Family Firm Research Frontier

1 Introduction

The family firm research frontier must strive for (a) a fuller integration of the entrepreneurship and family firm disciplines, (b) an understanding of the family firm as a suprasystem and what that means for future research streams, and (c) an expansion of theoretical, methodological, and empirical thinking. One example of the nuanced conceptual challenges in moving forward in this research frontier is that proposed by Rogoff and Heck (2003).

These authors described the family of family firms within the entrepreneurship literature as the oxygen that feeds the entrepreneurial fire. Within the family firm literature, Danes (2016), with more conceptual precision, indicated that family relationships are what feed entrepreneurship’s fire. Family is not only a structural entity; it is an emotional and relational entity (Zachary et al. 2023). A family’s relational culture can either stoke the entrepreneurial fire or dampen its development. This research theme continues throughout this editorial as an example of documenting the need to venture into the family firm’s future research frontier.

A family’s relational culture is the fire that feeds entrepreneurship whether entrepreneurship refers to ignition of new venture emergence or whether it refers to stoking the entrepreneurial fire by identification and incorporation of innovative business opportunities in an established family firm (Danes 2016; Hanson, Hessel, and Danes 2019). Thus, a family’s relational culture provides oxygen to the entrepreneurial fire at all stages of entrepreneurial processes from formulation involving the clarification of intentions, opportunity recognition, and effectuation to monetization with a focus on investment, reward, maintenance, and sustainability (Mishra and Zachary 2014).

Because family relationship culture traverses the family boundary into the business context during entrepreneurial endeavors, many behavioral interactions occur at the family/business interface. Von Bertalanffy (1968), who developed General Systems Theory, maintains that all systems exist in an environment with a higher order suprasystem composed of subsystems that are interrelated and interdependent. Based on this proposition as applied to family firms, Zachary et al. (2023) labeled the suprasystem as a “family firm” with subsystems of family, business, and family/business interface. This editorial adopts that same conceptual nomenclature. According to Von Bertalanffy (1968), when each subsystem is itself a system, as in family firms, the systems cannot be fully understood by examination of individuals within the subsystem in isolation from the other subsystems or from the suprasystem of which they all are a part.

In the study of family firms, entrepreneurship and family firm disciplines must integrate their theoretical, methodological, and empirical thinking because the family and business are inextricably tied to each other. Both Rogoff and Heck (2003), editors of a special issue on entrepreneurship and family firms, as well as Aldrich and Cliff, invited contributors to that special issue, challenged researchers to rethink the importance of families in entrepreneurial endeavors of family firms by adding a family dimension when conceptualizing and modeling, when sampling, when analyzing, and when formulating conclusions and implications. This editorial amalgamates contributions to that challenge since 2003 and sets the stage for a deeper dive into the understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependentness of family and business systems in fueling entrepreneurial endeavors.

The purpose of this editorial is to reignite the direction of research about entrepreneurship in family firms through a more in-depth investigation of the family and family/business interface subsystems’ contribution to entrepreneurship and business subsystem achievements and sustainability. It will do so through a discussion about theoretical underpinnings that represent the family firm as a suprasystem composed of the family, business, and family/business interface subsystems. It also addresses major research challenges such as (a) explicating the nature of family and relational interactions, (b) understanding family’s adaptive capacity contribution to entrepreneurship, and (c) incorporating unbiased methodologies to achieve a fuller understanding of the interdependentness and the interrelatedness of family and business subsystems.

2 Theoretical View of Family Firm as a Suprasystem

The foundation of a discipline is its theoretical base. Steeping each research endeavor within that theoretical foundation is like putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. Theoretical propositions are the starting point of research endeavors and the platform on which to interpret empirical findings. Research findings provide evidence to verify theoretical propositions to cement those aspects of the theory. Or, research findings might refute part or all of a theoretical proposition and stimulate discussion to further refine that segment of the theory.

