251 pa45 project dissertation - hochschule-luzern · passingthebaton! ! management!summary!...

Passing the Baton Investigating Gender-‐Related Differences in

Succession Planning:

Exemplary Cases from Switzerland

Arabiano Nikolas

Bugmann Lea

Nguyen Han Ha Ngoc

Niederer Roberto

Client and Specialist Coach Methodology Coach

Claudia Astrachan Dr. sc. techn. J.K. Kuark

Learning Group 251

Major in International Management and Economics

Project Dissertation submitted as part of the requirements for the

BSc in Business Administration at the School of Business, Lucerne

University of Applied Sciences and Arts

May 2014

Passing the Baton Title Page

IM&E Class 251 May 2014 of 63

Passing the Baton Investigating Gender-‐Related Differences in

Succession Planning:

Exemplary Cases from Switzerland

Arabiano Nikolas [email protected]

Bugmann Lea [email protected]

Nguyen Han Ha Ngoc [email protected]

Niederer Roberto [email protected]

Client and Specialist Coach

Claudia Astrachan [email protected]

Methodology Coach

Dr. sc. techn. J.K. Kuark [email protected]

Learning Group 251

Major in International Management and Economics

Project Dissertation submitted as part of the requirements for the

BSc in Business Administration at the School of Business, Lucerne

University of Applied Sciences and Arts

May 2014

Passing the Baton Management Summary


Management Summary

This research investigates gender-‐related differences in succession

planning of family businesses in the area of Central Switzerland through the

comparison of the information gathered through qualitative research. The

research analyzes twelve different narrative interviews conducted with CEOs in

various industries. The analysis shows that although gender does not have a

great impact on the succession planning, a few differences are observable on

how female and male CEOs perceive and identify with this topic. To show this,

the research first reviewed the definitions of the terms family business,

succession, and gender-‐related differences. The three definitions were

thereafter associated to each other through an Analytic Hierarchy Process core

model, which allowed categorization of the gathered information.

The research continued by defining the methodology and approach to the

interviews. Furthermore, details about the choice of strategic and empirical

sample were described. The selection of categories proceeded on an inductive

level based on the literature review and also a deductive level, which evolved

through the inclusion of topics and perceptions of the CEOs during the

interviews. All categories were further divided into past and future issues. Past

categories concerned the CEO’s own succession into the head of the family

business, whereas the future categories identified elements, which touch upon

the succeeding succession.

The results show little discrepancy in the majority of categories in the

comparison of female and male perspectives. The essential differences bared by

the research in the past categories concern how the succession was discussed

within the family before the handover, the choice of successor, and the

preparation process for the CEO position. The future categories show

differences in how the succession is discussed presently in the family, the

formulation of a future succession plan, reasons for retirement, the necessary

characteristics of a future successor, and the work life balance of the different

CEOs.

Conclusively, the results indicate that the past succession may have

influenced the future process planning, however, further research is

recommended to diverge into this topic. Moreover, the changing gender roles

Passing the Baton Management Summary


throughout time may be a factor as to why no great differences were found in

the succession planning between male and female CEOs. The degree and speed

of these changes are difficult to evaluate (Trost, 1983, p. 225) and may be

considered for further analysis concerning succession planning.

Passing the Baton Table of Contents


Table of Contents

Management Summary .................................................................................................. 3

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 5

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 6

List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 6 List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ 6

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7

2. Theoretical Background ........................................................................................ 9 2.1. Definition of Family Business ................................................................................... 9 2.2. Succession ..................................................................................................................... 13 2.3. Gender-‐Related Differences ................................................................................... 16 2.3.1. Perception of Succession Dynamic ............................................................................. 16 2.3.2. Psychological Ownership and Resistance to Succession Plan ........................ 18 2.3.3. Emotional Value and Duration of Ownership ........................................................ 20 2.3.4. Male Owners as Fathers ................................................................................................... 21 2.3.5. Female Owners as Mothers ............................................................................................ 23

2.4. Core Model .................................................................................................................... 24 3. Methodological Procedure ................................................................................. 28 3.1. Qualitative Methodology ......................................................................................... 28 3.2. Empirical Design ........................................................................................................ 28 3.3. Strategic Sample ......................................................................................................... 29 3.4. Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 30 3.5. Overview Outline Structure .................................................................................... 31 3.6. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 31 3.7. Quality Criteria ........................................................................................................... 32

