To promote theoretical development in family business research, this research identified 327 dependent/outcome variables used in 257 empirical family business studies in 1998-2009. In four studies, the authors categorized outcome variables, developed a numerical taxonomy with seven clusters (performance, strategy, social and economic impact, governance, succession, family business roles, and family dynamics) plotted along two dimensions (business–family and short-term–long-term), validated their research, and identified missing outcome variables and variables that deserve more attention. Experts agree that family business roles, succession, and family dynamics make the family business domain unique and that noneconomic performance and family-specific topics deserve more attention.
AldrichH. E.CliffJ. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573-596.
2.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1801-1328.
3.
AstrachanJ. H.JaskiewiczP. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business Review, 21, 139-149.
4.
BascoR.RodríguezM. J. P. (2009). Studying the family enterprise holistically: Evidence for integrated family and business systems. Family Business Review, 22, 82-95.
5.
BirdB.WelschH.AstrachanJ. H.PistruiD. (2002). Family business research: The evolution of an academic field. Family Business Review, 15, 337-350.
6.
BusenitzL. W.WestG. P.IIIShepherdD.NelsonT.ChandlerG. N.ZacharakisA. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29, 285-308.
7.
CarlockR. S.WardJ. L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business: Parallel planning to unify the family and business. New York, NY: Palgrave.
8.
CarneyM. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 249-265.
9.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.LitzR. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 335-354.
10.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-39.
11.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SteierL. P. (2003). Extending the theoretical horizons of family business research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 331-338.
12.
ColquittJ. A.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
13.
CraigJ.MooresK. (2005). Balanced scorecards to drive the strategic planning of family firms. Family Business Review, 8, 105-122.
14.
DalkeyN. C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
15.
DavisG. F.MarquisC. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16, 332-343.
16.
DavisM. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309-344.
17.
DeTienneD. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 203-215.
18.
DistelbergB. J.BlowA. (2011). Variations in family system boundaries. Family Business Review, 24, 28-46.
19.
DyerW. G. (2003). The family: The missing variable in family business research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 401-416.
20.
DyerW. G.Jr.DyerW. J. (2009). Putting the family into family business research. Family Business Review, 22, 216-219.
21.
DyerW. G.Jr.SánchezM. (1998). Current state of family business theory and practice as reflected in Family Business Review 1988-1997. Family Business Review, 11, 287-295.
22.
EmoryC. W.CooperD. R. (1991). Business research methods. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
23.
ForemanP.WhettenD. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13, 618-635.
24.
GersickK. E.DavisJ. A.HamptonM. M.LansbergI. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J. L.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137.
26.
HabbershonT. G.WilliamsM. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-22.
27.
HairJ. F.Jr.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
28.
HandlerW. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses. Family Business Review, 2, 257-276.
29.
HanksS. H.WatsonC. J.JansenE.ChandlerG. N. (1994). Tightening the life-cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1, 5-29.
30.
HoyF.SharmaP. (2010). Entrepreneurial family firms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
JamesA. E.JenningsJ. E.BreitkreuzR. S. (2012). Worlds apart? Re-bridging the distance between family science and family business research. Family Business Review, 25(1), 87-108.
32.
KellyL. M.AthanassiouN.CrittendenW. F. (2000). Founder centrality and strategic behavior in the family-owned firm, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 27-42.
33.
KetchenD.Jr.ShookC. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441-458.
34.
KetchenD.Jr.ThomasJ. B.McDanielR.Jr. (1996). Process, content, and context: Synergistic effects on organizational performance. Journal of Management, 22, 231-257.
35.
KruskalJ.WishM. (1978). Multidimentional scaling (Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
36.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
37.
LansbergI.PerrowE. L.RogolskyS. (1988). Family business as an emerging field. Family Business Review, 1, 1-8.
38.
LeeM.RogoffE. G. (1996). Comparison of small businesses with family participation versus small businesses without family participation: An investigation of differences in goals, attitudes, and family/business conflict. Family Business Review, 9, 423-437.
39.
LeeT. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
LitzR. A.PearsonA.LitchfieldS. (2012). Charting the future of family business research: Perspectives from the field. Family Business Review, 25(1), 16-32.
41.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H.MossT. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22, 241-264.
42.
LumpkinG. T.MartinW.VaughanM. (2008). Family orientation: Individual-level influences of family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21, 127-138.
43.
McCainK. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 433-443.
McKelveyB. (1982). Organizational systematic—taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19, 73-87.
47.
MilliganG. W. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325-342.
48.
MooresK. (2009). Paradigms and theory building in the domain of business families. Family Business Review, 22, 167-180.
49.
MorrisR. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages & limitations. Journal of Management, 20, 903-931.
50.
NagR.HambrickD. C.ChenM. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 935-955.
51.
PriemR. L.LoveL. G.ShafferM. A. (2002). Executives’ perceptions of uncertainty sources: A numerical taxonomy and underlying dimensions. Journal of Management, 28, 725-746.
52.
RegerR. K.PalmerT. B. (1996). Managerial categorization of competitors: Using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science, 7, 22-39.
53.
SalvatoC.ChiricoF.SharmaP. (2010). A farewell to the business: Championing entrepreneurial exit in family firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22, 321-348.
54.
SAS Institute. (1990). SAS user’s guide: Statistics (6th ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
55.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.BuckholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 99-116.
56.
SekaranU. (2002). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
57.
ShapinS. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 289-321.
58.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17, 1-36.
59.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (1996). A review and annotated bibliography of family business studies. London, England: Kluwer Academic.
60.
SharmaP.HoyF.AstrachanJ. H.KoiranenM. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Venturing, 60, 1012-1021.
61.
ShewchukR. M.O’ConnorS. J.WilliamsE. S.SavageG. T. (2006). Beyond rankings: Using cognitive mapping to understand what health care journals represent. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1192-1204.
62.
ShortJ. C.KetchenD. J.Jr.ShookC. L.IrelandR. D. (2010). The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36, 40-65.
63.
ShortJ. C.PalmerT. B. (2003). Organizational performance referents: An empirical examination of their content and influences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 209-224.
64.
SorensonR. L. (1999). Conflict management strategies used by successful family business. Family Business Review, 12, 132-146.
65.
SorensonR. L. (2000). The contribution of leadership style and practices to family and business success. Family Business Review, 13, 183-200.
66.
StewartA. (2008). Who could best complement a team of family business researchers—Scholars down the hall or in another building?Family Business Review, 21, 279-293.
67.
StokesD. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
68.
TaguiriR.DavisJ. A. (1992). On the goals of successful family companies. Family Business Review, 5, 43-62.
69.
VenkatramanN.RamanujamV. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801-814.
70.
WortmanM. S.Jr. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: A conceptual and research-based paradigm. Family Business Review, 7, 3-27.
71.
YuA.LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H.SorensonR. L. (2009, August). A numerical taxonomy of family business outcomes: Findings and implications from studying ten years of dependent variables in family business research (1998-2007). Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
72.
ZahraS. A.HaytonJ. C.SalvatoC. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 363-381.
73.
ZahraS. A.SharmaP. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-346.
74.
ZellwegerT. M.AstrachanJ. H. (2008). On the emotional value of owning a firm. Family Business Review, 21, 347-363.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