The current family firm theoretical foundation is composed of a set of theories that address specific aspects of the business system and another set of theories that address the systemic family/business nature of family firms. Examples of the former include (with the problem/scope or outcome in parentheses): (a) Resource-based View (strategic advantage), (b) Agency and Altruism Theory (management and ownership) (c) Unified System Perspective (wealth-creating performance), and (d) Family Embeddedness Perspective (venture creation). Additionally, two theories that steep their propositions within the systemic family/business orientation include: (e) the Bulleye model of an open system (business performance) and (f) the Sustainable Family Business Theory (SFBT) (long-term business sustainability). Whereas The Bulleye model only covers an open system, SFBT recognizes the existence of both open and closed systems and further addresses family and change processes (Zachary et al. 2023).

A recently introduced theory, the Sustainable Family Firm Theory (SFFT) (Zachary et al. 2023), builds on SFBT by strengthening the family firm as a suprasystem and more precisely delineating family, business, and family/business interface processes within the family firm. Those authors further integrated SFFT with Family Firm FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) Theory (FFFT) that delves into interactional behavior processes in greater depth. The integration of SFFT and FFFT frames a view of both family and business functioning through a comprehensive and multidisciplinary theoretical orientation with a suprasystem foundation patterned after that of Von Bertalanffy (1968) General Systems Theory. Doing so recognizes the heterogeneity of not only business functioning but that of family functioning.

Zachary et al. (2023) present an array of theoretical propositions to guide researchers. SFFT has 16 theoretical propositions and FFFT has two. Although FFFT has only two core propositions about interpersonal relationships, the theory’s conceptual orientation delineates much detail about the processes integral to effective/productive interrelationships. The integration of SFFT and FFFT could be the theoretical springboard to guide the reignition of research about entrepreneurship and the functioning of family firms to create short-term achievements and long-term sustainability.

The most effective family firm research endeavors ground their research within a suprasystem theory as SFFT. Researchers do so by using the suprasystem theory to (a) lay the groundwork to justify the importance of their research, (b) select the specific theoretical proposition(s) that guide their research endeavor and, (c) place their findings back within the same suprasystem framework. They do the latter by discussing how their research findings verify the selected theoretical proposition(s) or discussing what needs further development within the suprasystem theory if their findings do not support the proposition(s) that guided the research endeavor.

Von Bertalanffy’s (1968) five basic elements of a system is the guide to the empirical nature of the research endeavor: (a) input, (b) process, (c) output, (d) boundaries, and (e) feedback. Input represents the transformation of human, social, financial capital that produces the desired output (Danes et al. 2009). This basic conceptualization of input/output emulates the nature of computer processes developed at that time.

Nonetheless, process represents the interactions that occur to facilitate the transformation of inputs into targeted outputs. These transformational processual interactions are a major focus of this editorial. Boundaries define the subsystem(s) and the point(s) of interconnection and interdependence. What, when and how family/business interface boundaries are traversed is a critical determinant of business success. Although often ignored, boundaries among the subsystems can lead to confusing results. For example, Gudmunson et al. (2009) explain how introducing a family/business interface communication variable brought clarity to the empirical findings about work/family balance when launching a new venture.

Being conceptually and operationally precise about subsystem boundaries within the family firm suprasystem gives greater credence to the importance of transactions that occur at the family/business interface. Feedback then represents the dynamics generated within the interactional and relational processes that serve as the ignition and fuel of the entrepreneurial endeavor of the family firm suprasystem.

3 Nature of Family and Relational Interactions via FFFT

Although Rogoff and Heck (2003) indicated that family is the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship, several issues surrounding the conceptualization of “family” periodically arise in the family firm literature. Examples of those issues include: (a) distinguishing between family and nonfamily firms, (b) addressing cultural nuances among family firms based on the functions of family in those cultures, and (c) acknowledging the heterogeneity of family to the level that business heterogeneity garners in the literature. An underlying problem in all these issues is the treatment of family as solely a structural concept versus a relational concept grounded in emotional underpinnings.

Conceptual precision is one approach toward progress in tackling these issues. Conceptual precision is about both clarity and comprehensiveness in meaning. For example, Zachary et al. (2023) indicated that family is not just about structural dimensions but family is an emotional and relational entity as well as a structural entity. In patterning their definition of family after that of Mirabelli (2021), these authors (Zachary et al. 2023) defined family as two or more people related by blood, marriage, adoption or who have a long-term commitment to each other and who share resources (financial, physical, human, and social; Danes et al. 2009). To add even greater conceptual precision, Zachary et al. (2023) further added that family firm-owning families share resources across the family/business boundary.