4. Results ....................................................................................................................... 34 4.1. Empirical Sample ....................................................................................................... 34 4.2. Female Past .................................................................................................................. 35 4.3. Female Future ............................................................................................................. 36 4.4. Male Past ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.5. Male Future .................................................................................................................. 38 4.6. Comparison Female-‐Male Past .............................................................................. 39 4.7. Comparison Female-‐Male Future ......................................................................... 41

5. Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................... 43

Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A: Interview Outline ................................................................................. 53 Appendix B: Symbols for Data Transcription ...................................................... 56

Appendix C: Categories and Codes .......................................................................... 57 Background information ..................................................................................................... 57 CEO's own succession (Past) .............................................................................................. 57 Next succession (Future) ..................................................................................................... 59 Hierarchic Structure of Categories .................................................................................. 62

Declaration of Sole Authorship ................................................................................ 63

Passing the Baton List of Figures, Tables, Abbreviations, and Appendices


List of Figures

Figure 1 Family Business Universe p. 11

Figure 2 Hierarchical decomposition of the assessment of the

critical success factors affecting the success of family

business succession p. 27

Figure 3 Hierarchic Structure of Categories p. 62

List of Tables

Table 1 Overview of Conducted Interviews p. 34

List of Abbreviations

GDP Gross Domestic Product

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

List of Appendices

Appendix A Interview Outline p. 53

Appendix B Symbols for Data Transcription p. 56

Appendix C Categories and Codes p. 57

Passing the Baton Introduction


1. Introduction

Family-‐owned companies are a significant economic force; in the U.S. they

generate between 60% and 70% of the gross domestic product (GDP) annually

(Astrachan and Shanker, 2003, p. 217). In Switzerland, 88% of all companies are

family owned. They employ over two-‐thirds of the Swiss workforce and account

for roughly 66% of the Swiss GDP (Frey, Halter, and Zellweger, 2004, p. 3).

Research investigating this unique form of organizations focuses on the

reciprocal and inextricable relationship between the family and the firm, which

distinguishes family from non-‐family firms (Sharma, 2004, p. 4). Despite the

economic relevance of the family form of businesses, research has thus far

largely focused on large, publicly owned instead of family owned companies.

Therefore, family businesses are of great interest.

While family-‐owned companies, due to the involvement of the owning

family, are able to exploit unique opportunities, they also face specific

challenges. Successfully transferring the family firm from one generation to the

next has been identified as one of the key challenges that family-‐owned

companies face (Schweizer Standards, 2010, p. 11). While research has

identified factors that contribute to the success or failure of succession

processes, little attention has been paid to the gender of the leader who passes

the baton (Harveston, Davis, and Lyden, 1997).

This dissertation’s aim is to attempt to answer the research question

“Does the decision-‐making process related to family business succession differ

between male and female CEOs in Switzerland?” The qualitative research will

ensue through narrative interviews with male and female CEOs of family firms

in Switzerland. By addressing notions such as psychological ownership,

emotional attachment and resistance to a succession during the interviews the

paper aims to derive a pattern between male and female decision-‐making

concerning succession.

The dissertation initially states the study’s definition on family businesses

and succession. Following this, it highlights the gender related differences of

CEOs in family firms obtained through literature review. Afterwards, a

correlation between these two aspects is defined in the research’s core model.

Next, the methodology and analysis of this research is described in the last part

Passing the Baton Introduction


of the paper. Finally, following the analysis, a conclusion is drawn and

commented upon.

Passing the Baton Theoretical Background


2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Definition of Family Business

Family businesses play an important role in the today’s economy – in

Switzerland as well as worldwide. The definition of what a family business is

though seems to be a challenging undertaking.

Already in 1989, Handler states the definition process as “the first and

most obvious challenge facing family business researchers” (p. 258). However,

despite the importance of family businesses in the today’s economy and the

early identification of definition difficulties, a generally accepted definition of

what a family business is does not exist yet (Littunen and Hyrsky, 2000, p. 41).

Ward (1987) defined family firms as “one that will be passed on for the

family’s next generation to manage and control” (p. 252). However, there are

various ways and approaches to define a family business and depending on the

researcher and the aim of the research, emphasis is put on different aspects of

family business. Family business has been defined in the literature through

content, purpose, form, ownership and management involvement of an owning

family, and intergenerational transfer (Astrachan, Klein, and Smyrnios, 2002, p.

