A Governance Approach of Emotion in Family Business: Towards a Multi-level Integrated Framework and Research Agenda
-
Rania Labaki
and
Giorgia M. D’Allura
Abstract
While emotion in family business is beginning to garner closer attention among researchers, the nexus of emotion management and governance has received little attention to date. In this essay, we reflect on and extend the Special Issue contributions by integrating the emotion management literature with the family business and governance literatures. We suggest a governance approach of emotion through a multilevel integrated framework. We introduce “emotion governance” as an overarching set of informal and formal mechanisms that are rooted and developed in the embedded family business contexts. We argue that emotion governance influences the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members at different stages: ex-ante (incentive alignment), during the process (education and support), and ex-post (monitoring). It thereby contributes to ensure their accountability in line with family business continuity. Considering the heterogeneity of family businesses, we capture nuances in our framework across family business archetypes through a series of propositions. We chart an agenda for future research to advance the development of a theory of family business governance inclusive of emotion.
1 Introduction: The Tango of Rationality and Emotion at the Family Business Dancefloor
The Covid-19 crisis that shook the business world to its core is prompting us, management scholars, to ponder the advent of the next “scientific revolution” (Kuhn 2012) by questioning leading paradigms and exploring emerging ones that (re-)make sense of organizations’ behavior. Unprecedented by its speed, magnitude, and impact, this crisis hit the organizations’ iceberg with its visible tip of rationality, and unleashed its underneath emotions, which gained in intensity, spread contagiously, and took ambivalent forms, at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, organizational and family-work interface levels.
In reference to Peter Drucker’s (1980) and R. Edward Freeman (2010)’s landmark expressions, the premise of this editorial essay is that “Managing in turbulent times”[1] is a necessary but not sufficient condition for organizations to strive and thrive. “Emotions are critical across all levels of organizational management and governance” (Ashkanasy, Härtel, and Zerbe 2016, p. xxvi). We claim that “Governing (emotion) in turbulent times” is complementary towards this endeavor, as ensuring a sustainable health of organizations is contingent upon the harmony of interests among all stakeholders (Jensen and Meckling 1976; Tuan 2013). In this essay, we embark on the path of a developmental governance approach of emotion in organizations, with a focus on family businesses, by integrating “the modern view of emotions theories on the adaptive value of emotions (…) [which] often must be regulated” (Gross 1999, p. 551).
In the current turbulent times, the relevance of different governance models in organizations was put to the test. The traditional and predominant governance models, based on rationality or bounded rationality (e.g., Jensen and Meckling 1976), are showing signs of weaknesses while the behavioral governance models, inclusive of psychological considerations (e.g., Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia 1998), are coming to light as more relevant and pressing models to delve into. In the same line, the managerial capitalism, geared towards the financial wealth of shareholders, was outweighed by the family capitalism, geared towards the financial and socio-emotional wealth of stakeholders (Gomez-Mejia et al. 2007; Zellweger and Nason 2008), in its capacity to face the current Covid-19 crisis. Since the early national lockdowns to contain the pandemic, family businesses have indeed overperformed their non-family counterparts (e.g., Amore, Quarato, and Pelucco 2021; Klerk 2020).
Still, family businesses are not all equal in the face of critical challenges. Characterized by two interrelated sub-systems, a business and a family which plays an influential role in the business (Whiteside and Brown 1991), they represent a heterogeneous group of organizations (Daspit et al. 2021; Dibrell and Memili 2019; Sharma, Chrisman, and JChua 1997). As “containers of emotions” (D’Allura and Labaki 2018), they experience emotion flows between the family and the business (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013b) in a way that varies in terms of evolution and impact across emotional family business archetypes (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a). The tango movements governing rationality and emotion play differently on the family business dancefloor, as they move along the continuum of Enmeshed Family Businesses, Balanced Family Businesses and Disengaged Family Businesses (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a).
While in the psychology field, “one pressing challenge for future research is to clarify the rules that govern the skillful application of emotion regulation” (Gross 2014, p. 14), in the family business field this challenge is of utmost importance for the continuity of family businesses, viewed as the main contributors to worldwide economies (e.g., Pieper, Kellermanns, and Astrachan 2021; Wooldridge 2015). An examination of the governance of emotion in family businesses was still, however, missing up to the publication of the current Special Issue “A Governance Approach of Emotions: For more meaningful entrepreneurial and family businesses” in Entrepreneurship Research Journal (ERJ).
The cognitive journey of this Special Issue dates to nearly a decade, which witnessed a rising scholarly interest in the emotional dimensions of entrepreneurial and business families. In 2013, ERJ published one of the pioneering Special Issues titled “A New Business Model: The Emotional Dimension of Organizations”. By setting the tone for new research, pedagogical and methodological directions on emotion for entrepreneurship and family business scholars (Labaki 2013; Rafaeli 2013), it has inspired us in the organization of two Professional Development Workshops (PDWs) at the Academy of Management Annual Conferences (2016, 2017). These PDWs brought organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, and family business scholars on the family business dancefloor to reflect, through their theoretical and empirical lenses, on how governance contributes to fueling and shaping different types of emotions. While a consensus emerged around the potential of governance in building, weakening or strengthening the competitive advantage of entrepreneurial and family businesses (D’Allura and Labaki 2018), a more developmental governance approach of emotion was deemed necessary, creating the bridge to our call for contributions for this Special Issue. Through an emotion governance lens, our intention was to extend the research directions derived from the first ERJ Special Issue, namely the consideration of family business heterogeneity based on their emotional nexus (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a) and the examination of emotional constructs in family businesses (e.g., Burch, Batchelor, and Humphrey 2013; Humphrey 2013; Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a; Michael-Tsabari and Tan 2013; Rau 2013) as well as building on other more recent scholarly developments (e.g., Cailluet, Bernhard, and Labaki 2018; Colli 2018). The authors of this Special Issue took up the challenge by successfully responding to our call (Basco et al. 2021; Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Henssen and Koiranen 2021; Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021; Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro 2021), despite the complexity surrounding the study of emotion in the family business field (Labaki 2020). While we were far from realizing that the publication of this Special Issue would coincide with the Covid-19 global crisis, the authors’ contributions find a particular echo in these emotionally charged times. As economies are expected to gradually recover end of 2021 (European European Commission 2021; World Bank Group 2021), they challenge our thinking and inspire new or revised models of governance towards ensuring the continuity of family businesses.
This Special Issue stands therefore as an additional steppingstone for a developmental approach of a theory of family business governance inclusive of emotion considerations. In this essay, we build on and extend the contributions of the five articles of the Special Issue by integrating the emotion management literatures from the psychology and the organizational behavior fields to the family business field. We suggest a governance approach of emotion, through a dynamic and multilevel integrated framework, along with propositions about nuances across family business archetypes. We also propose an agenda to advance the field of family business in uncharted territories of emotion and governance through both ordinary and extraordinary times.
2 The Missing Lens in Family Business Governance Theory: Emotion Considerations
Exploring the etymological roots of the overarching theme of our Special Issue, the terms “emotion” and “governance” may sound like an oxymoron. “Governance”, from the Latin verb “gubernare”, means “to direct and govern” while “emotion”, from the Latin verb “emovēre”, means “to remove, to displace, to move out” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). We suggest that their combination can be rather an opportunity for ensuring family business continuity. “Continuity”, from the Latin verb “continuitāt”, refers to “hold together”. In the family business, as the overlapping family and business systems move simultaneously towards mutual existence, success in one system leads to success in the other (Danes et al. 2008; Stafford et al. 1999) while emotions in one system are carried to the other system, although to different extents (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013b). Family business continuity can be viewed as the reflection of the family and the business harmonious existence, through achieving financial and socio-emotional wealth (SEW) goals. In the next sections, we explore how the academic community has attempted to address the peculiarities of family business governance and identify emotion as one of the missing clues.
2.1 On the Peculiarities of Family Business Governance
Largely based on Agency Theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976), corporate governance mainly intends to ensure that the actions of the agent (e.g., the manager) are carried out in the interests of the principal (e.g., the owner) of the firm. It includes an array of monitoring and incentive mechanisms, such as board of directors or supervisory board, top management team’s compensation schemes, and competitive labor markets (Shleifer and Vishny 1997). To contribute effectively to reducing opportunistic behavior on the part of the agents, national corporate governance codes have been issued as (flexible) requirements for the development, composition, functioning and evaluation of the supervisory structures in organizations[2].
Distinct from other organizations given their family system, family businesses have their own governance specificities and goals. Traditionally, they were considered as privileged in terms of low agency costs (Dalton and Daily 1992) or as “a reference point for zero agency costs” (Ang, Cole, and Lin 2000), due to the lack of separation between ownership and management (Fama and Jensen 1983; Jensen and Meckling 1976). This seems in line with Stewardship Theory which views agents as stewards of the firm whose motives are aligned with the objectives of the principals (Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson 1997).
Family businesses, however, do not represent a monolithic group of cohesive family owners and managers, continuously pursuing convergent interests (Labaki 2007, 2011). The family owners’ goals are not limited to financial ones but also include non-financial ones, that generate Socio-Emotional Wealth (SEW) (Gomez-Mejia et al. 2007). Given the interaction between the family and the business, a contractual perspective of governance at the business level may require a relational perspective of governance at the family level (Montemerlo et al. 2004; Mustakallio, Autio, and Zahra 2002) to ensure the alignment of family principals and agents with both financial and SEW goals (Mustakallio 2002; Suess 2014).
A more recent stream of research on behavioral corporate governance (e.g., Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia 1998) has followed in parallel, aiming to open the black box of organizations by addressing human-related factors (e.g., Fong and Tosi 2007; Huse 2007; Van Ees, Gabrielsson, and Huse 2009). The initial attempts for developing a family business variant of the behavioral theory of corporate governance (Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia 1998) have focused on risk-taking preferences (Gomez-Mejia, Neacsu, and Martin 2019; Gomez–Mejia et al. 2014; Lim, Lubatkin, and Wiseman 2010) whereas scarce attempts were made to explore emotion dynamics (e.g., Brundin and Nordqvist 2008).
2.2 Emotion: At the Crossroads of Stewardship-Agency Dilemmas and their Resolutions
Reconciling divergent interests among family agents and principals and ensuring stewardship behavior in line with the interests of the family collective represent important dilemmas for the family business continuity. The emotional bonding among family members tends to erode over time (Labaki 2007), leading to increasing divergent interests, not only among owners and managers but also among other categories of family principals and agents (Calabrò, Campopiano, and Basco 2017; Labaki 2007; Zellweger and Kammerlander 2015). Family businesses can have an additional and unique source of agency cost, as compared to non-family businesses (Gomez-Mejia, Nunez-Nickel, and Gutierrez 2001; Schulze et al. 2001). While Steier (2003) suggests the concept of “family altruistic rationality” to describe the logic for managerial misbehavior within the so-called agency contract, others label the source of agency cost as asymmetric altruism (Chrisman, Chua, and Litz 2004; Lubatkin et al. 2005; Schulze, Lubatkin, and Dino 2003). Weak emotional bonds among family members can foster dysfunctional altruistic behaviors (Labaki 2007). Given this, we argue that emotion can be at the same time the living heart of these agency-stewardship dilemmas and the key to their resolution.