This latter requirement distinguishes family and nonfamily firms in that family relational processes aid in the development, maintenance, and sustenance of entrepreneurship. As family members share resources across the family/business boundary, formal business decision power is exerted through members who work for pay in the family firm. However, within this sharing of resources across the family/business boundary informal decision power exertion occurs through the nature of family relationships. To ignore the existence of this informal power exertion dampens the entrepreneurial fire.

Incorporating the sharing of resources as part of the family definition gives credence to the variety of functions that a family may exhibit. In fact, in some cultures, family functions are more critical than the family’s structure because relational processes lie at the core of its existence (Lynch and Hanson 2004). The essence of family within some cultures is interaction and interconnection within social groups such as extended family, fictive kin, clans, enclaves, and tribes. In some cultures, informal decision power exertion through the nature of family relationships is just as strong as that of formal decision power exertion of those who are paid for their work in the firm (Danes et al. 2008).

Zachary et al.’s (2023) definition of firm-owning families addresses the heterogeneity of family. It considers the varied structures. Additionally, it acknowledges that family is an emotional and relational entity servicing a variety of functions. Those functions include being (a) a manager of family capital, (b) the incubator of a family’s structural and functional integrity, (c) the purveyor and transmitter of a family’s entrepreneurial culture, and (d) the facilitator of the family’s adaptive capacity. Once an entrepreneurial endeavor ignites, it is stoked through family relationship dynamics.

Just as conceptual precision is needed in defining family firm-owning families, so is conceptual precision a necessity when discussing family relationships. Family relationships are composed of individual-based interaction processes and group-based relational processes. Furthermore, one cannot fully understand relational processes without, first, having a conception of the interactional processes that individuals bring to the group relational context. The justification for this point flows back to Von Bertalanffy’s (1968) point that subsystems within a larger system, in this case the family, are interrelated and interdependent. Thus, one must not investigate an isolated individual within a system without placing them within the appropriate or relevant context that relates that individual to the interrelated and interdependent context.

Individual-based interaction processes include sensemaking; the essence of sensemaking includes felt expressions (perceptions) and cognitive interpretations (comprehensions) of those felt expressions. These underlying, unseen, and internal underpinnings are motivations for behavior. These emotion-based-felt perceptions and interpretative comprehensions are internal to the individual until the individual actor interacts with others in their contextual environment (family, family/business interface, or business subsystems). The interactive behavior then enables benefits to the individual and that individual’s contextual environment.

Furthermore, before moving to a discussion of group-based relational processes, we need to identify the mode of influence that individuals use to transmit their sensemaking to others in a family or business relationship. There is an emotion/behavior duality undergirding individual-based interaction processes (Danes and Zachary 2021). In addition to sensemaking, which is emotion-based, there is the influence mode, which entails the behavior vehicle in which to transmit sensemaking into relationships.

This mode of influence is another individual-based interaction process. Three influence modes are dominating (unilateral influence attempts), reactive (counteracting influence attempts), and collaborative (shared influence attempts) (Danes et al. 2002). Individuals tend to have a favored influence mode, but different relational contexts may be approached with varied influence modes.

Relational processes are those processes having a targeted end goal achieved through interactions among those pertinent to the targeted goal in either the family or business subsystems of the family firm suprasystem. Processes of communication, problem solving, conflict management, decision making, resiliency, and negotiation are the primary relational processes (Zachary et al. 2023).

Each process has its own unique contribution to relational initiation and maintenance. Communication is about the choice of words and the mode of expression of those words in transmitting a message. Problem solving investigates conflict content that targets the root cause of the conflict. Negotiation is a means of securing agreement on root causes of conflicts through identifying common interests. Conflict management is about the interaction of the actors within the conflict.

The decision-making process is not just about the decision content and the outcome of the decision-making process. A critical part of the decision-making process, but one that is often ignored, is who is involved in making a decision. The questions to pursue are whether the appropriate individuals are at the decision table and if any essential individuals to the execution of the decision are missing from that table. Further components of the decision-making process after the composition of the decision team is clarifying who makes the final decision and who enacts the final decision. Often, these decision-making components are at the heart of the problem solving and conflict management processes.