45). For some researchers, in a family business at least two family members

must be involved in management activities, others require at least a 51%

ownership of the stocks (Littunen et al., 2000, p. 41) In addition, more recent

analysis focus on the cultural aspect of family businesses (Litz, 1995, cited in

Astrachan et al., 2002, p. 45).

Researchers agree that there is something unique about family businesses

and that it is this uniqueness that distinguishes them from a non-‐family firm.

However, there is no consensus on what this uniqueness is. Furthermore, not

even family firms know what sets them apart or whether they consider

themselves to be a family business at all. In interviews conducted by Chua,

Chrisman, and Sharma in 1999, some businesses denied to be a family business

while others with similar characteristics (for example same degree of

ownership) were convinced they are. Moreover, businesses which are fully

owned by a family negated to be a family business while other businesses which



are owned by siblings but not managed by them insisted that they are a family

business (p. 19).

Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma came to the conclusion that family businesses

can be distinguished by behavior from non-‐family businesses (p. 24). They

reviewed over 250 papers in the family business literature. Out of these papers,

they extracted 21 definitions which included the essential components and

nature of a family’s involvement in businesses. One of their observations was

that researchers disagreed on the requirements regarding ownership and

management of the family business. For some of them, either controlling

ownership or family management, was sufficient to declare a company as a

family business and others required the combination of both. Therefore, they

distinguished between three qualifying combinations (p. 20):

(A) Family owned and family managed

(B) Family owned but not family managed

(C) Family managed but not family owned

Analyzing the correlation between this three criteria and the table, only

one of each list matched with all of the definitions, namely (A) a family owned

and family managed company. For all the others, there is disagreement and

ambiguity between the researchers. However, if all the other companies, which

do not fulfill these requirements, would be declared as non-‐family business, this

would also mean that a great amount of literature and research conducted

would be invalid and therefore useless. Because of that, it would be too

restricted to stick to this definition. Furthermore, other measurements have to

be taken into account as well. Summed up, scientists agree that a business

owned and managed by a nuclear family is a family business (p. 22) but this is

not a conclusive definition.

A further approach comes from Astrachan and Shanker (2003). They

defined to solve this problem with a three-‐tier categorization range (Figure 1): a

broad one, a middle one, and a narrow one.



Figure 1: From “Family Business Universe”, by J. H. Astrachan and M. C. Shanker

(2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the U.S. economy: a closer look.

Family Business Review, 16(3), 212.

In the broad sense, it is sufficient to have family participation in the

control and strategic positions of the company. Narrowed down, there must be

the intention to hand down the company one day to a family member, so that

the company will stay in family ownership. The most narrowed definition

requires a multiple generations co-‐working situation, so for example the

grandmother is the founder and two of her children as well as grandchildren

work in managing positions in the company (p. 212). Again, since the basis of a

great amount of the existing literature does not match with the narrowest

definition, it will not be considered for the definition.

Since the aim of this dissertation is to investigate the influence of the

owner’s gender on the succession, the intention to pass on the baton is an

essential factor. Therefore, the second layer definition –that the founder or in

this case the descendant runs the company and that there is the intention to

keep the business within the family– will be taken into account. This definition

also includes the outer layer which requires family participation and control of

strategic direction of the company. Additionally, the main essence of the

findings of Chua, Chrisman and Sharma, namely the behavioral aspect, will be



incorporated in the definition. Hence, a company must have dominant influence

on the strategic decision through ownership and/or management and its vision

“is shaped and pursued by a dominant coalition controlled by a family” (Chua et

al., 1999, p. 25).

As an impossible undertaking, Astrachan et al. describe the distinguishing

between family businesses and non-‐family businesses due to the various, and

sometimes contradictory, literature (2002, p. 46). Hence, they propose

measurable framework, namely the F-‐PEC Scale. P stands for power, E for

experience, and C for culture. These may be considered the three most

important dimensions of family influence (p. 47). Throughout the literature

review, family influence is an important aspect of the definition of a family

business. This aspect may not be neglected in the definition as well. Since the

Power Subscale is divided into ownership, governance and management, these

three factors will be taken into account, since a family can exercise power over a

company through these three canals (p. 48).

