Heart and Soul: Transferring ‘Socio-emotional Wealth’ (SEW) in Family Business Succession

Abstract

The importance of the family business (FB) is not only stable but it is also improving its position in the global economy and playing a key role in the European economy. They represent 60 per cent of the employment and more than 60 million jobs in the private sector. But they face many internal challenges, of which the importance of ‘company succession’ is growing together with the need for technology renewal and attracting the right skills/talents (PwC, 2014).

This article focuses on the transfer of socio-emotional wealth (SEW) as a key intangible asset during intergenerational changes in the FB (Debicki, Kellermanns, Chrisman, Pearson, & Spencer, 2016; Gómez-Mehija, Takács Haynes, Núnez-Nickel, Jackobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007; Martinez-Romero & Rojo-Ramírez, 2016). Using empirical experiences based on multi-site company case studies in three countries (Hungary, Poland and the UK), the analysis presents the transfer of the following key components of the SEW to the next generation: a trust-based social-system, generic human values (namely, openness, mutual respect, correctness, reliability and responsibility) and ‘practice based–embedded collective knowledge’. We find that a key lesson is that transferring physical assets in the succession process seems to be less important than the transfer of the intangible ones embedded in the company’s culture because of the complex, informal and dynamic nature of the transferring mechanisms and of the role they play in sustaining entrepreneurial willingness and economic success over generations.

Keywords

Family business succession tangible and intangible assets socio-emotional wealth

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bertrand

Schoar

(2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 20(2), 73–96.

Debicki

B. J.

Kellermanns

F. J.

Chrisman

J. J

Pearson

A. W.

Spencer

B. A.

(2016). Development of a socioemotional wealth importance (SEWi) scale for family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy , 7(1), 47–57.

Devins

(2015). Review of family business research on succession planning in the UK (National Review, Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 66). Leeds: Leeds Becket University.

Devins

Marran

(2015). Podiums Ltd., British case study (ERASMUS + INSIST Project; p. 9). Leeds: Leeds Becket University.

Gómez-Mehija

Takács Haynes

Núnez-Nickel

Jackobson

K. J. L.

Moyano-Fuentes

(2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish oil olive mills. Administrative Science Quarterly , 52(1), 106–137.

Gorowski

(2015). Pillar Ltd., Polish case study (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 9). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

Goto

(2014). Family business and its longevity. Kundai Review , 2(3), 78–96.

Goydke

(2016) Japanese family business. In Haghirian

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of Japanese business management (pp. 48–58). London: Routledge.

Gubányi

Csákné Filep

Kiss

Á.

Csizmadia

(2015, March). National report on family business in Hungary (Erasmus + INISIST Project; p. 36). Budapest: Budapest Business School—Faculty of Finance and Accounting.

10.

Huws

Dahlmann

(2007). Quality standards for case studies in the European Foundation . Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

11.

Kiss

. (2015, May). BI-KA Logistics—Hungarian case study (Erasmus + INISIST Project; p. 8). Budapest: Budapest Business School—Faculty of Finance and Accounting.

12.

Konopacka

(2015a). DOMEX—Joint Stock Company—Polish case study. (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 9). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

13.

Konopacka

(2015b). The WAMECH Company: Producer of industrial trade—Piotr and Ablina Wasik registered partnership—Polish case study (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 9). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

14.

Konopacka

(2015c). The WITEK Centre—Polish case study (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 11). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

15.

Kuczi

Makó

(1997). Towards industrial districts? Small-firm networking in Hungary. In Grabher

Stark

(Eds), Restructuing networks in post-socialism (legacies, linkages, and localities) (pp. 176–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Mandl

(2008). Overview of family business relevant issues, EU FP, European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry (Final Report—Ctr No. 30-CE-0164021/00-50). Wienna: Austrian Institute for SME Research in Co-operation with WVO-EHSL Brussels and Turku School of Economics.

17.

Martínez-Romero

M. J.

Rojo-Ramírez

A. A.

(2016). SEW: Looking for a definition and controversial issues. European Journal of Family Business , 6(1), 1–9.

18.

Mascheroni

Bisello

(2015). Youth entrepreneurship in Europe: Values, attitudes, policies (Eurofound; p. 124). Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.

19.

Miller

Le Breton Miller

(2014). Deconstructing socio-emotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 38(4), 713–720.

20.

Napi.hu. (2016). Óriási eladási hullám indulhat Magyarországon [An enormous wave of the company selling may begin in Hungary]. Retrieved 9 March 2016, from http://www.napi.hu/magyar_vallalatok/oriasi_eladasi_hullam_indulhat_magyarorszag

21.

Niebler

(2015). Report on family business in Europe. European Parliament (Plenary sitting), Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, RR/10677364EN.doc—A8-0223/2015, p. 26). Strasbourg: European Parliament.

22.

Paszkowska

(2015). Plantex Case—Polish case study (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 11). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

23.

Pearson

A. W.

Carr

J. C.

Shaw

J. C.

(2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 32(6), 949–969.

24.

PwC. (2014). Up close and professional: The family factor. Price Waterhouse Cooper (p. 39).

25.

Surdej

(2015a, March). National Report (Literature Review) (Erasmus + INSIST Project; p. 34). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

26.

Surdej

(2015b, March). Family firms change the face of capitalism (An interview with Prof. Jozef Horak—Director of Family Owned Business Institute at Seldam College of Business, Grand Valley State University; p. 4). Krakow: Krakow University of Economics.

27.

Szentesi

(2015, May). Quality Meat Ltd. (good practice in the succession process)—Hungarian case study (Erasmus + INISIST Project). Budapest: Budapest Business School—Faculty of Finance and Accounting.

28.

The Economist. (2014, November 1). Family companies. Relative success. (There are important lessons to be learned from the surprising resilience of family firms). The Economist , 171(44), 1–3.

29.

Tomory

E. M.

(2014). Boot strap financing: Case study of ten technology-based innovative ventures, Tales from the best (PhD Dissertation; p. 133). University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics.

30.

Wymer

(2015). Parodan engineering—British case study (ERASMUS + INSIST Project; p. 14). Leeds: Leeds Becket University.

31.

Zellweger

T. M.

Nason

Nordquist

Brush

(2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 37(2), 229–248.