The problem solving process may involve reframing a person-oriented conflict to an issue-oriented conflict that is actually the root cause of the conflict. Conflict management, then, is about conflict expression styles and the means to manage the root cause of the conflict. Here is where the individual interaction processes of sensemaking and influence modes are important considerations because of the interconnectedness and the interdependentness of the individuals within the family or the business system.

Resiliency is a process whose essence is different than some of the processes thus far identified. Unlike problem solving and conflict management processes that are deficit-based (dealing with an issue that is perplexing to smooth progression of activity), resiliency is a strength-based process. Resiliency is about consciously planned and proactive efforts to inject a contextual environment (family or business) with interaction dynamics that result in a store of workplace resources available for future use during challenging times of change and/or disruption.

Understanding these individual-based interaction processes and group-based relational processes is important because family firms can change their processes more easily than they can change their structures, roles, and rules (Danes 2014). These processes are about the nature of influence and power interactions that are the underlying essence of family and business cultures. A common description of culture is a system of values, beliefs, norms, rules, and opinions held collectively by a group (Hanson, Hessel, and Danes 2019). But culture goes beyond its content. It is rooted in both individual-based interaction processes and group-based relational processes. This relational context generates, maintains, and adapts to change – the very core of entrepreneurship. Thus, the study of entrepreneurship within family firms needs to extend beyond the entrepreneur within the business context and delve deeper into the interconnectedness and interdependentness with the family and family/business interface subsystems as they affect the success of both the entrepreneurial endeavor and the business system achievements and sustainability.

4 Family Adaptive Capacity’s Contribution to Entrepreneurship

Launching new entrepreneurship endeavors create extensive financial, time, and energy demands on the resources of entrepreneurs and their families. Discrepancies between resource demands and resource availability is a major component contributing to the liability of newness of entrepreneurship endeavors. Those discrepancies cause many disruptions in standard operating procedures in both family and business subsystems.

The family’s adaptive capacity is a counter-balancing force to the disruption of the resource discrepancy. Adaptive capacity is an amalgamation of family capital stocks (resiliency) and processes (resilience) that access and use this capital (Danes et al. 2009). Resiliency’s foundation lies within a family’s functional and structural integrity rather than personal qualities of individuals (Danes 2014). Growth, adaption, partnership, affection, and resolve are functions composing family functional integrity (Danes and Stafford 2011). Family structural integrity represents congruity in decision making and activity coordination between family and business (Danes 2014). It indicates that the family has structured its interactions around the business in such a way as to result in harmony. Doing so enhances the family’s ability to identify, accept, and manage consequences surrounding change which increases business competitiveness, and therefore, financial performance.

Family adaptive capacity sustains a family firm during times of planned change and times of unplanned change. The difference lies in the type and weight of the draw from the family functional and structural integrity units. During times of planned change, the adaptive capacity draw comes primarily from family functional integrity. Drawing on it results in individual and collective creativity to solve problems and function competently. On the other hand, during times of unexpected change, the adaptive capacity draw comes primarily from the family’s structural integrity. To address the unexpected change, exception routines are necessary. Exception routines are recalibrated mechanisms for decision-making and activity coordination incorporated to address the disorder and stress caused by the disruption in standard operating procedures. That means utilizing the strength of group knowledge and action around the management of family capital resources across the family/business interface to address the disruption. When initiating an entrepreneurial endeavor, structural integrity is most relevant to the development and effectuation stages of entrepreneurship when many unexpected changes arise. As the progression of the entrepreneurship endeavor moves into the maintenance and sustainability stages, the family’s functional integrity comes into play.

The study of couples who start and/or maintain businesses over time can reveal the importance of the interplay between family and business. A significant part of an entrepreneur’s immediate decision context is family, specifically interactions within the couple relationship and resource flows between spouses to assist the liability of newness of a new venture or entrepreneurial innovation. Couples are the smallest family decision-making unit and are the most effective unit to demonstrate the transference of family capital resources from the couple relationship to the development of support and commitment for the entrepreneur as well as to the new venture (Matzek et al. 2010; Steier and Greenwood 2000). Therefore, we continue the discussion about understanding the complex entrepreneurial relational dynamics through this microcosm of family – the couple.