However, not only the definition of family involvement within a company

but also a clear definition of the term family is missing. This is especially

important in the international research context, since the definition of family

does differ between different countries, cultures and religions. In the time of

divorces and patchwork families, we assume that the narrow definition of

family (nuclear family) does not live up to the reality of today’s society.

Therefore, we understand a family in the broader sense, including various

family branches such as spouses and cousins. It is also the emotional value that

makes a family. McDaniel, Campell, Hepworth, and Lorenz support this

definition, as they “define family as any group of people related either

biologically, emotionally, or legally” (2005, p. 2).

A broad sense of the definitions was chosen as to not limit the choice of

sample too heavily. For this research, a family business is defined as a company

that fulfills the following criteria:

-‐ The company is owned and managed by members of the same family or

related family branches

-‐ In case of listed companies, the family holds the majority interest



-‐ The family has a dominant influence on shaping the strategy

-‐ The owning family has a transgenerational vision

Since this research is limited to Swiss companies, the focus is set on family

firms based in Central Switzerland. Additionally, only companies are taken into

consideration, which already went through a succession, since the behavior of

an entrepreneur does differ from the one of a CEO that had not founded the

company himself or herself (Sonfield and Lussier, 2004, p. 196). These issues

will be discussed in more detail in the methodology chapter of this project

dissertation.

2.2. Succession

Succession planning is one of the most significant factors that determines

the survival of family companies. For family businesses, succession is a complex

management problem and is seen as a key characteristic (Lansberg, 1988, p.

119; Stamm, Schmiade, Kohli, and Breitschmid, 2011, p. 13; Cadieux, Lorrain,

and Hugron, 2002, p. 17; Handler, 1994, p. 133; Harveston, Davis, and Lyden,

1997, p. 373). For first-‐generation companies, which heavily depend on the

company's founder (emotionally, technically, and financially), a lack of

succession planning is the main cause of a disposition, liquidation, or a

bankruptcy of the firm (Lansberg, 1988, pp. 119-‐120; Handler, 1994, p. 148;

Harveston et al. 1997, p. 374). The serious economic damage that could arise of

an improper succession -‐ not only for first generation companies -‐ shows its

importance. Family businesses can employ numerous people who depend on

them for income and social securities. In the case of a sudden death of an owner

who was unwilling or not aware about succession, conflicts among the owner's

heirs or other players may arise and therefore impact the whole company (p.

120; Miller, Steier, and Le Breton-‐Miller, 2006, p. 372). In addition to the serious

damage to the company's environment, an inappropriate or even no succession

planning may damage the owning family as well. In conclusion, to ensure

harmony within the family and the continuity of the business, a proper

succession and its planning is necessary.



Succession brings along several changes for the possessor: the owner's

relationship within the family will change, he or she might suddenly face

unknown leisure time, the successor may become the new family patriarch (at

least in the owner's view), and the structure of the firm may change (p. 121). In

addition, feelings of loss, control, and power overwhelm the owner and he or

she fear losing an important part of the identity within the community

(Lansberg, 1988, p. 125; Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 18) since the business is the

most significant creation in the owner's life. Stamm et al. also describe changes

in the privileges and duties of the entrepreneurial family (2011, p. 15).

Succession addresses many emotional feelings and is preferred to be avoided

and therefore, seldom planned in family businesses (Lansberg, 1988, p. 120;

Handler, 1994, p. 133).

The main elements of common understanding for succession are (Stamm

et al., 2011, p. 15): first, succession is a transition process. Second, the transition

process takes place between a possessor and a successor, whereas both can be

individuals or a group. Third, both sides fulfil a specific role during the

transition. Fourth, possessor and successor of a family firm are mostly "in a

kinship relation and belong to different generations -‐ otherwise the familial

influence on the business would end" (Stamm et al., 2011, p. 15). Fifth, the

transition concerns the power-‐transfer over the family firm. For the company

itself it means an exchange in either leadership, ownership, or of other key

players (p. 15). This may mean a total change in lifestyle of the possessor and

the family involved. Cadieux et al. provide the following detailed definition of

succession: "By definition, succession is a dynamic process during which the

roles and duties of the two main groups of individuals involved, i.e., the

predecessor and the successor, evolve interdependently and overlap, with the

ultimate goal being to transfer both the management and ownership of the

business to the next generation" (2002, p. 18).

