| Literature DB >> 26074830 |
Kathy K Overbeke1, Diana Bilimoria1, Toni Somers2.
Abstract
Family businesses are critical to the United States economy, employing 63% of the workforce and generating 57% of GDP (University of Vermont, 2014). Family business continuity, however, remains elusive as approximately 70% of family businesses do not survive the second generation (Poza, 2013). In order to augment our understanding of how next generation leaders are chosen in family businesses, we examine daughter succession. Using a sample of pairs of family business fathers and daughters and drawing on an earlier study of the dearth of successor daughters in family businesses (Overbeke et al., 2013), we reveal that shared vision between fathers and daughters is central to daughter succession. Self-efficacy and gender norms influence shared vision and when fathers and daughters share a vision for the future of the company, daughters are likely to be transformed into successors.Entities:
Keywords: career choice; daughters; family business; gender; succession; vision; women
Year: 2015 PMID: 26074830 PMCID: PMC4448000 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Hypothesized models (A,B). (A) Hypothesized daughter model. (B) Hypothesized fathers' model.
Demographic profiles of respondents and organizations.
| Daughters currently working in family business | 23 | 46 |
| Daughters currently in successor positions | 7 | 14 |
| Daughters with high intentions of succession | 10 | 20 |
| Daughters with low intentions of succession | 18 | 36 |
| Daughters undecided | 15 | 30 |
| Service | 15 | 30 |
| Wholesale | 2 | 4 |
| Manufacturing | 1 | 2 |
| Unreported | 32 | 64 |
| Less than $100,000 | 2 | 4 |
| $100,000–499,999 | 8 | 16 |
| $500,000–999,999 | 1 | 2 |
| $1,000,0000–4,999,999 | 18 | 36 |
| $5,000,000–9,999,999 | 5 | 10 |
| $10,000,000–49,999,999 | 8 | 16 |
| $50,000,000–99,999,999 | 2 | 4 |
| Over $100,000,000 | 6 | 12 |
| 1st | 24 | 48 |
| 2nd | 16 | 32 |
| 3rd | 8 | 16 |
| 4th | 1 | 2 |
| More than 4th | 1 | 2 |
| 50–53 | 8 | 16 |
| 54–58 | 15 | 30 |
| 59–61 | 10 | 20 |
| 62–64 | 8 | 16 |
| 65–67 | 6 | 12 |
| No response | 3 | 6 |
| 19–28 | 26 | 52 |
| 29–38 | 18 | 36 |
| 39–48 | 2 | 4 |
| 49–53 | 0 | |
| 54–58 | 4 | 8 |
Example of contextualized self-efficacy scale item.
| 1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself | 1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I set for myself as an executive in my family's business. | 1. My daughter will be able to achieve most of the goals that she sets for herself as an executive in our family business. |
Codes assigned to daughter's current position title.
| 7 | CEO |
| COO | |
| President | |
| 6 | Vice-president |
| 5 | Director |
| 4 | Manager |
| 3 | Technical |
| Sales person | |
| Coordinator | |
| 2 | Administrative |
| 1 | Not in the family business |
Descriptive statistics and construct correlations.
| IGRO | 3.74 | 0.72 | |||||||
| EGRO | 4.1017 | 0.65 | 0.200 | ||||||
| SEFF | 4.12 | 0.68 | 0.671 | 0.274 | |||||
| VIS | 3.32 | 0.84 | 0.317 | 0.143 | 0.511 | ||||
| INT | 3.01 | 1.21 | 0.125 | −0.097 | 0.228 | 0.606 | |||
| SX | 2.61 | 0.73 | 0.140 | −0.022 | 0.097 | 0.188 | 0.216 | ||
| DS | 5.25 | 2.64 | 0.143 | −0.135 | 0.201 | 0.529 | 0.856 | 0.147 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Factor loadings and measurement properties of construct.
| Q1_7 | 0.61 | 5.23 | 0.863 |
| Q1_10 | 0.75 | 10.27 | |
| Q1_11 | 0.76 | 7.73 | |
| Q1_12 | 0.74 | 5.49 | |
| Q1_15 | 0.86 | 23.36 | |
| Q1_4 | 0.73 | 4.59 | 0.881 |
| Q1_5 | 0.53 | 2.63 | |
| Q1_6 | 0.91 | 6.79 | |
| Q1_8 | 0.84 | 5.56 | |
| Q1_13 | 0.74 | 4.61 | |
| Q1_14 | 0.68 | 3.61 | |
| Q2_1 | 0.83 | 22.02 | 0.948 |
| Q2_2 | 0.86 | 29.77 | |
| Q2_3 | 0.85 | 28.91 | |
| Q2_4 | 0.85 | 20.25 | |
| Q2_5 | 0.87 | 30.89 | |
| Q2_6 | 0.88 | 29.49 | |
| Q2_7 | 0.72 | 10.99 | |
| Q2_8 | 0.81 | 15.76 | |
| Q10_2 | 0.87 | 8.16 | 0.90 |
| Q10_3 | 0.58 | 3.29 | |
| Q10_6 | 0.80 | 5.38 | |
| Q10_7 | 0.81 | 6.60 | |
| Q3_1 | 0.80 | 20.70 | 0.92 |
| Q3_2 | 0.84 | 29.72 | |
| Q3_3 | 0.79 | 18.78 | |
| Q3_4 | 0.74 | 9.31 | |
| Q3_5 | 0.84 | 23.80 | |
| Q3_6 | 0.84 | 25.33 | |
Summary of hypothesis testing.