Jang and Danes (2013) drew upon McGovern (2011) “couplehood” concept to reflect the uniqueness of firm-owning couples. Couplehood represents the relationship between two committed individuals who share a sense of identity, and purpose. The essence of that couplehood reflects a varied stream of emotional content that is not static over time. Emotions are conscious mental reactions composed of felt emotions (i.e. perceptions) and cognitive interpretations (i.e. comprehensions) of those felt expressions (Frija 1986). Emotion-based perceptions and interpretive comprehensions are internal to the individual until the individual interacts with others in their contextual environment to achieve their targeted personal, couple, or social group (such as the family firm suprasystem) goal. Danes and Zachary (2021) described this phenomenon as an emotion/behavior duality.

A closely related concept to that of McGovern’s couplehood is copreneur. Copreneur refers to firm-owning couples having shared goals, dreams, and ideals and who make joint decisions recognizing the influence of each couple member on firm outcomes (Fitzgerald and Muske 2002). Integrating the two concepts into “copreneurial couplehood” establishes a conceptual precision that recognizes that the decision context for entrepreneurial development and effectuation is ripe with a myriad of emotions that must be traversed in moving forward toward mutually shared decisions (Danes 2011).

Regardless of the extent of spousal physical involvement in the business system, the core of copreneurial couplehood is whether spouses share business and family goals as a couple which mobilizes family resources for the benefit of the entrepreneurial endeavor (Van Auken and Werbel 2006). Referring to the emotion/behavior duality within the entrepreneurial decision context, informal decision power emanates from the emotion-based perceptions and comprehensions of a spousal partner that motivates behavior(s) that influence the development and effectuation stages of the entrepreneurial endeavor.

This interpretation of copreneurial couplehood acknowledges what Hedberg and Danes (2012) identified as recognition work. Recognition work is working in a manner that makes who one is and what one does visible (Danes, Haberman, and McTavish 2005). Although copreneurial couples do not all work side-by-side in the firm, Chell (2008) stated that many entrepreneurs have “someone at one’s right hand” who is a collaborator that may not always be entrepreneurial but whose involvement is essential to business activities.

Fletcher (2010) indicated that successful development and effectuation stages of entrepreneurship involve what she described as “life making” (how couples established a work-family life balance while working together to create a new venture viability) and “risk taking” (addressing the various challenges that starting a new business venture presents). The transformation of their copreneurial couplehood into productive business capital breeds or constrains that success. The mutual goal is the venture’s ability to thrive along with the ability of the family to remain viable.

Goal congruence, a dimension of couplehood, is critical to copreneurs since they cannot pursue individual goals without considering their partner’s goals (Gere et al. 2001) and their commitment to the business is built upon the couple’s shared goals (Jang and Danes 2013). Danes and Jang (2013) indicate that a collective copreneurial identity is a relational construction between the spouse and entrepreneur involving communicating sensemaking of each member to the other. There are different perceptions, comprehensions, and actions between individuals as roles interact with counter-roles across the family and business system boundaries (Stets 2006). Examples are the role of parent as that role interacts with the counter-role of business owner, or the role of spouse as that role interacts with the role of business partner.

Spousal social capital is defined as resilience that evolves from the fabric of social relations of the couple (emotion dimension of the emotion/behavior duality) through resource and interpersonal transactions (behavior dimension) (Matzek et al. 2010). Family ledger is an assessment of the functional integrity of that spousal social capital – the overall positive to negative interaction ratio. This ratio is important because Gottman and Levenson (2000) indicated that conflict’s effect is not as much a deterrent to relationships as is the ratio of positive to negative interactions over time. From a positive family ledger emanates fuel for the effectuation and maintenance of the entrepreneurship stages such as informal decision power, regenerative power, and resource power.

Informal decision power reflects knowledge and skills that a committed partner contributes to the entrepreneurial endeavor and the ability to bounce ideas around with that trusted partner. Regenerative power is provided through such things as social support, commitment to the entrepreneurial endeavor or innovation, family/business goal congruity (Craft et al. 2015; Jang and Danes 2013), and confidence in the spouse’s business acumen. The receipt of such actions provides and maintains psychic and physical energy to continue to address the stresses of entrepreneurial change (Yang and Danes 2015). Resource power includes such actions as contributing family savings to the entrepreneurial endeavor or incorporating any number of family/business adjustment strategies to accommodate the greater time/energy/financial demands of the entrepreneurial endeavor.

