In this commentary, we provide suggestions for further establishing the validity of the multidimensional degree of family influence construct and the reliability of the family influence on power, experience, and culture (F–PEC) measurement instrument. We also delineate a number of creative ways in which future researchers can incorporate this rigorous, relevant, and rich construct into their own research agendas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichH.E. & CliffJ.E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573–597.
2.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & LitzR. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 467–472.
3.
ChuaJ.H., ChrismanJ.J., & SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
4.
HabbershonT.G., WilliamsM., & MacMillanI.C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451–465.
5.
HuberJ. & SpitzeG. (1988). Trends in the family sociology. In N.J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 425–448). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
6.
JoreskogK.G. & SorbomD. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala Press.
7.
KimJ.O. & MuellerC.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
KleinS.B., AstrachanJ.H., & SmyrniosK.X. (2005). The F–PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321–340.
9.
LazersfeldP.F. (1937). Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Zeitschrift fur Sozialforschung, 6, 119–139.
10.
MillerD. & Le Breton–MillerI., 2003. Challenge versus advantage in family business. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 127–134.
11.
NiemelaT. (2003). Inter–firm co–operation capability: A processual empirical study on networking family firms. Jyvaskyla Studies in Business and Economics, No. 22. University of Jyvaskyla.
12.
SchwabD.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3–43.
13.
ScottW.R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (1st ed.). Ingelwood–Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
WeickK.E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–390.
15.
WhettenD.K. (2003). “Modeling–as–theorizing” workshop. University of Alberta Workshop, School of Business, Fall Session.