Altruism, attributed to problems in self-control (Schulze, Lubatkin, and Dino 2003), can alter managers’ perceptions of employed family members and reduce their ability to effectively control and discipline them (Van den Berghe and Carchon 2003). Driven by the love for their children and the desire to improve their well-being, parents can display acts of generosity towards their children or choose them as successors regardless of their competencies. The children might view these acts rather as entitlements and behave like “free riders” or engage in opportunistic behaviors instead of reciprocating altruism (Labaki 2008; Lim, Lubatkin, and Wiseman 2010; Lubatkin, Durand, and Ling 2007). Identifying different types of parents-owners altruism, Lubatkin, Durand, and Ling (2007) suggest that family-oriented altruism and paternalistic altruism can be positively associated with governance inefficiencies whereas psychosocial altruism can be positively associated with governance efficiencies, because the employed offspring are imbued with pre-existing norms and values, ex ante enforcements, and a family bond that promotes reciprocity and other-regarding behaviors.
In the early stages of the family business life cycle, self-control and trust tend to prevail as an informal governance mechanism (Labaki 2011; Steier 2001). Over time, families face an increased risk of weakening of their emotional bonds, especially from the third generation onwards (Labaki 2007). This exacerbates conflicts of interests and non-reciprocal altruism, which can impact the continuity of the business in the family’s hands (Labaki 2007, 2011). As the family and business evolve, it becomes necessary to replace informal governance with increasing formalization (Labaki 2007; Van Aaken, Rost, and Seidl 2017). This formalization can take different forms: the family structures such as the family council as well as the family agreements such as the family constitution (Gersick and Feliu 2014; Suess 2014). Given this, we suggest that the development and/or formalization of governance can benefit from an emotion approach rather than a pure rationality approach.
Whether through altruistic behaviors or emotional distancing over time, the emotional dimensions permeate the heart of governance peculiarities in family businesses. The need to rethink governance in family businesses with an emotional lens stems from the potential for dysfunctional emotion dynamics in relation with discrepancies in goals among family members over time. These seem to be exacerbated in the presence of inefficient family governance or corporate governance that overlook emotion while relying largely on rationality assumptions. These observations lead us to a progressive double inquiry. On one hand, we explore the process of emotion management by family business members, and on the other hand, we plant the seeds for a more fine-grained governance approach of emotion that contributes to family business continuity.
3 Emotion and Governance in Family Business: A Multi-level Integrated Framework
After reflecting on the relevance of including emotion considerations in family business governance, we now set the stage for an integrated framework of emotion and governance towards family business continuity. In line with Ashkanasy (2003), we believe that “emotions are intensely personal” (p.10) although “they are intrinsically a multi-level phenomenon” (p. 42) in organizations where they can span and interact at multiple levels. As such, they can lead to constructive or destructive behaviors which threaten or foster the family business continuity (e.g., Bernhard and Labaki 2021; Bertschi-Michel, Kammerlander, and Strike 2020; Labaki and Hirigoyen 2020). Adapting the typology of the “levels of emotions in organizations” (Ashkanasy 2003, p. 11) to the family business, we engage in a multi-level exploration of emotion, starting at the family business members’ intrapersonal level and interpersonal level, then expanding to the family, ownership, and business group levels, and finally to the organization-wide level. In the same vein, we view governance as an overarching construct operating at the micro, meso and macro dimensions of context in relation with family business emotions (Ashkanasy 2003; Krueger et al. 2021).
Building on this, we first review the management approach of emotion in the psychology and organizational behavior fields. Second, we extend the main insights of this literature towards a governance approach of emotion in the family business field. Thus, we lay the foundations for a multilevel theory of emotion governance for ensuring family business continuity. Figure 1 illustrates our framework.[3]
3.1 From a Management Approach of Emotion …
Standing on the shoulders of contemporary giants who advanced our knowledge on emotion management across disciplines (e.g., Ashkanasy 2003; Frijda 1986; Grandey 2000; Gross 1999; Hochschild 1983), the development of our integrated framework starts by clarifying the distinction between emotion and emotion regulation process and presenting their related explicit vs implicit strategies.
3.1.1 A Process Perspective on Emotion and Emotion Regulation
Interest in emotion and emotion regulation dates back to the dawn of history but scholarly developments have dramatically increased over the past three decades, significantly shaping our understanding of the nature of their process in different fields, such as psychology (Gross and Feldman Barrett 2011) and organizational behavior (Ashkanasy 2003; Fisher and Ashkanasy 2000; Grandey and Melloy 2017). Still, confusing perspectives remain, mainly attributed to the different ways in which emotion is scientifically defined and studied, and the difficulty of capturing its dynamic nature which unfolds over time (Gross and Feldman Barrett 2011; Gross 2015). In the face of the variety of definitions on emotion in academia (Scherer 2005) and of the perspectives on emotion regulation (Gross and Feldman Barrett 2011; Lawrence et al. 2011)[4], this essay adopts the appraisal perspective by viewing emotion as a process: Emotion is elicited with the occurrence of an event, to which a meaning is assigned through appraisal, then it translates into behavior (e.g., Ellsworth and Scherer 2003; Frijda 2007; Lazarus 1991; Lewis 2008; Scherer 1982).
Looking into the psychology and organizational behavior fields, the emotion management is referred to, sometimes interchangeably, as “emotion work” (Hochschild 1979), “emotion labor” (Hochschild 1983), and “emotion regulation” (Gross 1998a). Beyond potential variations[5], the overall rationale of these constructs seems aligned with Frijda’s (1988) assertion that “emotions are lawful” (p. 349); that is they emerge and develop according to definite laws that summarize major regularities in the emotional phenomena (Frijda 2007). They also tend to converge on the malleable aspects of emotion, which stand as an underlying condition for emotion management; that is how we influence which emotions we have, when we have them, how and how long we experience and express them (Gross 1998a, 2015).
This leads to extending the emotion process model to the emotion management process model, where emotion becomes subject to regulatory actions throughout all the stages of the emotion process from the initiation to the expression (Frijda 1986; Gross and Thompson 2007)[6]. Overall, the regulatory actions of emotion can occur at one stage or several stages of the emotion process model, including (1) the selection of the event, that is the avoidance or the search for emotional events that act as stimulus situations; (2) the modification of the appraisal of the events through selective attention or changing other cognitive biases; (3) the impulse control of emotions by suppression or disappearance from consciousness of emotional urges, and (4) the change in the behavioral response to these emotions (Frijda 1986). While similar understandings of the emotion management process exist among scholars, some differences pertain to the subdivisions of the stages of the process and their sequential development (e.g., Gross 1998a; Scherer 1982).
We follow the process model of emotion regulation for adults developed by Gross (1998a) as it represents a distillation of major points of convergence among researchers concerned with emotion (Gross 1998a) and builds on common features to many different approaches of emotion (Gross 2014). This model has been extensively empirically tested in the psychology field at large[7] (Gross 2015; Lawrence et al. 2011) and is increasingly gaining interest in organizational behavior studies[8] (e.g., Ashkanasy et al. 2017; Grandey and Melloy 2017). It implies that emotion can be regulated at five points: (1) selection of the situation, (2) modification of the situation, (3) deployment of attention, (4) change of cognitions, and (5) modulation of experiential, behavioral, or physiological responses. We follow Gross’s (1998b) broader categorization of these points in two families of strategies[9], which refers to what is done before and after activating the emotion response (Gross and Thompson 2007). The “antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies” occur during the genesis of an emotion and encompass the first four points: selection and modification of the situation, attention deployment, and cognitive change. The “response-focused emotion regulation strategies” involve the fifth point (Gross 1998a, 1998b).
Whether antecedent- or response-focused, we present the way these strategies can be thought of, then we focus on the features of the process that are in line with a governance approach of emotion.
3.1.2 Emotion Management on the Explicit-Implicit Continuum
The process of managing emotion, that is “handling” or “self-controlling” emotion (Frijda 1986), in terms of type, intensity, duration, and expression (Gross 1998a), can happen voluntarily or involuntarily (Frijda 1986), with potential variations on a continuum ranging from conscious to automatic regulation (Calkins and Hill 2007; Gross and Thompson 2007), or from more controlled to more automatic regulation (Braunstein, Gross, and Ochsner 2017). Given existing differences between labels and descriptions (Braunstein, Gross, and Ochsner 2017), we choose to build on Gyurak, Gross, and Etkin (2011) who organize the different areas of emotion regulation strategies as “explicit” and “implicit”, while arguing for the thin line between them. They acknowledge that the explicit and implicit regulation processes are not mutually exclusive categories but may vary in explicitness or implicitness over time or across situations, and that adaptive emotional responses can depend on the interplay between explicit and implicit processing (Gyurak, Gross, and Etkin 2011). According to their conceptualization, implicit emotion regulation processes are evoked automatically by a stimulus, run to completion without monitoring and can happen without insight and awareness. Explicit emotion regulation processes require conscious effort for initiation, demand some level of monitoring during implementation, and are associated with some level of insight and awareness (Gyurak, Gross, and Etkin 2011). The authors claim that when faced with an emotion regulatory challenge, the conscious, effortful, and rule-based operations of explicit emotion regulatory processes are necessary to adjust initial reactions.
This definition of explicitness of emotion management (Gyurak, Gross, and Etkin 2011) puts forward the need for upgrading the level of insight and awareness, and for supporting and/or monitoring individuals, such as family business members, before, during and after the emotion management implementation, whether in terms of antecedent- or response-focused strategies. This leads us to introduce the concept of governance into the theoretical analysis of explicit emotion management and its impact on family business behavior and continuity.
3.2 …. To a Governance Approach of Emotion in Family Business
As developed in an earlier section of this essay, governance is viewed as an incentive alignment and a monitoring mechanism for family business members to ensure their behaviors contribute to the expected financial and SEW goals in the family business. Focusing on “explicit” emotion management, as opposed to “implicit” emotion management which does not require conscious awareness, our premise is that the effective emotion management of family business members entails a framework that incentivizes (i.e., informs, inspires, educates, guides) and monitors them throughout the process, starting from the emotional trigger to the different stages of the process. Then, it entails a monitoring mechanism of the post-implementation’s effects on the family business behavior towards achieving goals of continuity; all of which we suggest exploring under the label of “emotion governance”.
We next develop our rationale by exploring the trajectories of explicit emotion management strategies of family business members in relation with governance. Our analysis starts with a focus on intra and interpersonal levels as we look at the triggers of emotion management, and its implementation. We gradually move to a group level and an organizational level of analysis of the relationship between emotion management and family business behavioral outcomes and continuity.