What is needed in the future is research considering and investigating further the informal decision, regenerative, and resource power emanating from the copreneurial couplehood relationship and its impact on all stages of entrepreneurship. Then, these findings need to be extrapolated to other types of family firms i.e. sibling and/or multigenerational. The family’s adaptive capacity is also the key pillar that sustains the family’s entrepreneurial culture and the business system, itself, from generation to generation (Hanson, Hessel, and Danes 2019).

5 Building a Multidisciplinary Research Suprasystem

The family firm research frontier is before us now and demands a broader array of theoretical and methodological views. Participation in the research frontier demands two initial choices. The first choice is that researchers must be willing to expand their usual theoretical base to one involving a range of possible multidisciplinary views which allow the study of the family firm as a suprasystem. The second choice is that this requires researchers to have a strong commitment to the study of the family firm along with its subsystems including the family, the business, and the family/business interface. In sum, the aspects of theoretical precision discussed in the prior sections of this editorial, are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for comprehensive and rigorous research that we seek to develop as an important dimension of our new family firm research frontier with the family firm suprasystem at its core.

To study family firms, we must establish and maintain an ongoing multidisciplinary research suprasystem. With our theoretical precision relative to the family firm suprasystem and inclusive of unbiased methodologies, researchers can begin to offer meaningful, rigorous, and unbiased research for the benefit of all including owners and their family members, policymakers, consultants, students, educators, and researchers.

With the commitment to broader theoretical views and the critical necessity of unbiased methodologies, researchers must seek and work with new research colleagues from other disciplines. Reviewing new research literature from other disciplines, and attending different conferences may allow researchers to increase their capacity for the study of the family firm suprasystem.

To begin building our multidisciplinary research suprasystem, the Sustainable Family Firm Theory (SFFT) and the Family Firm FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) Theory (FFFT) are suggested as comprehensive theories for the study of the family firm suprasystem (Zachary et al. 2023). SFFT presents the family firm surprasystem overall and the FFFT delineates the processes manifested within this family firm suprasystem.

In harmony with a comprehensive theoretical choice, an array of unbiased methodologies needs to be considered such as populations, sampling frames, and sampling procedures (Zachary et al. 2023). The populations of interest will need to be sampled randomly and with enough observations to represent these chosen populations with statistical power.

Several unbiased methods and procedures are noteworthy (Zachary et al. 2023) such as (a) investigating multiple methods of assessment used by other disciplines; (b) collecting data from multiple family members; (c) assessing long-term change versus short-term change; (d) measuring family processes; and (e) collecting longitudinal data. Each of these will be discussed herein.

Other disciplines such as the family science discipline in general may use methodologies that could be adapted to the study of the family firm suprasystem. For example, video-taping family firm decision teams discussing planned business change accompanied by individual decision team members’ interviews can provide confirmation or refutation of group discussion content. Then the interaction data could be coded using established interaction rating scales (Melby and Conger 2001). Here are two research examples that resulted from this methodology. First, Hanson, Hessel, and Danes (2019) investigated the underlying family relational processes that lead to resiliency that sustains an entrepreneurial culture across generations. Second, Hedberg and Danes (2012) investigated copreneurial power structures and interactions that elicited a more productive business.

Another very enlightening data collection methodology involves utilizing multiple informants within the family firm suprasystem. For example, a researcher might seek to obtain data from both partners within copreneurial couples, and when applicable from next-generation members. This allows for the examination of perceptions and comprehensions about business and family integrity and its impact on business achievements and sustainability. Here are some examples. Danes and Jang (2013) investigated the formation of a copreneurial identity during venture creation by investigating the underpinnings of spousal commitment considering business communication quality. Yang and Danes (2015) in studying copreneurs starting a business, investigated protective mechanisms creating resilience in entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-assessed spousal commitment to new venture goals as a key element of the resilience process experienced within the couple decision context.

