strategy–making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221–235.
52.
MullenB. & CopperC. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.
53.
NamanJ.L. & SlevinD.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.
54.
PearceC.L., GallagherC.A., & EnsleyM.D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115–120.
55.
PodsakoffP.M. & OrganD.W. (1986). Self–reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
56.
RandoyT. & GoelS. (2003). Ownership structure, founder leadership, and performance in Norwegian SMEs: Implication for financing entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 619–638.
57.
RaskasD.F. (1998). Familiarity breeds trust as well as contempt …What about familiality? An examination of familial involvement and trust in family firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
58.
SchulzeW., LubatkinM., & DinoR. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 473–490.
59.
SchweigerD.M., SandbergW.R., & RechnerP.L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772.
60.
SchwenkC.R. (1989). A meta–analysis on the cooperative effectiveness of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 303–307.
61.
ShawM.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw–Hill.
62.
SheaG.P. & GuzzoR.A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25–31.
63.
SmithC.A., OrganD.W., & NearJ.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
64.
SmithK.G., SmithK.A., OlianJ.D., SimsH.P., O'BannonD.P., & ScullyJ.A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.
65.
StewartA. (2003). Help one another, use one another: Toward an anthropology of family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 383–396.
66.
TanJ.J. & LitschertR.J. (1994). Environment–strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 1–20.
67.
ThakurS.P. (1999). Size of investment, opportunity choice, and human resources in new venture growth: Some typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(3), 283–309.
68.
VenkatramanN. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–967.
69.
VossG.B. & VossZ.G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67–83.
70.
WelshH., GeraldH., & HoyF. (1995). Family impacts on emerging ventures in Poland. Family Business Review, 8, 293–300.
