Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2005-5
Familiness in Top Management Teams: Commentary on Ensley and Pearson's “An Exploratory Comparison of the Behavioral Dynamics of Top Management Teams in Family and Nonfamily New Ventures: Cohesion,Conflict,Potency,and Consensus”
This commentary elaborates further upon the proposition that “familiness” can serve as a unique advantage in family firms, contributing to more effective behavioral processes in top management teams of family firms. This is done by offering three routes for extension based on the perspective on top management teams, the concept of “familiness,” and the definition of family business adopted in the article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstrachanJ.H. (2003). Commentary on the special issue: The emergence of a field. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 567–572.
2.
AstrachanJ.H., KleinS.B., & SmyrniosK.X. (2002). The F–PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business dilemma. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–58.
3.
BurtR. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
ChuaJ.H., ChrismanJ.J., & SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
5.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & LitzR. (2003). Discussion: A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 467–472.
6.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SharmaP. (2003). Current trends and future directions in family business studies: Toward a theory of the family firm. 2003 Coleman White Paper Series.
7.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SteierL.P. (2003). An introduction to theories of family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 441–448.
8.
GiddensA. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
9.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
10.
HabbershonT.G. & WilliamsM.L. (1999). A resource–based framework for assessing the strategic advantage of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–26.
11.
HabbershonT.G., WilliamsM., & McMillanI. (2003). A unified systems perspective on family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 467–472.
12.
HallA. (2003). Strategizing in the context of genuine relations. Ph.D Dissertation Jönköping International Business School: Jönköping, Sweden.
13.
HambrickD.C. & MasonP.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
14.
JanisI.L. (1982). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
PriemR.L. (1990). Top management team group factors, consensus and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 469–478.
17.
SjöstrandS.–E. (1992). On the rationale behind “irrational” institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 16(4), 1007–1040.
18.
WestheadP. & CowlingM. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 31–56.
19.
WestphalJ.D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO—board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 7–24.