3.2.1 Situational Cues: Emotional Events and Goal Activation
Emotion management may be viewed as altering an emotion trajectory that would have occurred in the absence of emotion strategy (Gross 2015). It can be triggered by situational cues such as emotional events and goal activation (Grandey 2000; Gross 1998a, 1998b).
An emotional event may lead to emotional regulation after it originally resulted in emotions that are discrepant from learned behavioral scripts or norms (Gioia and Poole 1984; Grandey 2000; Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). While emotions in the workplace can be tied to specific external or internal events (Ashton-James and Ashkanasy 2005; Basch and Fisher 2000; Grandey 2000), emotions in the family business can be the playground of a myriad of emotional events that occur not only at the macro level but also at the meso and micro levels, following the life cycle stage of the family, business and ownership as well as of the family members (Gersick et al. 1997). Some of these events are part of the natural life cycle and can be predictable whereas others can be unexpected or incurred on purpose by the family, business and ownership (i.e., succession, death, illness, marriage, birth, success or failure). The events that have a particular emotional resonance for family business members can lead them to engage in emotion management strategies reconsidering the event appraisal or revising the initial emotional reaction and making emotional adjustments.
The activation of a goal also influences the emotion trajectory (Gross, Sheppes, and Urry 2011) of family business members, stimulating their emotion management process. This goal can be intended to manage their own emotion, to regulate another person’s emotions, or both, in order to achieve an emotional outcome as well as a non-emotional outcome (Mauss and Tamir 2014)[10]. The non-emotional outcome can include meeting job requirements in line with the emotion labor works of Hochschild (1983) and meeting cultural imperatives that dictate the way emotions should be displayed in a particular situation (Mesquita and Markus 2004). One of the major emotional outcomes is maintaining stability and equilibrium, also referred to as “homeostasis” (Bargh and Williams 2007; Larsen and Prizmic 2004), which could be extended to family relationships or other interpersonal relationships. In a family business, the emotional and non-emotional expected outcomes of the members can also lie at the intersection of the family, business and ownership systems, and differ given the roles they are endorsing. According to Gross (2014), in the presence of multiple goals, individuals will follow the emotion regulatory goal that has survived competition with other currently active goals. These goals can be made explicit through a mechanism allowing for their formal development and articulation (Gyurak, Gross, and Etkin 2011), which can facilitate the alignment of the emotion management strategies among family business members.
Given this, we argue that the emotion management strategies of family business members are triggered by situational cues, which can be in turn initiated or stimulated by mechanisms embedded in the macro, micro and meso-contexts of the family business (Krueger et al. 2021). Whether in terms of organizing and/or supporting emotional events or activating goals in an explicit manner, these mechanisms encompass emotion norms and other governance structures and agreements. In the next sections, we introduce these mechanisms as part of the governance approach of emotion, intended to family business behaviors conducive to continuity.
3.2.2 Emotion Management Norms in the Embedded Family Business Contexts
While emotion management is functional at multiple levels of analysis – intrapersonal (Ashkanasy 2003), interpersonal interactions, meso-level structures (such as communities), and macrolevel organizations (such as nations, religions, or cultures) (Lively and Weed 2014), different settings tend to be governed by different sets of emotional norms which stem, in part, from the identities of the individuals belonging to these settings (Lively and Heise 2014), and which individuals can use to interpret, evaluate and justify their own emotions (Thoits 2004, p. 365).
The emotion management process implies therefore that individuals are taught about emotion management in different settings over their life cycle (Thoits 2004; Thompson and Meyer 2007), so they act for the purpose of being in line with agreed-upon emotion norms (Lively and Weed 2014; Thoits 2004).
Going back to the genesis of the process, the transmission of emotion norms starts with the emotion management socialization process[11] since an early age. Individuals shape their emotion management processes predominantly in the family setting when they are children and adolescents; then they develop them as adults taking on new social roles (Thoits 2004; Thompson and Meyer 2007). They are educated and coached by their parents, family members and caregivers about emotion norms (Holodynski and Friedlmeier 2005; Thoits 2004; Thompson and Meyer 2007). Overall, the family emotional climate, also labelled as “the meta-emotion philosophy” (Thompson and Meyer 2007, p. 259), is influenced by the parental or family beliefs and values about emotion and its expression. As such, it exposes family members to parental or family models of emotion regulation, helps them develop schemes for emotionality in and outside the family, and shapes the way they internalize normative expectations by which they manage their emotions (Thompson and Meyer 2007).
Family members will also embrace norms in the organizational setting when taking on new professional roles (Thoits 2004). They can be impelled to manage their emotions, displaying those considered acceptable given job-related norms or organizational rules (Hochschild 1983; Rafaeli and Sutton 1989). The sociocultural context with which they constantly engage also provides them with norms about how to display emotions in response to emotional cues (Holodynski and Friedlmeier 2005; Mauss, Bunge, and Gross 2008). These socio-cultural norms matter and can be congruent, to different extents, with the occupational or organizational emotion norms, which means that more or less effortful emotion management can be required from them (Grandey et al. 2010).
In the family business, the emotion norms stem not only from the sociocultural environment and the business system but also from the family system (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013b). Family members who endorse multiple roles in the family business may need to comply with both organizational and family emotion norms. These norms can collide or differ to the extent to which family and business systems overlap, that is depending on their family business emotional archetype (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a).
Emotion management norms are therefore rooted in the embedded contexts of the family business (macro, meso and micro) (Krueger et al. 2021). Our assumption is that family business members engage in emotion management strategies that are congruent with the socio-cultural norms of the society to which they belong, and of the family and/or the business norms, which can be formalized to different extents. A lack of a unified and transparent framework of emotion norms in the family business can lead to violations of emotion norms or misalignments in the emotion management strategies among family business members, which can have negative repercussions on family business behavior.
As emotional ideologies and norms can be deliberately created to justify and/or to serve the goals of small groups, whole industries, or entire social systems (Thoits 2004, pp. 364–365), we suggest that explicitly developing or revising the emotion norms of the family business, as part of a well-thought-of governance approach of emotion, promotes emotion management alignment among family business members.
As mentioned earlier, family businesses are characterized by governance structures and agreements, not only in the business and ownership system but also in the family system. The role of these structures and agreements has, however, not been sufficiently explored in relation with emotion. Next, we suggest integrating them as emotion governance mechanisms that contribute to family business continuity.
3.2.3 Family, Business and Ownership Governance: Considering their Overlooked Role in Emotion Management
The family business literature distinguishes informal and formal governance mechanisms that can lie within and at the intersection of the family, ownership, and business systems[12]. While these governance mechanisms were studied in relation with several family and organizational outcomes (Suess 2014; Suess-Reyes 2017), a few scholars considered them in relation with emotion management (e.g., Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021). Building on these insights, we suggest focusing on organizational trust and psychological safety as informal governance mechanisms, then on the family, business, and ownership governance structures and agreements as formal governance mechanisms, to explore their role in the explicit emotion management of family business members.
Organizational trust entails a significant reduction of the potential for opportunistic behavior in relationships (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995; Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis 2007) with one of its main functions described as a corporate governance mechanism. According to Charreaux (1997), trust is a spontaneous and specific governance mechanism; with the specific character being its embeddedness in bilateral relationships and its spontaneous character not being subject to hierarchy or any external authority, which makes of it an informal mechanism. In the family business, trust has been described as indigenous in most family relationships, a source of strategic advantage (Steier 2001), and one of the explanatory factors of performance (Allouche and Amann 1998). As for psychological safety, it refers to the safety that organizational members need to feel before becoming open to change (Schein and Bennis 1965) in order to engage in experiences and interactions with the world around them (Nembhard and Edmondson 2012). In family businesses characterized by psychological safety, family business members have a shared belief about a safe environment, which fosters their emotional experiences and interactions. This puts forward the role of psychological safety as an informal emotion governance mechanism in the family business (Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021).
These informal mechanisms seem particularly advantageous in the early stages of the family business life cycle when stewardship behavior tends to prevail (Labaki 2007, 2011). However, they are less likely in later stages when the optimal role of trust as a governance mechanism erodes, which requires a subsequent evolution of the family business governance, towards more formal family and business governance structures and agreements (Labaki 2007, 2011; Steier 2001; Van Aaken, Rost, and Seidl 2017).
When trust and psychological safety decline, we suggest that the formal family, ownership and governance mechanisms take over or complement them (e.g., Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021) in the emotion governance role. They can contribute to reducing the sources of agency, such as asymmetric altruistic behavior and conflicts of interest, which threaten the family business continuity.
Our claim is therefore that a positive relationship between, the informal (organizational trust and psychological safety among others) and formal mechanisms of the business, family and ownership and the family business behavior is not always direct but can require the emotional alignment of family business members. Both mechanisms can therefore provide informal or formal support and monitoring to the family business members throughout their explicit emotional management process, leading to positive behaviors, such as adaptive decision-making (e.g., Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021). They can also embody favorable environments and settings that activate the family business members explicit goals and other emotional triggers of the emotion management process.
Overall, we suggest that emotion governance emerges and develops in the embedded contexts (macro, meso, and micro) in which the family business dwell (Krueger et al. 2021). Given the previous developments, the array of emotion governance mechanisms range from (1) the socio-cultural norms relative to the macro context, to (2) the organizational trust and psychological safety and the formal corporate governance structures and agreements (e.g., board of directors, ownership agreement) relative to the business and ownership meso context, and to (3) the informal family governance (e.g., family reunions and family emotion norms) as well as the formal family governance structures and agreements (e.g., family council, family constitution) at the family micro level. Next, we provide an overview of our integrated framework across all levels of analysis.
3.2.4 A Multi-level Overview of the Integrated Framework
In the integrated framework of emotion governance (Figure 1), we draw on the multi-level perspective of emotions in organizations developed by Ashkanasy (2003) by focusing on and adapting four different levels of analysis to the family business: (1) the intrapersonal or within-person, (2) the interpersonal or between family members, (3) the family, ownership or business groups, and (4) the organization-wide level. In line with this multi-level model, emotions at the lower levels, namely the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, contribute successively to processes and states that impact the higher levels (Ashkanasy 2003), namely the group and organizational levels.
At the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, the emotion governance mechanisms can play incentive, supportive, monitoring and moderating roles. They can influence the family business members’ explicit emotion management ex ante by shaping situational cues in terms of goal activation and emotional events. They can also influence the emotion management process itself in terms of strategic choices. They can finally serve ex post as a boundary condition of the relation between emotion management and a series of behavioral outcomes. This can be done by reducing the negative impact of emotion management or by leveraging the positive impact of emotion management on family business behavior, such as adaptive decision-making (e.g., Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021) and strategies for survival (e.g., Basco et al. 2021). Depending on the family business vision for continuity, these behaviors can translate into the achievement of different compositions of the financial wealth and SEW equation.