Possessor and the successor are in most cases relatives, and firms are

passed within the family, Aronoff (1998, cited in Stamm et al., 2011, p. 15)

suggests that instead of talking about succession, the term 'generational

transition' is more significant.



If several succession transitions were successful, the previous succession

may structure the coming and establish patterns, norms, and regulations within

the firm, of course shaped by the family and the current owner. However,

succession may be the opportunity to change the structure of the firm with all

its patterns, norms, and regulations (Stamm et al., 2011, p. 15). Nevertheless,

each owner and its family, from generation to generation, establish a certain

familial culture within in the company.

Researchers explain the succession process in various ways. A simple

model cuts the transition into three phases. The move from one to the next stage

is accompanied by a growing involvement of the successor and, on the other

side, a decreasing involvement of the possessor (Stamm et al., 2011, p. 16).

Handler describes such a transition as "a mutual role adjustment process

between the founder and next-‐generation family members" (1994, p. 136). A

more complex model involves the transition of wealth, privileges, and duties as

well as the change of the family's power over the firm (ownership, management,

governance) to the successor (see also; Mazzola, Marchisio, and Astrachan,

2006, p. 402). Cadieux et al. describe a model that is divided into four phases

and is "summarized as follows: the initiation phase, the integration phase, the

joint management phase, and the retirement phase" (p. 18). The model is based

on the principle that the process of the succession already starts before the

successor is brought into the company and, as described in the last phase, ends

with the retirement of the possessor. Handler adds that "Succession is not

simply a single step of handing the baton; it is a multistaged process that exists

over time, beginning before heirs even enter the business" (1994, p. 134).

In addition to the possessor and the successor, several other parties are

involved in a succession transition. Stamm et al. mentions in addition parents,

children, testators, and heirs (2011, p. 17). Lansberg to the contrary involves

parties inside the firm such as mangers and employees as well as stakeholders

outside the firm like clients, suppliers, and customers (1988, p. 122; Cadieux et

al., 2002, p. 19). The different perspectives of these stakeholders need to be

taken into account to understand the impact of succession. Each group has

different expectations and demands that need to be satisfied, or at least

balanced. Latest research has shown that a proper planning does not coincide



with a successful succession. Lambrecht and Donckels state that the process

requires, next to the possessor and the successor, the "perspective of a

multigenerational time frame and takes place in a rich stew of social, cultural,

financial, legal, strategic, moral, and other dimensions that resist neat, linear

thinking" (2006, p. 388). Nevertheless, this view "is still in its infancy"

(Lambrecht et al., 2006, p. 388).

2.3. Gender-‐Related Differences

2.3.1. Perception of Succession Dynamic

Gender perspectives may differentiate in value system, for example,

women and men take notice of different things in the environment; they may

value the same things, but for different reasons. Schultz-‐Kleine and Menzel-‐

Baker suggested that men and women possess different types of objects; thus,

these objects of possession attachment display gender differences (2004, p. 14).

The authors defined material possession attachment is a “multi-‐facet property

of the relationship between a specific individual or group of individuals and a

specific, material object that an individual has psychologically appropriated,

decommondified, and singularized through person-‐object interaction” (p. 6).

In term of possessions attachment, male owners are likely to treasure

utilitarian and self-‐related reasons, but female owners have a tendency to

appreciate possessions for social reasons (Kamptner, 1989, p. 189). Other

gender studies on the psychological aspects of possession show that male

owners see possessions as not only an instrument to create monetary value or

even to augment the value of their possession, but also as a function of self-‐

expression, such as the demonstration of relationships (Schultz-‐Kleine et al.,

2004, p. 15). However, female owners present their possession attachment for

their social connections, for bonds to previous generations, and for

representational purposes (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988, cited in Astrachan

and Zellweger, 2008, p. 355). Additionally, Dumas found that men in family

businesses establish relationships with other men on a need to behave

independently, in contrast, women have expectations toward collaboration,

cooperation, and interaction (1989, p. 43). Thus, the attachment to the genders



of owners’ possessions have influence on the extent to which specific ownership

meets the utilitarian or self-‐related needs versus social needs. As Astrachan and

Zellweger proposed, male owners exhibit a stronger attachment to

organizational ownership which primarily relates to increase the financial

value, in contrast, female owners are prone to value a stronger attachment to

ownership that strengthens social utility (2008, pp. 355-‐356).

