This article focuses on how family business succession research has engaged and may be further enriched by application of a gender lens as socially constructed. We analyze the succession literature developing a gender terms vocabulary and five themes of historical engagement. Finding a lack of theoretical grounding, we apply the construct of gender, through expectation states theory, revising the Sharma and Irving model of successor commitment to examine how a socially constructed view of gender shifts and opens up points of view. We then present a forward looking agenda to motivate future scholarship.
AhlH. (2004). The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse analysis of research texts on women’s entrepreneurship. Malmö, Sweden: Liber AB.
3.
AhlH. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30, 595-621. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x
4.
AhlH.MarlowS. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end?Organization, 19, 543-562.
5.
AhlH.NelsonT. (2015). How policy positions women entrepreneurs: A comparative analysis of state discourse in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 273-292.
6.
AronoffC. E. (1998). Megatrends in family business. Family Business Review, 11, 181-185.
BemS. L. (1994). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
9.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255.
10.
BergerJ.ConnerT. L.FisekM. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
11.
BergerJ.FisekM. H.NormanR.ZelditchM. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier.
12.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London, England: Penguin Books.
13.
BirleyS. (2002). Attitudes of owner-managers’ children towards family and business issues. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(3), 5-20.
14.
BjursellC.BäckvallL. (2011). Family business women in media discourse: The business role and the mother role. Journal of Family Business Management, 1, 154-173.
15.
BrockhausR. H. (2004). Family business succession: Suggestions for future research. Family Business Review, 17, 165-177.
16.
ButlerJ. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge Classics.
17.
CalásM. B.SmircichL.BourneK. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34, 552-569.
18.
CasillasJ. C.AcedoF. J.MorenoA. M. (2007). International entrepreneurship in family businesses. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
19.
ChasserioS.PailotP.PoroliC. (2014). When entrepreneurial identity meets multiple social identities: Interplays and identity work of women entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20, 128-154.
20.
ChodorowN. (1999). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender (2nd ed.). Oakland: University of California.
21.
CollinsP. H. (2008). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
ConnellR. (2014). The study of masculinities. Qualitative Research Journal, 14, 5-15.
23.
ConstantinidisC.NelsonT. (2009). Integrating succession and gender issues from the perspective of the daughter of family enterprise across the U.S. and EU. International Management, 14(1), 43-54.
24.
CornetA. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and sex-differentiated approach: What effects for management?International Management, 7(1), 1-10.
25.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648.
26.
DanesS. M.HabermanH. R.McTavishD. (2005). Gendered discourse about family business. Family Relations, 54, 116-130.
27.
DaspitJ. J.HoltD. T.ChrismanJ. J.LongR. G. (2015). Examining family firm succession from a social exchange perspective: A multiphase, multistakeholder review. Family Business Review, 29, 44-64.
28.
DawsonA.IrvingP. G.SharmaP.ChiricoF.MarcusJ. (2014). Examining the behavioral outcomes of family business successor commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 570-581.
29.
DawsonA.SharmaP.IrvingP. G.MarcusJ.ChiricoF. (2015). Predictors of later generation family members’ commitment to family enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39, 545-569.
30.
de BeauvoirS. (1953). The second sex. New York, NY: Knopf.
31.
de BruinA.BrushC. G.WelterF. (2007). Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31, 323-339.
32.
Díaz GarcíaM.-C.WelterF. (2011). Gender identities and practices: Interpreting women entrepreneurs’ narratives. International Small Business Journal, 31, 384-404.
33.
DumasC. (1989). Understanding of father-daughter and father-son dyads in family-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 2, 31-46.
34.
DumasC. (1998). Women’s pathways to participation and leadership in the family-owned firm. Family Business Review, 11, 219-228.
35.
DumasC.DupuisJ.RicherF.St-CyrL. (1995). Factors that influence the next generation’s decision to take over the family farm. Family Business Review, 8, 99-120.
36.
DunnB. (1999). The family factor: The impact of family relationship dynamics on business-owning families during transitions. Family Business Review, 12, 41-57.
37.
DurkheimE. (1938). Rules of the sociological method. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
38.
DurkheimE. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY: Free Press.
39.
EaglyA. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644-658.
40.
ElyR.PadavicI. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1121-1143.
FischerE. M.ReuberA. R.DykeL. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 151-168.
44.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
45.
FoucaultM. (1980a). Body/power. In GordonC. (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 55-62). Birmingham, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
46.
FoucaultM. (1980b). Truth and power. In GordonC. (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 109-133). Birmingham, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
47.
FoucaultM. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
48.
GalianoA.VinturellaJ. (1995). Implications of gender bias in the family business. Family Business Review, 8, 177-188.
49.
García-ÁlvarezE.López-SintasJ.GonzalvoP. S. (2002). Socialization patterns of successors in first-to second-generation family businesses. Family Business Review, 15, 189-203.
50.
GildingM. (2000). Family business and family change: Individual autonomy, democratization, and the new family business institutions. Family Business Review, 13, 239-249.
51.
GildingM.GregoryS.CossonB. (2015). Motives and outcomes in family business succession planning. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39, 299-312.
52.
GilliganC. (1977). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
53.
GuptaV. K.TurbanD. B.WastiS. A.SikdarA. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33, 397-417.
54.
HabermanH.DanesS. M. (2007). Father-daughter and father-son family business management transfer comparison: Family FIRO model application. Family Business Review, 20, 163-184.