At the group level, the emotions of group members can combine to produce an overall group-level emotional tone (De Dreu et al. 2001). These emotions can be particularly significant when the group is formed by subjects tied by indissoluble bonds (D’Allura 2019; D’Allura and Erez 2009). The group-based emotion, also labelled as collective emotion, can be developed through emotion contagion; that is spreading emotion among group members or between the leader and the group members, which can in turn influence positively or negatively the group outcomes (Ashkanasy 2003; Barsade 2002; George and Brief 1992). Our contention is that the emotional response of family business members following emotion management can spread to the ownership and/or family and/or business groups in which they are involved, contributing to the collective emotion which translates into behavioral outcomes at the family business level. As emotion contagion is also open to manipulation, such as though manufactured displays of emotion (e.g., Barsade 2002), emotion governance mechanisms can play a role in mitigating a potentially negative emotion contagion process by operating ex ante and during the emotion management process. They can also directly influence the family, business, and ownership groups’ emotions, via the family, organizational and/or socio-cultural emotion norms as well as via emotional contaminations through interactions with the other formal and informal governance mechanisms.
As the organizational level contains an accumulation of emotions at all the other levels (Ashkanasy 2003), we suggest that the aggregation of desired and aligned emotional responses of family business members at the individual, interpersonal, and group levels contributes to achieving behavioral outcomes at the family business level, that are conducive to long-lasting financial and socio-emotional wealth as a reflection of family business continuity.
The different formal and informal components of emotion governance represent an overarching mechanism that supports and ensures the accountability of the family business members engaging in emotion management to meet the goals for family business continuity. We argue that this governance approach of emotion plays a role in motivating, informing, educating, guiding, supporting, and monitoring the family business members’ emotion management in the different roles they play. By creating the conditions to hold the family business members accountable for their emotion management, the governance of emotion offers a behavioral governance framework towards enduring family harmony and business health. Still, as the emotional nexus differs across family business archetypes and over time (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a), we need to explore nuances relative to our multi-level framework towards new directions for research.
4 New Directions in the Family Business Study of Emotion Governance: The Importance of Time and Space
Projecting the family business field into the future, from an emotion governance angle, we first reflect on the Special Issue contributions then extend them to develop a dynamic matrix of emotion governance across family business archetypes. We also make a series of propositions based on our multi-level framework by taking into account the heterogeneity of family businesses. Lastly, we build on the contributions of this essay to suggest an open agenda in uncharted but promising territories of the family business field.
4.1 Extrapolating the Special Issue Contributions …
The relevance of a governance approach of emotion is salient throughout the five articles published in this Special Issue. The authors danced the rationality-emotion tango, by exploring market and non-market strategies, stewardship behavior, adaptive decision-making, governance systems, and succession, while reflecting on the emotional heterogeneity of family business archetypes. They added pieces to the puzzle of a developmental approach on emotion governance in family businesses through the examination of concepts such as emotional dissonance (Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro 2021), joy of work and psychological ownership (Henssen and Koiranen 2021), family emotional logic in strategy (Basco et al. 2021), trust and psychological safety (Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021), and emotional ambivalence (Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021).
Their contributions stood at the cross-roads of the organizational behavior, strategy, corporate governance, psychology, and family business fields, by building on different theoretical lenses, ranging from the traditional governance and strategy theories (stewardship, agency, resource-based view) and the family business emerging theories including emotional dimensions (SEW), to emotion theories such as appraisal theory, emotional dissonance and emotional regulation.
While two of the articles are conceptual essays, the three empirical articles covered a diversity of methods of research, ranging from quantitative studies, including longitudinal database analysis and survey questionnaires, to qualitative studies including a longitudinal family business case. These articles also responded to increasing scholarly calls to account for context in family business studies (Krueger et al. 2021), by offering insights into different cultural variations in Europe (Finland and Spain) as well as into the scarcely research context of the Arab World (Krueger et al. 2021; Samara 2020) with a case from Tunisia.
The essay by Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre (2021) addressed emotional ambivalence as an intrinsic characteristic of business families. The authors explored a set of governance mechanisms to support the management of ambivalent emotions within the three archetypes of family business - Enmeshed Family Business (EFB), Balanced Family Business (BFB) and Disengaged Family Business (DFB) - proposed by Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary (2013a, 2013b). They extended the authors’ work by first analyzing separately the business and ownership sub-systems, and secondly by explicitly (rather than implicitly) suggesting that families can be “governed”. Their propositions revolved around preferences for specific formal governance structures across sub-systems to deal with emotional ambivalence in different emotional family business archetypes. This essay inspires us in extending the role of formal governance structures, from ambivalent emotion management to the emotion management strategies at large of members involved in various family business archetypes.
In their essay, Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia (2021) developed a framework in which they explained how family managers’ emotional ambivalence affect their decision-making under certain conditions. They addressed, in their rationale, the dark side of Socio-Emotional Wealth (SEW), related to its predominant focus on family-centric goals which may distract managers from financial performance. Specifically, the authors identified two informal governance conditions that influence the relationship between family managers’ ambivalence and adaptive decision-making: trust and psychological safety. They argued that the characteristics of emotional ambivalence and governance differ across the family business archetypes (EFBs, BFBs, and DFBs) proposed by Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary (2013a, 2013b). Based on their propositions, the maintenance of high levels of trust and psychological safety can moderate the relationship between emotional ambivalence and adaptive decision-making in the family business. This essay leads us to emphasize the role of informal governance mechanisms as a boundary condition, ensuring the beneficial contribution of emotion management to family business behavior.
The article by Henssen and Koiranen (2021) explored the concept CEO’s joy of working in the family business field. Building on the theoretical frameworks of stewardship and psychological ownership, they developed a conceptual model of CEO’s joy of working which they tested on a sample of family business CEOs in Finland. Their findings showed that the CEOs’ stewardship behavior acts as a mediator between CEOs’ individual and collective psychological ownership and their joy of work. They contributed to existing research by shifting the focus from the motivations behind family business CEOs, acting as stewards, to the influence of their behavior on emotions such as joy of work, conducive to favorable work outcomes such as the CEOs’ willingness to commit to the success and continuity of the family business. This article leads us to reflect on the governance efforts that the current generation can undertake to perpetuate the joy of work to the next generations, through the development of their psychological ownership and stewardship behaviors.
The article of Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro (2021) delved into conflicts dynamics and emotional dissonance during a highly-charged emotional process in the family business, that is succession. Building on a longitudinal case study, they investigated why and how different types of conflicts manifest, develop, and evolve. By observing the dynamic nature of conflict from the perspectives of different family business actors, they suggested that emotional dissonance plays a critical role in conflict escalation between successors and predecessors. By emphasizing the Tunisian cultural factors in the process, the authors invited us to consider the role of cultural variations, such as emotional norms, to understand conflicts dynamics during succession. This leads us to reflect on the role of emotion governance in managing emotional dissonance towards more harmonious relationships and a successful succession process.
The article of Basco et al. (2021) added to our knowledge on family business heterogeneity and survival by looking at strategy characteristics and emotional dimensions. Referring to family business archetypes (e.g., Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a, 2013b), they explored how different family businesses relate to different strategies and therefore have different survival likelihoods. The authors argued and empirically demonstrated, based on a longitudinal sample of Spanish family businesses, that the family logic, which is characterized by decision-making based on family needs and family emotions, could obstruct the business logic. This can impede family survival over time specifically in contexts of dynamic markets where the business logic needs to be highly considered. High family influence seems, however, to be beneficial following a low-cost strategy. The contributions of this article invite us to consider the role emotion governance can play in adjusting the emotional logic and the business logic of family business members towards a strategic orientation in favor of family business survival.
Building on these contributions and the reflections they invite us to engage in, we suggest a dynamic perspective on emotion governance across family business archetypes.
4.2 … Towards a Dynamic Approach of Emotion Governance Addressing Family Business Heterogeneity
The Special Issue contributions nurtured our reflection of a governance approach of emotion by examining different family businesses archetypes. The pursuit of financial and SEW goals does not actually follow a similar path in all family businesses. Taking into account their heterogeneity, the authors highlighted different goals and priorities, levels of emotional ambivalence and emotional dissonance among family businesses. They also made propositions on promoting positive emotions (Henssen and Koiranen 2021), balancing emotional and business logics (Basco et al. 2021), and managing the relationship between ambivalent or dissonant emotions and the accomplishment of expected goals (Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021; Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro 2021), towards adaptive decision-making, commitment to the family business continuity, family harmony, survival strategies and successful succession (e.g., Basco et al. 2021; Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Randerson and Radu-Lefebvre 2021; Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro 2021). In our upcoming developments, we build on two types of governance mechanisms that they explored, formal and informal. On the formal side, these mechanisms include structures and agreements at the family, business and ownership levels. On the informal side, they include organizational trust as well as to psychological safety.
In a dynamic approach, we suggest a matrix which positions the family business given its archetype, on a continuum of two dimensions of emotion governance: formal and informal mechanisms. In our representation of the matrix, we focus on three family business archetypes – enmeshed, balanced and disengaged – (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a)[13]. This matrix is thought of as dynamic as family business archetypes tend to evolve over time and as this evolution can coincide with an adjustment of the emotion governance mechanisms. Figure 2 illustrates this approach.
According to Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary (2013a), the family business emotional archetypes represent different degrees of emotional interactions between the family and the business. They vary according to the level of overlap between both systems in relation with emotional dimensions, respectively ranging from Enmeshed Family Businesses (EFBs) to Balanced Family Businesses (BFBs) and to Disengaged Family Businesses (DFBs). EFBs tend to characterize family businesses in the founder life-cycle stage and DFBs those that have span later generations and are controlled by extended cousins.
The family or business norms, governing emotion management, can be predominantly or equally influential in different archetypes (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a). In EFBs, enmeshment between organizational and family norms are more likely, while in BFBs a balance between both sets of norms is to be expected, and in DFBs a separation between both family and business norms is likely to exist.
These archetypes also refer to preferences in expectations, with predominant SEW-oriented goals in EFBs, predominant financial wealth goals in DFBs, and a balance between both financial wealth and SEW in BFBs. This leads us to expect that the emotional triggers for the emotion management process weigh towards different preferences across archetypes.
In the same line, in EFBs the informal mechanisms can predominantly play the role of emotion governance. In BFBs, a fine balance between formal and informal mechanisms can embody the emotion governance. In DFBs, the formal mechanisms are predominantly expected towards this endeavor. The level of formalization and the complexity of emotion governance can therefore depend on the archetype of the family business.
As family businesses naturally evolve over time, their emotional archetype can also evolve, which can require a change in existing informal and/or formal emotion governance mechanisms. Family businesses can favor certain emotion governance mechanisms in their intent to move to a different emotional archetype.
Building on our multilevel integrated framework of emotion governance and the dynamic matrix across emotional archetypes, we suggest a selective series of propositions that warrants further exploration.
A multi-level integrated framework of emotion and governance in family business.
A dynamic approach of emotion governance across family business (FB) archetypes.
Proposition 1.