Numbers of empirical researches have indicated that there is a difference

in perceived roles based on the owners’ gender. According to Frishkoff and

Brown, women in family enterprises tend to hold on the domestic background

due to housekeeping role, meanwhile men are responsible for the business and

protect their decision-‐making their powers in the firms (1993, p. 66). However,

an increasing female participation in key positions in businesses has

demonstrated that women decide to combine family and careers (Elliott and

Orgera, 1993, p. 3). In family business context, female owners consider the

combination of two roles as the mothers and business managers is absolutely

natural. Women maintain work-‐family balance, especially stay in tune with their

children lives, such as their personality, their interests, their ambitions, and

their potential; whereas the male owners as fathers are more engaged in the

business dealings. Within family business context, it is known that women offer

unconditional support, such as time, effort and monetary value to the founders

of the firms (Jimenez, 2009, p. 55). Additionally, women in family firms play an

important role in conveying values of the family as well as the business to the

children they bring up. They are considered as the “nurturers of the next

generation leaders” who influence the successors’ understanding on the

business succession and success. The women help the potential successors to

value hard work, to care about other people and importantly to consider that

family members serve the business instead of exploiting or abuse it (Dugan,

Krone, LeCouvie, Pendergast, Kenyon-‐Rouvinez, and Schuman, 2008, p. 23).

Additionally, female possessors often establish the relationship with the

potential successors prior to the succession; meanwhile male owners and their

children usually build work relationship when they start working together

(Cadieux, Lorrain, and Hugron, 2002, p. 20). As a result, female and male owners

have different perceptions on succession dynamic.



2.3.2. Psychological Ownership and Resistance to Succession Plan

Empirical researches have indicated that owners of family businesses

value benefits beyond financial ownership of their firms and consider their

companies as assets to hand over to future generations rather than wealth to

consume during their lifetimes. Firm survival is an important concern for the

owners because it presents long-‐term value maximization (Anderson and Reeb,

2003, p. 1306). The firm holders also have strong possessions of their

leadership roles and feelings that reflect psychological rather than financial

necessities (Pott, Schoen, Loeb, and Hulme, 2001 cited in Bernhard and

Jaskiewicz, 2011, p. 215). Owners of family firms nurture their “psychological

ownership” by the investment that is not mainly based on finance, but on

energy, time, skills, ideas, values, effort and identity (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks,

2001, p. 302). When the time has come for retirement decisions, aging owners

are concerned about having their psychological bonds to the business loosened

(Ibrahim, Soufani, and Lam, 2001, p. 246).

According to Pierce et al. (2001, p. 299), psychological ownership is

conceptualized as a state of mind in which a person feels a target object or a

piece of it belongs to him or her and deliberately declares that it is his or hers. In

context of family business, owners experience psychologically the connection

between their inner selves and the object of their possessions i.e. their firms.

Furthermore, Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2003, p. 89) proposed the way

psychological ownership fulfills certain needs, namely “self-‐identity” and

“efficacy”. The authors demonstrated that possessions help owners to define

themselves for self-‐expression of identity and maintenance of their continuous

selves over time. In addition, losing such possessions is seen as a loss of an

individual inner self and identity. In that sense, Ward proposed that many firm

leaders consider handing over the leadership role to successors as a loss of both

fundamental element of life and a part of their identities (2004, p. 43).

Additionally, owners discern passing the control to successors as a jeopardy of

efficacy (Levinson, 2002, p. 378); thus leading to the anxiety of becoming

“directionless and unfulfilled” after retirement (Kets de Vries, 2003, p. 381). For

those reasons, owners see the hazardous effects of leadership succession on

their own established efficacies. Similarly, Cadieux et al. found that due to



certain fears, such as health, death, age, loss of identity and power, the

predecessors have a tendency to procrastinate succession plan. A negative

correlation between the psychological characteristics of the owners and their

needs to transfer to the firms indicates that an obstacle in succession is a

difficulty in letting go (2002, p. 18). Hence, procrastination to succession plan

results from the owners’ perception that giving up leadership and ownership

means giving up a part of their own identity.