| H1a | Successor efficacy→Vision-D | 0.387 | 2.33 | yes |
| H1b | Successor efficacy→Vision-F | 0.435 | 2.09 | yes |
| H2a | Expressive gender role orientation→Vision D | 0.073 | 0.78 | no |
| H2b | Expressive gender role orientation→Vision F | 0.045 | 0.43 | no |
| H2d | Instrumental gender role orientation→Vision D | 0.080 | 0.60 | no |
| H2e | Instrumental gender role orientation→Vision F | −0.025 | 0.16 | no |
| H3a | Sexism→Vision D | 0.377 | 3.40 | yes |
| H3b | Sexism→Vision F | 0.218 | 1.94 | yes |
| H4c | Vision→Succession or intention to succeed-D | 0.542 | 6.00 | yes |
| H4d | Vision→Succession or intention to succeed-F | 0.598 | 6.45 | yes |
D = Daughters; F = Fathers.
Mediation preconditions.
| EGRO→DV | −0.1210 | 0.9501 | 0.1274 | no | EGRO→DV | −0.2560 | 2.1170 | 0.1209 | Yes |
| IGRO→DV | 0.0600 | 0.4907 | 0.1223 | no | IGRO→DV | −0.1530 | 1.1804 | 0.1296 | no |
| SEFF→DV | 0.2380 | 1.4966 | 0.1590 | no | SEFF→DV | 0.130 | 1.0690 | 0.1244 | no |
| SX→DV | 0.2520 | 2.2505 | 0.1120 | Yes | SX→DV | 0.0430 | 0.4168 | 0.1032 | No |
EGRO, Expressive Gender Role Orientation; IGRO, Instrumental Gender Role Orientation; SEFF, Successor Efficacy; SX, Sexism.
Significant at 0.05 level.
Mediation-daughters.
| Sexism→Vision | 0.3190 | 2.4790 | 0.1287 | yes |
| Vision→Succession | 0.4860 | 4.2413 | 0.1146 | yes |
| Sexism→Succession | 0.1230 | 1.2017 | 0.1024 | no |
Mediation-fathers.
| Expressive gender role orientation→Vision | −0.0070 | 0.0705 | 0.0993 | no |
| Vision→Succession | 0.6350 | 6.0041 | 0.1058 | yes |
| Sexism→Succession | −0.2560 | 2.1170 | 0.1209 | yes |
Daughters-mediated, direct and indirect effects/fathers-direct and indirect effects.
| EGRO→VIS | 0.1210 | 1.2636 | 0.0958 | NO | NONE |
| VIS→DV | 0.4860 | 4.2413 | 0.1146 | YES | |
| EGRO→DV | −0.2050 | 1.5227 | 0.1346 | NO | |
| IGRO→VIS | 0.1080 | 0.7692 | 0.1404 | NO | NONE |
| VIS→DV | 0.4860 | 4.2413 | 0.1146 | YES | |
| IGRO→DV | −0.0400 | 0.2741 | 0.1460 | NO | |
| SX→VIS | 0.3190 | 2.4790 | 0.1287 | YES | MED |
| VIS→DV | 0.4860 | 4.2413 | 0.1146 | YES | |
| SX→DV | 0.1230 | 1.2017 | 0.1024 | NO | |
| SEFF→VIS | 0.3880 | 2.0212 | 0.1920 | YES | INDIRECT |
| VIS→DV | 0.4860 | 4.2413 | 0.1146 | YES | |
| SEFF→DV | 0.0740 | 0.5331 | 0.1388 | NO | |
| EGRO→VIS | −0.007 | 0.0705 | 0.0993 | NO | DIRECT |
| VIS→DV | 0.6350 | 6.0041 | 0.1058 | YES | |
| EGRO→DV | −0.2560 | 2.1170 | 0.1209 | YES | |
| IGRO→VIS | −0.0180 | 0.1244 | 0.1447 | NO | NONE |
| VIS→DV | 0.6350 | 6.0041 | 0.1058 | YES | |
| IGRO→DV | −0.1530 | 1.1804 | 0.1296 | NO | |
| SX→VIS | 0.2280 | 2.1204 | 0.1075 | YES | INDIRECT |
| VIS→DV | 0.6350 | 6.0041 | 0.1058 | YES | |
| SX→DV | 0.0430 | 0.4168 | 0.1032 | NO | |
| SEFF→VIS | 0.4610 | 1.9556 | 0.2357 | YES | INDIRECT |
| VIS→DV | 0.6350 | 6.0041 | 0.1058 | YES | |
| SEFF→DV | 0.1330 | 1.0690 | 0.1244 | NO | |
Borderline significance.
Paired sample .
| H1c | Perceived Daughter Efficacy/Self-Efficacy | −0.083 | −0.689 | 0.494 | No |
| H2c | Sexism | 0.211 | 2.483 | 0.020 | Yes |
| H3c | Expressive Gender Role Orientation | −0.025 | −0.226 | 0.822 | No |
| H3f | Instrumental Gender Role Orientation | −0.010 | −0.085 | 0.933 | No |
| H4 | Vision | −0.267 | −2.250 | 0.030 | Yes |
Significant at 0.05 level.
Figure 2Final Models. (A) Daughters' final model. (B) Fathers' final model.