Explicit emotion management strategies of family business members are triggered by a goal activation and/or an emotional event, which can be in turn triggered by emotion governance. Specifically, (1a) among EFBs SEW-oriented goals and/or events predominantly influence the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members; (1b) among BFBs both financial and SEW-oriented goals and/or events influence the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members; (1c) among DFBs financial goals and/or events predominantly influence emotion management strategies of family business members.
Proposition 2.
Explicit emotion management strategies of family business members are associated with family business behavior in relation with continuity. Specifically, (2a) among EFBs explicit emotion management strategies of family business members are predominantly associated with family business behavior in relation with family continuity; (2b) among BFBs explicit emotion management strategies of family business members are associated with family business behavior in relation with family and business continuity; (2c) among DFBs explicit emotion management strategies of family business members are predominantly associated with family business behavior in relation with business continuity.
Proposition 3.
Emotion governance influences the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members. Specifically, (3a) among EFBs informal emotion governance mechanisms predominantly influence the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members; (3b) among BFBs both informal and formal emotion governance mechanisms equally influence the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members; (3c) among DFBs formal emotion governance mechanisms predominantly influence the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members.
Proposition 4.
Emotion governance moderates the relationship between the explicit emotion management strategies of family business members and the family business behavior in relation with continuity. Specifically, (4a) among EFBs informal emotion governance mechanisms moderate the relationship between emotion management and family business behavior; (4b) among BFBs both informal and formal emotion governance mechanisms moderate the relationship between emotion management and family business continuity; (4c) among DFBs formal emotion governance mechanisms moderate the relationship between emotion management and family business continuity.
In addition to these propositions, we invite scholars to develop propositions based on other associations among the variables in the multi-level integrated framework (Figure 1) and to include control variables based on the literature in social psychology, organizational behavior, and family business. Among promising control variables at the intra- and inter-personal levels, we recommend looking into individual differences in the emotion management strategies in relation with the emotion preferences and capabilities of family business members. These differences may exist because of personality types, gender and age factors, as changes take place over time (Gross and John 2003; Gross and Thompson 2007). Depending on the life cycle stage of family business members, potential shifts may be identified in the emotion management process and the influence of emotion governance among generations (i.e., between the incumbent and the successor).
Overall, emotion governance can have a direct influence on the explicit emotion management of family business members, in order to favor behavior in line with family business continuity. It can impact the goal activation and emotional event instigation as motivator for emotion management, by shaping it or shaping its perception among family members. It can also be a boundary condition for the relation between emotion management and continuity behaviors, by mitigating the negative influence or strengthening this positive influence of emotion management on behavior.
Different family business archetypes can relate to and be influenced by different emotion governance mechanisms. On the intra and inter-personal levels, well-regulated individuals are not overly controlled or under-controlled but are rather flexible in the degree to which they respond to triggers in a way that is socially acceptable (Eisenberg, Hofer, and Vaughan 2007). Given this, we suggest that family businesses seeking both family and business continuity need to consider developing and balancing the appropriate emotion governance mechanisms towards a BFB archetype. This leads us to call for a fine balance of emotion governance mechanisms that allow to maintain a level of flexibility for optimal emotion management behaviors of family business members.
For emotion governance to be effective and efficient, it may need to be adapted for each archetype. There is no one size fits all approach. Future research is encouraged to empirically study the archetypes that predominate given different emotion governance mechanisms and explore the mechanisms that prove to be most effective and efficient for both the emotion management of family business members and its impact on continuity.
4.3 Quo Vadis? An Open Research Agenda in Uncharted Family Business Territories
In addition to calling for an in-depth examination of our multilevel integrated framework and our propositions in the previous sections, we offer promising research directions revolving around six main areas of interest insufficiently explored in the family business field.
First, we believe that accounting for family business heterogeneity requires going beyond the classical family businesses controlled by one family. We encourage the exploration of businesses controlled by multiple families (MFBs) which represent a complex type of family businesses that is not as well-understood as single-family businesses. MFBs are characterized by inter-family agency complexities, including altruism considerations (Chrisman, Madison, and Kim 2021), offering an interesting terrain of investigation for appropriate emotion governance frameworks.
Second, we add to the heterogeneity considerations by turning the attention to family businesses structured as a cluster of businesses, as compared to those focused on one business, in reference to the “cluster model” (Michael-Tsabari, Labaki, and Zachary 2014). As these businesses can be founded or acquired because of predominant family motives, and involve family members with different levels of emotional attachment (Michael-Tsabari, Labaki, and Zachary 2014), we believe that they would benefit from an empirical examination through an emotion governance lens.
Third, we suggest extending the phrase “leading with emotional labor” coined by Humphrey, Pollack, and Hawver (2008) towards “leading with emotion governance”; that is examining the leader(s) role in influencing effectively the emotional management of family business members. Emotion governance may be faced with resistance by family members, especially when it implies a top-down approach. Overcoming this resistance may require a collective approach of governance whereby family members contribute to the process of its development over time, under the patronage of leader(s) (Labaki 2019), who exercise(s) their influence through emotional skills, attitudes and behaviors. Similar to the increasingly popular “Chief Emotional Officer” terminology (e.g., Pritchard 2011), a leader in charge of the emotion governance process can contribute to ensuring the relevance of the governance framework for family business members, as well as its implementation in terms of emotion management motivation, education and support. Also, looking into the leadership styles and their influence on the development of emotion norms, a charismatic leader may facilitate social change by legitimizing new emotion norms for the group of followers (Wasielewski 1985). We suggest exploring further this role which is often not formalized nor sufficiently researched.
Fourth, some scholars suggested that repeated emotional experiences over time can lead to lasting changes, such as building enduring personal resources, and therefore more resilience (Fredrickson and Cohn 2008). Given that family businesses span several generations, we suggest exploring how a governance approach of emotion builds up over generations and can contribute to the resilience of family members towards continuity.
Fifth, as the development of group emotion is what defines a group and distinguishes it from merely a collection of individuals (Barsade 2002), the level of identification of family members with the family, business, and/or ownership groups may play two main roles. It may impact, on one hand, the relation between the emotional trigger and the emotion management strategy, and on the other hand, the positive or negative emotion contagion within these groups. To illustrate, research suggests that the more identified family members are with the family, the less their moral emotion of guilt in the face of an emotional trigger of wrong-doing, which subsequently influences their intended behavior in the family business (Bernhard and Labaki 2021). In the same line, the less identified family members are with the business, the less their emotion of regret in the face of an opportunity to sell the business. Through contagion, this can negatively influence the high level of regret of more identified family members with the business, and lead them to join the others in ending the family control of the business, then to express regret post-sale (Labaki and Hirigoyen 2020). These examples call for exploring the emotion governance mechanisms that influence the intra- and inter-personal emotion management of family members with high or low, similar or different levels of identification with the group, as well as the phenomena of emotion contagion in groups with different levels of identification, in a way that contributes to the family business continuity. Overall, this highlights the complexity of a governance approach of emotion, able to be clearly operational in a way that is tailored to different family members.
Sixth, the life cycle of the business, the family, and the organizational members, embedded in the larger macro context, influences the emotion dynamics (Krueger et al. 2021). The Covid-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to learn about effective strategies to cope with uncertainty and disruption (Pieper 2020), such as analyzing how members of family businesses from different emotional archetypes are adapting their emotion management strategies towards continuity. As financial and SEW goals’ divergence can increase or decrease, in such an unprecedented crisis, and activate explicit emotion management and emotion contagion, we call for research investigation about which emotion governance strategies facilitated or hindered the emotion management process and its outcomes. We also call for a comparative exploration between this crisis and the past crises that family businesses have overcome, by shedding light on all five previous research questions. Table 1 presents the research questions for each of these areas of interest.
Research directions based on the multi-level integrated framework of emotion and governance.
| Family business areas of interest | Research questionsa |
|---|---|
| 1. Multi-family businesses (MFBs) as a variation of family business heterogeneity |
|
| 2. Family business clusters as a variation of family business heterogeneity |
|
| 3. Emotion governance leader |
|
| 4. Dynamics of emotion governance |
|
| 5. Identification with the family business |
|
| 6. Covid-19 crisis |
|
aIn line with earlier developments in this essay, we refer to « explicit » emotion management strategies in all our research questions.
These research directions call for attention about important methodological considerations. Several articles in the Special Issue highlighted the challenges for future research to empirically test their propositions or extend their findings in relation with emotion and emotional constructs, by calling for a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods (Firfiray and Gomez-Mejia 2021; Henssen and Koiranen 2021; Yezza, Chabaud, and Calabro 2021). In the same line, we invite scholars to a more intensive use of both research methods while recommending a careful development of their research designs, in relation with the multilevel integrated framework’s propositions and research questions we raised. Extending the phrase of Thompson and Meyer (2007, p. 252) to family business scholars, research at the nexus of emotion management and governance is not for “the fainthearted” because of the special methodological challenges it presents. The study of emotion regulation can be actually distinct and more demanding in methodology, as compared to classical studies of emotion building on self-reports through questionnaires (Thompson and Meyer 2007)[14]. It would benefit from a multimethod approach, influenced by cross-disciplinary collaborations within the field of psychology (Eisenberg, Hofer, and Vaughan 2007) and between the fields of psychology, organizational behavior and family business (Labaki 2020), towards carefully designed assessment procedures of the different variables with a particular emphasis on the nature of the goals triggering the process (Thompson and Meyer 2007). As “it is likely that different emotions will have different strategies effective for regulating them” (Bargh and Williams 2007, p. 440), different emotion governance mechanisms are likely associated with them. In addition to the case method approach, we call for alternative methods such as experimental studies which are more extensively used in psychology and organizational behavior than the family business field (Lude and Prügl 2020). This includes developing experimental designs where (specific) emotions and emotion management can be induced as stimuli under different emotion governance conditions, and where participants can be instructed to react (emotion) and to regulate their responses at different stages of the process, using different emotion management strategies as specified by the researcher, and which participants have been trained to use. Narrative research can also prove complementary, through narratives accounts and historical analysis about the emotionally charged situations that family business members have encountered (Cailluet, Bernhard, and Labaki 2018). Scholars are invited to consult recent scholarly contributions on these research methods application towards adding to our knowledge on emotion in the family business field (e.g., Labaki 2020; Lude and Prügl 2020).
5 Concluding Remarks
“There is a compelling need to formulate and test interventions designed to selectively shape emotion regulation processes in helpful directions” (Gross 2015, p. 19). This statement, all the way from the social psychology field, echoes the relevance of a governance approach of emotion in the family business field, which the Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Research Journal endorses.