In focusing on long-term change versus short-term change, researchers will need to rely on new procedures in collecting data such as selecting perspective respondents, coding data, and learning new analytical procedures. Therefore, more time will be required to incorporate such changes in the research. Also, the researcher will need to consider more deeply how the family firm’s interconnected and interdependent subsystems of family, business, and family/business interface interact. Furthermore, understanding family firm sustainability requires longitudinal data from all subsystems and how they each function during times of change/disruption.

Nonetheless, there are short-term changes that can be accomplished now. Grounding current research in such theories as SFFT’s propositions and the integration of SFFT and FFFT’s propositions when investigating relational processes will lead to a more in-depth understanding of family firms. Researchers could begin to develop multidisciplinary research networks such as those that contain family and business discipline scientists that may take some time to gel but that would be crucial to pursue over time. Also, when introducing complex concepts about family and relationships, it is important to reflect on the conceptual complexity and precision relative to what aspect of that complexity is being investigated. For example, conflict is not just about content of the conflict but about problem solving, negotiation, conflict management, and decision-making processes undergirding the disagreement.

Finally, seeking longitudinal data for the family firm suprasystem is a major and worthwhile endeavor that can lead to new understanding. For example, Gudmunson and Danes (2013), using longitudinal data, demonstrated the interconnectedness and interdependence of family and business subsystems within family firm sustainability. These authors investigated the direction of effects in associations between family functional strength and business-related tension moderated by firm continuation status over a ten-year period. Having a commitment to a full understanding of the family firm requires comprehensive short- and long-term studies that will inherently contribute to the family firm research frontier.

6 Conclusions

Future study of the family firm calls for more precise theoretically-based conceptualizations as well as multidisciplinary methodologies. A family firm research frontier composed of a suprasystem theoretical orientation such as SFFT and/or an integration of SFFT and FFFT along with a multidisciplinary research suprasystem offers a full recognition and representation of a family firm’s organizational and relational realities.

The future study of the family firm calls for a suprasystem theoretical base. Additionally, the future study of the family firm requires an unbiased, parallel methodological system that reflects this suprasystem theoretical base’s interconnection and interdependentness of the family, business, and family/business interface subsystems. Doing so will help achieve deeper and wider understandings of how family firm suprasystems emerge, develop, and sustain themselves overtime. More specifically, the family firm research frontier must strive for (a) a fuller integration of the entrepreneurship and family firm disciplines, (b) an understanding of the family firm as a suprasystem and what that means for future research streams, and (c) an expansion of theoretical, methodological, and empirical thinking that reflects this suprasystem orientation.

Taking a suprasystem theoretical and methodological approach to family firm research while utilizing the family definition (reflecting not only its structural base but its emotional and relational base) posed in this editorial, addresses many of the needs identified in the family firm literature. For example, some researchers have called for culturally-focused family firm theories. The suprasystem theoretical and methodological orientation proposed in this editorial established a foundation for the family firm discipline that allows for cultural nuances yet creates a unified, multidisciplinary base for comparison across family firm research findings.

Much of the current family firm and entrepreneurship literature focuses on the functioning of the business subsystem. This editorial focused primarily on the family and family/business interface subsystems as they affect business system viability. Entrepreneurship within family firms cannot ignite, grow, and sustain itself over time without a family that has structural and functional integrity within its relationship culture (Danes 2014; Zachary et al. 2023). Family firms are not sustainable over time unless the family mobilizes its family resource capital toward identification and incorporation of new entrepreneurial opportunities (Danes and Brewton 2012). However, a corollary to this last proposition is that the family’s adaptive capacity (Gudmunson and Danes 2013) needs to be vital enough to manage the change created by the entrepreneurial endeavor introduced.

Understanding of these relational processes in both the short-term and long-term requires collecting different types of data through different means with the use of randomly selected family firm samples. Doing so captures a wider variance in those processes to give a fuller picture and understanding of family firm realities. Longitudinal data from those same family firms about these relational processes creates a platform from which to understand the effect that change in those processes influences short-term business achievements and business sustainability over time.

This is an exciting time in the development of the family firm discipline. Change is the essence of the family firm research frontier. Become an active participant in traversing that frontier by embracing the suprasystem conceptualization as well as by assisting in the building of its parallel research suprasystem that will enhance the future investigation of family firms.