In addition, other research findings show that family-‐firm owners hold

resistance to letting go and passing the leadership to successors. This kind of

resistance is considered a key barrier to effective succession. The reason why

owners of family businesses have problems letting go has been found to be

endowed in the emotional ownership (Le Breton-‐Miller, Miller, and Steier, 2004,

p. 305).

Men stick to their business since it is the most significant creation in their

life. Succession problems are said to be "tied to psychological elements that

originally motivated the founder to start a business" (Handler and Kram, 1988,

p. 363). Succession, or even the examination of succession, brings along several

changes for the owner and its family. Feelings of losing power, control, and an

important part of his identity may overwhelm the owner (Lansberg, 1988, p.

125; Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 18). Due to the fact that succession addresses many

emotions it is preferred to be avoided and therefore, seldom planned in family

businesses (Lansberg, 1988, p. 120; Handler, 1994, p. 133). Levinson (1971)

proposes three ways why the business is an important psychological aspect of a

male leader. First, because the son had unsolved conflicts with his father, he

opened his own business to escape the structure (cited in Handler et al., 1988, p.

363). As a result, he aspires a certain need of control. Second, the company is his

doing and the most significant creation in life. In addition, it is a source of

energy, motivation, and interest -‐ which no one wants to lose (Lansberg, 1988,

p. 125; Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 18; Handler et al., 1988, p. 364). Third, the

business can "represent an extension of himself" (Kets de Vries, 1985, p. 163

cited in Handler et al., 1988, p. 364) and the perception of leaving it behind is

not desirable. Lansberg (1988) adds a fourth factor that determines resistance

to succession; the refusal to accept the thought of aging, being incapacitated, or



death (p. 129). Given these facts, it is not surprising that it is unusual for a

founder and owner of a business to give up or give away his creation and

identity. In short, there is a likelihood that family-‐business owners’ possession

emerges from psychological attachment to the business. This could be defined

as a source of resistance to succession.

2.3.3. Emotional Value and Duration of Ownership

Besides the financial benefits generated from successful family firms,

owners also obtain “emotional value” by handing down the legacy of a firm’s

tradition (Villalonga and Amit, 2006, pp. 386-‐387). Astrachan et al. defined

emotional value as those factors which are not explained in term of financial

value and the present value of the private benefits of control (2008, p. 348). It is

relevant to evaluate non-‐financial aspects of family firms because it is

commonly known that family firms put efforts to achieve both monetary and

non-‐monetary (independence, tradition and continuity) performance

(Westhead and Cowling, 1997, cited in Astrachan et al., 2008, p. 348).

Firm owners have a tendency to develop stronger emotional bonds with

their businesses over the continuity of time. In other words, the longer duration

of ownership expands, the higher the emotional value, which is likely to

transform into barriers to leave the operation or ultimately, the ownership

(Gomez-‐Mejia, Larraza-‐Kintana, and Makri, 2003, p. 232). When aging owners

approach the final stage of their leadership cycle, they may experience role

adjustments, for example, a reduction in level of involvement and authority in

the firms due to following factors. The changing market conditions, such as slow

or declining market growth, an increase in competition or technological change

would distort the managerial decisions on the future of the family businesses or

even alter the owners’ intentions for succession. For example, the turbulent

changes of market conditions which cause higher probability of firm failure, or

pressures to liquidate the business would prevent the succession from taking

place (Massis, Chua, and Chrisman, 2008, p. 190). Thus, it is suggested that the

timing of succession should coincide with the time when the successor is well

prepared and the business is in good condition (Le Breton-‐Miller et al., 2004, p.

314). Some other reasons, such as personal matters (health, remarriage,



children rivalries, and conflicts due to bad interpersonal relationships or lack of

trust) could also reduce emotional value on the succession plan (Massis et al.,

2008, p. 188).

Such adjustments cause old owners to become willing to let go the firms in

case of having no adequate successor within their families, which leads to a

perception of “betrayal of tradition” and reflects a lower level of emotional value

of their ownership (Levinson, 2002, p. 384). However, the presence of a

successor within the family will develop a kin-‐keeping role and an expansion of

existing owners’ selves into their future generation and embody family history

and tradition. As a result, succession which presents the opportunity of

maintaining family-‐firm legacy boosts emotional value from generation to

generation (Astrachan et al., 2008, p. 355). With regard to the point of time in an

owner’s professional life and emotional value development, the succession

process might differ. So, this aspect might be taken into consideration for the

valuation of the data gathered during the interviews. However, the owner’s age

will not be considered in the strategic sample.