The authors featured in this Special Issue responded to the recent calls for more research, extending “the affective revolution” (Barsade, Brief, and Sapataro 2003) towards the development of family business theories inclusive of emotion (e.g., Chrisman and Holt 2016; De Massis and Foss 2018; Labaki 2020; Rafaeli 2013). In our editorial essay, we argued for a more strategic approach of emotion, by extending the contributions of the Special Issue articles and integrating the emotion management literature with the family business and governance literatures. After presenting the peculiarities of governance in family businesses, we showed the need to explicitly include emotion considerations. Inspired by the works of leading scholars on emotion and emotion management (e.g., Ashkanasy 2003; Frijda 1986; Gross 1998a), we presented a conceptual distinction between emotion management and “emotion governance”. We referred to emotion governance as encompassing a set of formal and informal mechanisms in the embedded family business contexts (Krueger et al. 2021), such as emotion norms, corporate, ownership, and family governance structures and agreements, organizational trust and psychological safety. We developed an integrated framework of emotion governance that spans the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group and organizational levels, in line with Ashkanasy’s (2003) multi-level perspective on emotions in organizations. In this framework, emotion governance appears as an overarching multidimensional mechanism, that is influential at different stages and levels of the explicit emotion management process (ex-ante, during, and ex-post). It motivates, supports, and monitors, the family business members engaging in emotion management strategies, thereby contributing to ensure their accountability in meeting the financial and SEW goals for family business continuity.
Furthermore, while our claim is that a governance approach of emotion is promising, it should be looked at in a distinct manner across family businesses. Given the malleability of emotion (e.g., Frijda 1986; Gross 1998b; Thoits 2004) and the heterogeneity of family business archetypes (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a), nuances exist in the relationships between the variables of the framework over time, namely emotion management and emotion governance, that we highlighted through a dynamic matrix and a series of propositions. We also suggested an open research agenda that goes beyond traditional models of family businesses and includes unexplored variables, towards more thorough developments of a theory of family business governance.
From a practical perspective, owners, managers, and practitioners can gain valuable insights from our multilevel integrated framework. One powerful way for understanding the complex intricacies of emotion in family business is to chart the development of the emotion management process of the family business members and move across the different levels of analysis of our framework to understand the triggers, the behavioral outcomes as well as the dependent relationships and moderators. Our framework can serve as a grid of analysis of emotion management and emotion governance and as a guide to prevent deviations against the family business continuity or act upon improving them, while taking into account the particularities of their emotional family business archetype (Labaki, Michael-Tsabari, and Zachary 2013a). On a broader policy level, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SGD) include “promoting well-being for all at all ages”[15]. A strategic approach of emotion governance in family businesses (and other types of organizations) can expand our thinking in this direction, as it creates the conditions for better emotion management strategies of organizational members with expected benefits at the intra and inter-personal levels as well as at the group and organizational levels.
As education should be also part of the academic efforts of including emotional dimensions in our field (Labaki 2013), our framework can serve as a guide for educators to feed their educational practices while referring to innovative pedagogical and training methods on emotion, emotion regulation and emotion contagion. To illustrate, educators can use theater simulations (e.g., Faraci and D’allura 2018) enabling family business members to learn about how to experience and express different emotions given different roles in the family, the ownership, and the business as well as following different situational cues. They can also experience the impact of different emotion governance mechanisms on their explicit emotion management strategies. The management and governance approaches of emotions are deemed complementary as they not only educate the family business members about managing emotions but also makes them accountable for emotion management strategies that are in line with the family business goals for continuity.
To conclude, integrating “emotion governance” and “emotion management” in our multilevel framework offers a novel contribution to the family business field, by theoretically shedding the light on their intricacies, while taking into account the emotional idiosyncrasies of family businesses. Still, we invite scholars to consider this framework as a blueprint for a variety of research directions they can engage in rather than a “set in stone” framework to be tested in one comprehensive study. By drawing attention to the nexus of emotion management and governance in family business, we hope our framework will inspire others to examine why and how the emotion management process develops at the intra and interpersonal level and spans the group and organizational levels, and which role emotion governance mechanisms can play ex ante, during the process, and ex-post to ensure family business continuity. While our framework is developed in respect to family business, we believe it may be extendable to other types of organizations with nuances relative to the emotion governance mechanisms.
As is the case with any new area of scientific inquiry, the study of emotion governance can generate more questions than answers. We also hope that our approach will raise these questions and stimulate the debate to contribute to the family business field. To distill the essence of this essay, understanding conjointly the process of emotion management and emotion governance may hold the key to unlocking critical ingredients for family business continuity, in ordinary and extraordinary times.
References
Allouche, J., and B. Amann. 1998. “La confiance: une explication des performances des entreprises familiales.” Economies et Societes 32: 129–54.Search in Google Scholar
Amore, M. D., F. Quarato, and V. Pelucco. 2021. “Family Ownership during the Covid-19 Pandemic”. Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper Series, DP14759, London. Available at SSRN 3773430.10.2139/ssrn.3773430Search in Google Scholar
Ang, J. S., R. A. Cole, and J. W. Lin. 2000. “Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” The Journal of Finance 55 (1): 81–106, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00201.Search in Google Scholar
Ashkanasy, N. M. 2003. “Emotions in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective.” In Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy, 12. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Search in Google Scholar
Ashkanasy, N. M., C. E. Härtel, and W. J. Zerbe. 2016. Emotions and Organizational Governance. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.10.1108/S1746-9791201612Search in Google Scholar
Ashkanasy, N. M., A. C. Troth, S. A. Lawrence, and P. J. Jordan. 2017. “Emotions and Emotional Regulation in HRM: A Multi-Level Perspective.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 35, edited by H. Buckley, and Wheeler, 1–52. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.10.1108/S0742-730120170000035002Search in Google Scholar
Ashton-James, C. E., and N. M. Ashkanasy. 2005. “What Lies beneath? A Process Analysis of Affective Events Theory.” In The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings, Vol. 1, edited by Z. Ashkanasy, & Härtel. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.10.1016/S1746-9791(05)01102-8Search in Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., and L. E. Williams. 2007. “The Nonconscious Regulation of Emotion.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, edited by Gross, 429–45. NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G. 2002. “The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (4): 644–75, https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912.Search in Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G., A. P. Brief, and S. E. Sapataro. 2003. “The Affective Revolution in Organization Behavior: The Emergence of a Paradigm.” In Organization Behavior: The Art of the Science. 2nd ed., edited by Greenberg, 3–53. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Basch, J., and C. D. Fisher. 2000. “Affective Job Events-Emotions Matrix: A Classification of Job Related Events and Emotions Experienced in the Workplace.” In Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice, edited by Z. Ashkanasy & Hartel. 36–48. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.Search in Google Scholar
Basco, R., A. I. Rodríguez-Escudero, N. M. Cruz, and I. Barros-Contreras. 2021. “The Combinations of Market and Non-market Strategies that Facilitates Family Firm Survival.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (3): 245–86.10.1515/erj-2019-0258Search in Google Scholar
Bernhard, F., and R. Labaki. 2021. “Moral Emotions in Family Businesses: Exploring Vicarious Guilt of the Next Generation.” Family Business Review 34 (2): 193–212, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520941944.Search in Google Scholar
Bertschi-Michel, A., N. Kammerlander, and V. M. Strike. 2020. “Unearthing and Alleviating Emotions in Family Business Successions.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 44 (1): 81–108, https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719834016.Search in Google Scholar
Braunstein, L. M., J. J. Gross, and K. N. Ochsner. 2017. “Explicit and Implicit Emotion Regulation: A Multi-Level Framework.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12 (10): 1545–57, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx096.Search in Google Scholar
Brundin, E., and M. Nordqvist. 2008. “Beyond Facts and Figures: The Role of Emotions in Boardroom Dynamics.” Corporate Governance 16 (4): 326–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00688.x.Search in Google Scholar
Burch, G. F., J. H. Batchelor, and R. H. Humphrey. 2013. “Emotional Labor for Entrepreneurs: A Natural and Necessary Extension.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 331–36, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2012-0022.Search in Google Scholar
Cailluet, L., F. Bernhard, and R. Labaki. 2018. “Family Firms in the Long Run: The Interplay between Emotions and History.” Entreprises et Histoire 91: 5–13, https://doi.org/10.3917/eh.091.0005.Search in Google Scholar
Calabrò, A., G. Campopiano, and R. Basco. 2017. “Principal-principal Conflicts and Family Firm Growth.” Journal of Family Business Management 7 (3): 291–308., https://doi.org/10.1108/jfbm-02-2017-0005.Search in Google Scholar
Calkins, S. D., and A. Hill. 2007. “Caregiver Influences on Emerging Emotion Regulation.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, edited by Gross, 229–48. NY, USA: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Campos, J. J., C. B. Frankel, and L. Camras. 2004. “On the Nature of Emotion Regulation.” Child Development 75 (2): 377–94, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00681.x.Search in Google Scholar
Charreaux, G. 1997. “Vers une théorie de gouvernance de l’entreprise.” In Le gouvernement des entreprises, 421–69. Paris: Economica.Search in Google Scholar
Chrisman, J. J., J. H. Chua, and R. A. Litz. 2004. “Comparing the Agency Costs of Family and Non-family Firms: Conceptual Issues and Exploratory Evidence.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 28: 335–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00049.x.Search in Google Scholar
Chrisman, J. J., and Holt, D. T. 2016. “Beyond Socioemotional Wealth: Taking Another Step toward a Theory of the Family Firm.” Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 14 (3): 279–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2016-0670.Search in Google Scholar
Chrisman, J. J., K. Madison, and T. Kim. 2021. “A Dynamic Framework of Noneconomic Goals and Inter-family Agency Complexities in Multi-Family Firms.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 45 (4): 906–30.10.1177/10422587211005775Search in Google Scholar
Colli, A. 2018. “A Theory of Emotions and Sentiments in Family Firms: A Role for History.” Entreprises et Histoire 91: 126–37, doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/eh.091.0126.Search in Google Scholar
D’Allura, G. M. 2019. “The Leading Role of the Top Management Team in Understanding Family Firms: Past Research and Future Directions.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2): 87–104.10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.12.001Search in Google Scholar
D’Allura, G., and A. Erez. 2009. “The Family as a Group: Implications for Governance and Organizational Performance in Family Firms.” In Per lo sviluppo, la competitività e l’innovazione del sistema economico: contributo degli studi di organizzazione aziendale, Edited by Di Guardo, Pinna and Zannu, 252–76. Milano: Franco Angeli.Search in Google Scholar
D’Allura, G., and R. Labaki. 2018. “Family Business Competitive Advantage: The Role of Emotions and Governance, Edited by Faraci and D’Allura.” In Emerging Trends in the Governance and Management of Entrepreneurial and Family Firms, 47–61. Torino, Italy: G Giappichelli Editore.Search in Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., and C. M. Daily. 1992. “Financial Performance of Founder-Managed versus Professionally Managed Corporations.” Journal of Small Business Economics 30: 25–34.Search in Google Scholar