55.
HackingI. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
56.
HamiltonE. (2006). Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role of women in founding and establishing family businesses. International Small Business Journal, 24, 253-271.
57.
HardingS. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” In AlcoffL.PotterE. (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
58.
HardingS. (2010). Standpoint methodologies and epistemologies: A logic of scientific inquiry for people. In World social science report: Knowledge divides (pp. 173-175). Paris, France: UNESCO.
59.
HartsockN. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”: Truth or justice?Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 367-374.
60.
HartsockN. (2004). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 35-54). New York, NY: Routledge.
61.
HarvestonP. D.DavisP. S.LydenJ. A. (1997). Succession planning in family business: The impact of owner gender. Family Business Review, 10, 373-396.
62.
HegelG. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
63.
HolmquistC.CarterS. (2009). The Diana project: Pioneering women studying pioneering women. Small Business Economics, 32, 121-128.
64.
hooksb. (2014). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
65.
HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP.GuptaV. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
IbrahimA.SoufaniK.LamJ. (2001). A study of succession in a family firm. Family Business Review, 14, 245-258.
67.
ItoT. A.UrlandG. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 616-626.
68.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California.
69.
JaskiewiczP.DyerW. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30, 111-118.
70.
JenningsJ. E.BrushC. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature?Academy of Management Annals, 7, 663-715.
71.
KeatingN. C.LittleH. M. (1997). Choosing the successor in New Zealand family farms. Family Business Review, 10, 157-171.
72.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371-392.
73.
KohA.LingC.KongE.EjercitoJ. (2015). Riding on Asia’s economic transformation: Growth strategies of Asian business families. Singapore: Singapore Management University.
74.
KohlbergL. (2011). The measurement of moral judgment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD.SteierL. P. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28, 305-328.
77.
LukácsG. (1968). History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. London, England: Merlin.
78.
MarxK. (1959). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 3). London, England: Lawrence and Wishart.
79.
MarxK. (2010). A contribution to the critique of political economy. In SittonJ. F. (Ed.), Marx today: Selected works and recent debates (pp. 91-94). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
MatthewsC. H.MooreT. W.FialkoA. S. (1999). Succession in the family firm: A cognitive categorization perspective. Family Business Review, 12, 159-169.
82.
MehrotraV.MorckR.ShimJ.WiwattanakantangY. (2011). Must love kill the family firm? Some exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35, 1121-1148.
83.
MiltonL. P. (2008). Unleashing the relationship power of family firms: Identity confirmation as a catalyst for performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32, 1063-1081.
84.
MooreL.GuptaV. (2007). Overview of gender in family business. In GuptaV.LevenburgN.MooreL. L.MotwaniJ.SchwarzT. V. (Eds.), Culturally-sensitive models of gender in family business: A compendium using the globe paradigm (pp. 3-21). Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India: Icfai University Press.
85.
NordqvistM.WennbergK.HellerstedtK. (2013). An entrepreneurial process perspective on succession in family firms. Small Business Economics, 40, 1087-1122.
86.
OrserB.ElliottC.LeckJ. D. (2013). Entrepreneurial feminists: Perspectives about opportunity recognition and governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 241-257.
87.
PerriconeP. J.EarleJ. R.TaplinI. M. (2001). Patterns of succession and continuity in family-owned businesses: Study of an ethnic community. Family Business Review, 14, 105-121.
88.
PozaE.MesserT. (2001). Spousal leadership and continuity in the family firm. Family Business Review, 14, 25-36.
Redien-CollotR. (2009). Female entrepreneurs’ authority: Is the creative aspect of authority a masculine fiction in managerial and entrepreneurial paradigms?Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17, 419-441.
92.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford, England: Oxford University
93.
RidgewayC. L.BoyleE. H.KuipersK. J.RobinsonD. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63, 331-350.
94.
RidgewayC. L.CorrellS. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510-531.
95.
RidgewayC. L.EricksonK. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 579-615.
96.
SantiagoA. L. (2000). Succession experiences in Philippine family businesses. Family Business Review, 13, 15-35.
97.
SchröderE.Schmitt-RodermundE.ArnaudN. (2011). Career choice intentions of adolescents with a family business background. Family Business Review, 24, 305-321.
98.
SchützA. (1972). On multiple realities. In NatansonM. (Ed.), Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (pp. 207-259). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
99.
SharmaP.IrvingP. G. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29, 13-33.
100.
SharmaP.RaoA. S. (2000). Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 13, 313-330.
101.
SmithD. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University.
102.
SonfieldM. C.LussierR. N. (2004). First-, second-, and third-generation family firms: A comparison. Family Business Review, 17, 189-202.
103.
StavrouE. (1999). Succession in family businesses: Exploring the effects of demographic factors on offspring intentions to join and take over the business. Journal of Small Business Management, 37, 43-61.
104.
TatogluE.KulaV.GlaisterK. W. (2008). Succession planning in family-owned businesses: Evidence from Turkey. International Small Business Journal, 26, 155-180.
105.
TillyC. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California.
106.
VeraC. F.DeanM. A. (2005). An examination of the challenges daughters face in family business succession. Family Business Review, 18, 321-345.
107.
WeberM. (1978). The nature of social action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
108.
WeberM. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
109.
YanJ.SorensonR. (2006). The effect of Confucian values on succession in family business. Family Business Review, 19, 235-250.
110.
ZellE.KrizanZ.TeeterS. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10-20.
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.
