This commentary extends the theoretical model developed by Shepherd and Haynie by examining the relationship between the central construct of their model—the family–business meta–identity—and the institutional environment. Using the characteristics of identity (central, distinctive, and enduring) I explain how consideration of institutional pressures may modify predictions in the model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertS. & WhettenD.A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.
2.
AshforthB.E. & MaelF.A. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 19–64.
3.
ChreimS. (2005). The continuity–change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 567–593.
4.
ChrismanJ.J., ChuaJ.H., & SteierL.P. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247.
5.
DiMaggioP.J. & PowellW.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
6.
EnsleyM.D. & PearsonA.W. (2005). An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 267–284.
7.
GioiaD.A., SchultzM., & CorleyK.G. (2000). Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81.
8.
GlynnM.A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.
9.
GlynnM.A. (2008). Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities. In GreenwoodR, OliverC, SahlinK, & SuddabyR (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 413–430). London: Sage.
10.
GlynnM.A. & AbzugR. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267–280.
11.
GreenwoodR., OliverC., SahlinK., & SuddabyR. (2008). Introduction. In GreenwoodR., OliverC., SahlinK., & SuddabyR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: Sage.
12.
HabbershonT.G., WilliamsM., & MacMillanI.C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–466.
13.
JenkinsR. (1996). Social identity. London: Routledge.
14.
JonesA.M. (2006). Culture, identity, and motivation: The historical anthropology of a family firm. Culture and Organization, 12(2), 169–183.
15.
KellyL.M., AthanassiouN., & CrittendenW.F. (2000). Founder centrality and strategic behavior in the family–owned firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(2), 27–42.
16.
MillerD. & Le Breton–MillerI. (2005). Managing for the long run. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
17.
ScottW.R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in administration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
ShepherdD. & HaynieJ.M. (2009). Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 1243–1262.
20.
SundaramurthyC. & KreinerG.E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries: The case of family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.