Danes, S. M., J. Lee, K. Stafford, and R. K. Z. Heck. 2008. “The Effects of Ethnicity, Families and Culture on Entrepreneurial Experience: An Extension of Sustainable Family Business Theory.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 13 (3): 229–68, https://doi.org/10.1142/s1084946708001010.Search in Google Scholar
Daspit, J. J., J. J. Chrisman, T. Ashton, and N. Evangelopoulos. 2021. “Family Firm Heterogeneity: A Definition, Common Themes, Scholarly Progress, and Directions Forward.” Family Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211008350 (Epub ahead of print).Search in Google Scholar
Davis, J. H., F. D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson. 1997. “Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management.” Academy of Management Review 22 (1): 20–47, https://doi.org/10.2307/259223.Search in Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K., M. A. West, A. H. Fischer, and S. Maccurtain. 2001. “Origins and Consequences of Emotions in Organizational Teams.” In Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications in Management, edited by Payne and Cooper, 199–217. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
De Massis, A., and N. J. Foss. 2018. “Advancing Family Business Research: The Promise of Microfoundations.” Family Business Review 31 (4): 386–96.10.1177/0894486518803422Search in Google Scholar
Dibrell, C., and E. Memili. 2019. “A Brief History and a Look to the Future of Family Business Heterogeneity: An Introduction.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity among Family Firms, Edited by Memili and Dibrell, 1–15. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-77676-7_1Search in Google Scholar
Drucker, P. F. 1980. Managing in Turbulent Times. NY: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., C. Hofer, and J. Vaughan. 2007. “Effortful Control and its Socioemotional Consequences.” Handbook of Emotion Regulation 2: 287–8.Search in Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C., and K. R. Scherer. 2003. “Appraisal Processes in Emotion.” In Handbook of Affective Sciences, edited by Davidson, Scherer, and Goldsmith, p. 595. NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0029Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2021. European Economic Forecast. Luxembourg. Also availabe at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/ip144_en_1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen. 1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control.” The Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 301–25, https://doi.org/10.1086/467037.Search in Google Scholar
Faraci, R., and G. D’allura. 2018. “Entrepreneurial and Family Business Education: The Novelty of Family Business Theater.” In Emerging Trends in the Governance and Management of Entrepreneurial and Family Firms, 109–27. Torino: G Giappichelli Editore.Search in Google Scholar
Firfiray, S., and L. R. Gomez-Mejia. 2021. “When is Ambivalence Good for Family Firms? Understanding the Impact of Family Managers’ Emotional Ambivalence on Decision Making.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (3): 177–89.10.1515/erj-2021-0181Search in Google Scholar
Fisher, C. D., and N. M. Ashkanasy. 2000. “The Emerging Role of Emotions in Work Life: An Introduction.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 21 (2): 123–9, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(200003)21:2<123::aid-job33>3.0.co;2-8.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<123::AID-JOB33>3.0.CO;2-8Search in Google Scholar
Fong, E. A., and H. L. Tosi. 2007. “Effort, Performance, and Conscientiousness: An Agency Theory Perspective.” Journal of Management 33 (2): 161–79, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306298658.Search in Google Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L., and M. Cohn. 2008. “Positive Emotions.” In Handbook of Emotions, edited by Lewis, Haviland-Jones, and Barrett, 777–96. NY: The Guilford Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0028Search in Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139192675Search in Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. 1988. “The Laws of Emotion.” American Psychologist 43 (5): 349–58, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.43.5.349.Search in Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. 2007. The Laws of Emotions. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Search in Google Scholar
George, J. M., and A. P. Brief. 1992. “Feeling Good-Doing Good: A Conceptual Analysis of the Mood at Work-Organizational Spontaneity Relationship.” Psychological Bulletin 112 (2): 310, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310.Search in Google Scholar
Gersick, K. E., J. Davis, M. Mccollom Hampton, and I. Lansberg. 1997. Generation to Generation: Lifecycles of the Family Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gersick, K. E., and N. Feliu. 2014. “Governing the Family Enterprise: Practices, Performance and Research.” In The SAGE Handbook of Family Business, edited by Melin, Nordqvist, and Sharma, 196–225. London, U.K.: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781446247556.n11Search in Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., and P. P. Poole. 1984. “Scripts in Organizational Behavior.” Academy of Management Review 9 (3): 449–59, https://doi.org/10.2307/258285.Search in Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., M. Nunez-Nickel, and I. Gutierrez. 2001. “The Role of Family Ties in Agency Contracts.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 81–95, https://doi.org/10.2307/3069338.Search in Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., K. T. Haynes, M. Nunez-Nickel, K. J. L. Jacobson, and J. Moyano-Fuentes. 2007. “Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-Controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills.” Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (1): 106–37, https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106.Search in Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., I. Neacsu, and G. Martin. 2019. “CEO Risk-Taking and Socioemotional Wealth: The Behavioral Agency Model, Family Control, and CEO Option Wealth.” Journal of Management 45 (4): 1713–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317723711.Search in Google Scholar
Gomez–Mejia, L. R., J. T. Campbell, G. Martin, R. E. Hoskisson, M. Makri, and D. G. Sirmon. 2014. “Socioemotional Wealth as a Mixed Gamble: Revisiting Family Firm R&D Investments with the Behavioral Agency Model.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 38 (6): 1351–74.10.1111/etap.12083Search in Google Scholar
Grandey, A. A. 2000. “Emotional Regulation in the Workplace: A New Way to Conceptualize Emotional Labor.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 (1): 95–110, https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95.Search in Google Scholar
Grandey, A. A., and R. C. Melloy. 2017. “The State of the Heart: Emotional Labor as Emotion Regulation Reviewed and Revised.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22 (3): 407–22, https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000067.Search in Google Scholar
Grandey, A., A. Rafaeli, S. Ravid, J. Wirtz, and D. D. Steiner. 2010. “Emotion Display Rules at Work in the Global Service Economy: The Special Case of the Customer.” Journal of Service Management 21 (3): 388–412, doi:10.1108/09564231011050805.10.1108/09564231011050805Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. 1998a. “The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review.” Review of General Psychology 2 (3): 271–99, https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. 1998b. “Antecedent-and Response-Focused Emotion Regulation: Divergent Consequences for Experience, Expression, and Physiology.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (1): 224, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. 1999. “Emotion Regulation: Past, Present, Future.” Cognition & Emotion 13 (5): 551–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379186.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., and O. P. John. 2003. “Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (2): 348, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., and R. A. Thompson. 2007. “Emotional Regulation: Conceptual Foundations.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, edited by Gross, 3–24. NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., and L. Feldman Barrett. 2011. “Emotion Generation and Emotion Regulation: One or Two Depends on Your Point of View.” Emotion Review 3 (1): 8–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380974.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., G. Sheppes, and H. L. Urry. 2011. “Emotion Generation and Emotion Regulation: A Distinction We Should Make (Carefully).” Cognition & Emotion 25 (5): 765–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.555753.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. 2014. “Emotion Regulation: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation. 2nd ed., edited by Gross, 3–20. NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. 2015. “Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects.” Psychological Inquiry 26 (1): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2014.940781.Search in Google Scholar
Gyurak, A., J. J. Gross, and A. Etkin. 2011. “Explicit and Implicit Emotion Regulation: A Dual-Process Framework.” Cognition & Emotion 25 (3): 400–12, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.544160.Search in Google Scholar
Henssen, B., and M. Koiranen. 2021. “CEOs’ Joy of Working for the Family Firm: The Role of Psychological Ownership and Stewardship Behavior.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (3): 191–218.10.1515/erj-2019-0264Search in Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (3): 551–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049.Search in Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Humphrey, R. H., J. M. Pollack, and T. Hawver. 2008. “Leading with Emotional Labor.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (2): 151–68, doi:10.1108/02683940810850790.10.1108/02683940810850790Search in Google Scholar
Holodynski, M., and W. Friedlmeier. 2005. Development of Emotions and Emotion Regulation. NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Humphrey, R. H. 2013. “The Benefits of Emotional Intelligence and Empathy to Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 287–94, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0057.Search in Google Scholar
Huse, M. 2007. Boards, Governance and Value Creation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611070Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x.Search in Google Scholar
Klerk, E. 2020. The Family 1000: Post the pandemic. Crédit Suisse Research Institute. Zurich. Also available at https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/csri.html.Search in Google Scholar
Krueger, N., M. L. Bogers, R. Labaki, and R. Basco. 2021. “Advancing Family Business Science through Context Theorizing: The Case of the Arab World.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 12 (1): 1–6, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100377.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2007. Contribution à la connaissance des liens familiaux dans les entreprises familiales françaises cotées: Renforcement versus atténuation. (PhD Dissertation). Bordeaux: University of Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2008. “Le rôle de l’altruisme dans la gouvernance de l’entreprise familiale: Un état de l’art.” Journal des Entreprises Familiales 1 (2): 81–116.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2011. “The Nova Group Case Study: Family Dynamics in a Multigenerational French Family Business.” The International Journal of Management Cases 13 (1): 27–42, https://doi.org/10.5848/apbj.2011.00020.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2013. “Beyond the Awaking of a “Sleeping Beauty”: Toward Business Models Inclusive of the Emotional Dimension in Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 265–76, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0060.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R., N. Michael-Tsabari, and R. K. Zachary. 2013a. “Exploring the Emotional Nexus in Cogent Family Business Archetypes.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 301–30, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0034.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R., N. Michael-Tsabari, and R. K. Zachary. 2013b. “Emotional Dimensions within the Family Business – toward a Conceptualization.” In Handbook of Research on Family Business. 2nd ed., edited by Smyrnios, Poutziouris, and Goel, 734–63. Cheltenham Glos, UK: Edward Elgar in association with IFERA.10.4337/9781781009383.00047Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2019. La gouvernance Familiale. Paris: Cahiers du FBN France.Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R. 2020. “Research Methods on Emotions in Family Business.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Family Business, edited by De Massis, and Kammerlander, 351–87. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781788116459.00026Search in Google Scholar
Labaki, R., and G. Hirigoyen. 2020. “The Strategic Divestment Decision in the Family Business through the Real Options and Emotional Lenses.” In Handbook of Research on the Strategic Management of Family Businesses, edited by Palma-Ruiz, Barros, and Gnan, 244–79. Hershey, USA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-7998-2269-1.ch012Search in Google Scholar
Larsen, R. J., and Z. Prizmic. 2004. “Affect Regulation.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, Edited by Baumeister & Vohs, 40–61. NY, USA: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lawrence, S. A., A. C. Troth, P. J. Jordan, and A. L. Collins. 2011. “A Review of Emotion Regulation and Development of a Framework for Emotion Regulation in the Workplace.” The Role of Individual Differences in Occupational Stress and Well Being 9: 197–263, https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3555(2011)0000009010.Search in Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 2008. “The Emergence of Human Emotions.” In Handbook of Emotions, edited by Lewis, Haviland-Jones, and Barrett, 304–19. NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, E. N., M. H. Lubatkin, and R. M. Wiseman. 2010. “A Family Firm Variant of the Behavioral Agency Theory.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 4 (3): 197–211, https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.91.Search in Google Scholar
Lively, K. J., and D. R. Heise. 2014. “Emotions in Affect Control Theory.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, II, 51–75. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9130-4_4Search in Google Scholar
Lively, K. J., and E. A. Weed. 2014. “Emotion Management: Sociological Insight into what, How, Why, and to what End?” Emotion Review 6 (3): 202–7, https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914522864.Search in Google Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., W. S. Schulze, Y. Ling, and R. N. Dino. 2005. “The Effects of Parental Altruism on the Governance of Family-Managed Firms.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 313–30, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.307.Search in Google Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., R. Durand, and Y. Ling. 2007. “The Missing Lens in Family Firm Governance Theory: A Self-Other Typology of Parental Altruism.” Journal of Business Research 60 (10): 1022–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.019.Search in Google Scholar
Lude, M., and R. Prügl. 2020. “Experimental Studies in Family Business Research.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 12 (1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100361.Search in Google Scholar
Macneil, I., and I.-M. Esser. 2021. “The Emergence of ‘Comply or Explain’as a Global Model for Corporate Governance Codes.” European Business Law Review (Forthcoming, 2022). Also available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3775736.Search in Google Scholar
Mauss, I. B., S. A. Bunge, and J. J. Gross. 2008. “Culture and Automatic Emotion Regulation.” In Regulating Emotions: Culture, Social Necessity and Biological Inheritance, edited by Vandekerckhove, Scheve, Ismer, Jung, and Kronast, 39–60. London: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781444301786.ch2Search in Google Scholar
Mauss, I. B., and M. Tamir. 2014. “Emotion Goals: How Their Content, Structure, and Operation Shape Emotion Regulation.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, edited by Gross, 361–75. NY: Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–34, https://doi.org/10.2307/258792.Search in Google Scholar
Mesquita, B., and H. R. Markus. 2004. “Culture and Emotions: Models of Agency as Sources of Cultural Variation in Emotion.” In Feelings and Emotions, edited by Manstead, Frijda, and Fischer, 341–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806582.020Search in Google Scholar
Michael-Tsabari, N., and W. L. Tan. 2013. “Exploring Family Features in Non-family Organizations: The Family Metaphor and its Behavioral Manifestations.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 391–424, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2012-0018.Search in Google Scholar
Michael-Tsabari, N., R. Labaki, and R. K. Zachary. 2014. “Toward the Cluster Model: The Family Firm’s Entrepreneurial Behavior over Generations.” Family Business Review 27 (2): 161–85, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486514525803.Search in Google Scholar
Montemerlo, D., L. Gnan, W. Schulze, and G. Corbetta, eds. 2004. Governance Structures in Italian Family SMEs. In Family Firms in the Wind of Change: 15th FBN Research Forum Proceedings Edited by Tomaselli and Melin. Copenhagen: FBN.Search in Google Scholar
Mustakallio, M. 2002. Contractual and Relational Governance in Family Firms: Effects on Strategic Decision-Making Quality and Firm Performance. Helsinki: University of Technology.10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00205.xSearch in Google Scholar
Mustakallio, M., E. Autio, and S. A. Zahra. 2002. “Relational and Contractual Governance in Family Firms: Effects on Strategic Decision Making.” Family Business Review 15 (3): 205–22, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00205.x.Search in Google Scholar
Nembhard, I. M., and A. C. Edmondson. 2012. “Psychological Safety.” In The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, Edited by Spreitzer & Cameron, 490–506. NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0037Search in Google Scholar
Pieper, T. M., F. W. Kellermanns, and J. H. Astrachan. 2021. “Update 2021: Family Businesses’ Contribution to the US Economy.”.Search in Google Scholar
Pieper, T. M. 2020. “Editor’s Note: “Family Business Scholars, Lead the Charge!”.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 11 (2): 1–3, doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100362.10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100396Search in Google Scholar
Pritchard, A. 2011. “Putting Family in Family Business: The Role of the Chief Emotional Officer.” In Family Business and Social Capital, Edited by Sorenson. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.10.4337/9781849807388.00026Search in Google Scholar
Rafaeli, A., and R. Sutton. 1989. “The Expression of Emotion in Organizational Life.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, edited by Cummings, and Staw, 1–42. Greenwich: JAI Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rafaeli, A. 2013. “Emotion in Organizations: Considerations for Family Firms.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 295–300, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0061.Search in Google Scholar
Randerson, K. J., and M. Radu-Lefebvre. 2021. “Managing Ambivalent Emotions in Family Businesses: Governance Mechanisms for the Family, Business, and Ownership Systems.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (3): 159–76.10.1515/erj-2020-0274Search in Google Scholar
Rau, S. B. 2013. “Emotions Preventing Survival of Family Firms: Comments on Exploring the Emotional Nexus in Cogent Family Business Archetypes: Towards a Predominant Business Model Inclusive of the Emotional Dimension.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (3): 425–32, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0055.Search in Google Scholar
Samara, G. 2020. “Family Businesses in the Arab Middle East: What Do We Know and where Should We Go?” Journal of Family Business Strategy 100359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100359 (Epub ahead of print).Search in Google Scholar
Schein, E. H., and W. G. Bennis. 1965. Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Scherer, K. R. 1982. “Emotion as a Process: Function, Origin and Regulation.” Social Science Information 21 (4/5): 555–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021004004.Search in Google Scholar
Scherer, K. R. 2005. “What Are Emotions? and How Can They Be Measured?” Social Science Information 44 (4): 695–729, https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216.Search in Google Scholar
Schulze, W. S., M. H. Lubatkin, R. N. Dino, and A. K. Buchholtz. 2001. “Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence.” Organization Science 12 (2): 99–116, doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.99.10114.Search in Google Scholar
Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer, and J. H. Davis. 2007. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future.” Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 344–54.10.5465/amr.2007.24348410Search in Google Scholar
Schulze, W. S., M. H. Lubatkin, and R. N. Dino. 2003. “Toward a Theory of Agency and Altruism in Family Firms.” Journal of Business Venturing 18 (4): 473–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00054-5.Search in Google Scholar
Sharma, P., J. Chrisman, and J. Chua. 1997. “Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges.” Family Business Review 10 (1): 1–35, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00001.x.Search in Google Scholar
Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1997. “A Survey of Corporate Governance.” The Journal of Finance 52 (2): 737–83, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x.Search in Google Scholar
Stafford, K., K. A. Duncan, S. M. Danes, and M. Winter. 1999. “A Research Model of Sustainable Family Business.” Family Business Review 12 (3): 197–208, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00197.x.Search in Google Scholar
Steier, L. 2001. “Family Firms, Plural Forms of Governance, and the Evolving Role of Trust.” Family Business Review 14 (4): 353–67, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2001.00353.x.Search in Google Scholar
Steier, L. 2003. “Variants of Agency Contracts in Family-Financed Ventures as a Continuum of Familial Altruistic and Market Rationalities.” Journal of Business Venturing 18 (5): 597–618, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00012-0.Search in Google Scholar
Suess-Reyes, J. 2017. “Understanding the Transgenerational Orientation of Family Businesses: The Role of Family Governance and Business Family Identity.” Journal of Business Economics 87 (6): 749–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0835-3.Search in Google Scholar
Suess, J. 2014. “Family Governance – Literature Review and the Development of a Conceptual Model.” Journal of Family Business Strategy 5 (2): 138–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.02.001.Search in Google Scholar
Thoits, P. A. 2004. “Emotion Norms, Emotion Work, and Social Order.” In Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, 359–78. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806582.021Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, R. A., and S. Meyer. 2007. “Socialization of Emotion Regulation in the Family.” In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, edited by Gross, 249–68. NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tuan, L. T. 2013. “Emotional Intelligence as the Departure of the Path to Corporate Governance.” Corporate Governance 13 (2): 148–68, doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701311316634.Search in Google Scholar
Van Aaken, D., K. Rost, and D. Seidl. 2017. “The Substitution of Governance Mechanisms in the Evolution of Family Firms.” Long Range Planning 50 (6): 826–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Berghe, L. A. A., and S. Carchon. 2003. “Agency Relations within the Family Business System: An Exploratory Approach.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 11 (3): 171–9, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00316.Search in Google Scholar
Van Ees, H., J. Gabrielsson, and M. Huse. 2009. “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Boards and Corporate Governance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 17 (3): 307–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00741.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wasielewski, P. L. 1985. “The Emotional Basis of Charisma.” Symbolic Interaction 8 (2): 207–22, https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1985.8.2.207.Search in Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., and R. Cropanzano. 1996. “Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work.” Research in Organizational Behavior 18: 1–74.Search in Google Scholar
Whiteside, M. F., and F. H. Brown. 1991. “Drawbacks of a Dual Systems Approach to Family Firms: Can We Expand Our Thinking?” Family Business Review 4 (4): 383–95, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1991.00383.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. M., and L. R. Gomez-Mejia. 1998. “A Behavioral Agency Model of Managerial Risk Taking.” Academy of Management Review 23 (1): 133–53, https://doi.org/10.2307/259103.Search in Google Scholar
Wooldridge, A. 2015. Family Companies: To Have and to Hold.” Special Report. London: The Economist.Search in Google Scholar
World Bank Group. 2021. Global Economic Prospects. Retrieved from: Washington.Search in Google Scholar
Yezza, H., D. Chabaud, and A. Calabro. 2021. “Conflict Dynamics and Emotional Dissonance during the Family Business Succession Process: Evidence from the Tunisian Context.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (3): 219–44.10.1515/erj-2019-0294Search in Google Scholar
Zellweger, T., and N. Kammerlander. 2015. “Article Commentary: Family, Wealth, and Governance: An Agency Account.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 39 (6): 1281–303, https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12182.Search in Google Scholar
Zellweger, T. M., and R. S. Nason. 2008. “A Stakeholder Perspective on Family Firm Performance.” Family Business Review 21 (3): 203–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865080210030103.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial Essay
- A Governance Approach of Emotion in Family Business: Towards a Multi-level Integrated Framework and Research Agenda
- Essays
- Managing Ambivalent Emotions in Family Businesses: Governance Mechanisms for the Family, Business, and Ownership Systems
- When is Ambivalence Good for Family Firms? Understanding the Impact of Family Managers’ Emotional Ambivalence on Decision Making
- Articles
- CEOs’ Joy of Working for the Family Firm: The Role of Psychological Ownership and Stewardship Behavior
- Conflict Dynamics and Emotional Dissonance during the Family Business Succession Process: Evidence from the Tunisian Context
- The Combinations of Market and Non-Market Strategies That Facilitate Family Firm Survival
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial Essay
- A Governance Approach of Emotion in Family Business: Towards a Multi-level Integrated Framework and Research Agenda
- Essays
- Managing Ambivalent Emotions in Family Businesses: Governance Mechanisms for the Family, Business, and Ownership Systems
- When is Ambivalence Good for Family Firms? Understanding the Impact of Family Managers’ Emotional Ambivalence on Decision Making
- Articles
- CEOs’ Joy of Working for the Family Firm: The Role of Psychological Ownership and Stewardship Behavior
- Conflict Dynamics and Emotional Dissonance during the Family Business Succession Process: Evidence from the Tunisian Context
- The Combinations of Market and Non-Market Strategies That Facilitate Family Firm Survival