2.3.4. Male Owners as Fathers

Regarding succession, traditionally, the owners prefer primogeniture, the

exclusive right of inheritance of the eldest son regardless of his competences or

desires, and his siblings’ presences do not influence the choices of successors

(Dumas, 1989, p. 31). Ibrahim et al. found that the family-‐firm owners tend to

consider their sons as natural successors for the leadership role (2001, p. 255).

However, in reality, many families do not have sons to pass on their business to.

Vera and Dean included in their current findings that no primogeniture

succession is taken into account of handing over the business (2005, p. 333).

This also explains that even if the eldest sons participate in the business, they do

not necessarily play the role of CEOs or top managers. On some occasions, the

oldest sons lose their patience and leave the firms due to their fathers’

resistance to pass on the business (Galiano and Vinturella, 1995, p. 181). Thus, it

is uncertain that the first male heirs are the only potential successors.

When an opportunity to passing on the firms to a son presents itself, the

father-‐son working relationship is taken into consideration for a succession



plan. Some studies show that a son’s need for power and control may demand

succession to take place quickly. A son’s desire for leadership and to establish

their own identity may cause competition with his father. Consequently, sons

may put themselves under pressure to perform better than their fathers and

tend towards impulsive decision-‐making, an early independence from the

predecessors or dramatic change in the firms (Vera and Dean, 2005, pp. 327-‐

328). What is more, emotional conflicts occur with fathers when they still need

to hold on their summit positions, while the succession plan must be carried on

as they promised. These conflicts may instill feelings of rivalry because the sons

require freedom to act and take responsibility with their growing maturity. On

some occasions, they might find themselves upset with their fathers’ intrusions

or dominance (Levinson, 2002, p. 279). Another reason for the competitive

father-‐son relationship is the lack of open communication. The fathers feel that

their sons will never be ready to manage the firms and decide to say nothing

about it to the sons, whereas the sons still remain loyal to their fathers and wait

impatiently for the significant opportunity. Consequently, due to that deferral to

expected opportunities, the sons could even feel more disappointment,

frustration or tension (p. 280).

On the one hand, a number of studies show that female members cope

with major disadvantages in the family enterprises. For example, the owners

perceive their daughters as incompetent candidates for the succession (Ibrahim

et al., 2001, p. 255). Similarly, the owners do not seriously perceive daughters in

business careers, especially when they have their own families. Thus, daughters

are considered as invisible successors and are cut off from important decision-‐

making roles (Dumas, 1989, p. 37). It is also possible that fathers are reluctant

to engage their daughters into decision-‐makings because they attempt to

protect their daughters from difficult situations (Vera et al., 2005, p. 327). In

addition, women face challenges in family enterprises, such as lack of

recognition, which drive women to seek other opportunities. In case, women

hold the top positions in family firms, they have to tackle with male rivalries,

with the owner’s skepticism on giving them the absolute power to lead the

firms, or even with their own self-‐esteem issues (Dumas, 1989, p. 35).



On the other hand, female heirs of family business are still mainly

mentored by their fathers (Galiano et al., 1995, p. 184), and they have been

given opportunities to convince that they are capable to run the firm. There has

been a great deal of successful stories of female successors, which convince even

the traditionalists that female heirs must be taken into consideration in any

succession plan (p. 180). Additionally, women have some distinguishing

contribution characters to be successful business leaders. For example, they can

have better understanding about the importance of relationship, which forms an

interpersonal advantage for working with other people, such as united pride,

expression of admiration and respect towards their peers (Frishkoff and Brown,

1993, p. 68). Additionally, father owners are more willing to relinquish control

to their daughters because of the emphasis on the company well-‐being, instead

of their own self-‐identity (Vera et al., 2005, p. 333). Hence, it is believed that

daughters can be more effective successors because they possess a unique social

competence and leadership style that emphasizes on peace-‐keeping role; such

as solving conflicts, easing tension and nurturing relationship among family

members, especially with the owners (Ibrahim et al., 2001, p. 259).

2.3.5. Female Owners as Mothers

Within a family business context, some theoretical background on

maternal succession has taken on new importance. Kaslow showed that the

mothers as owners play the role of mediator and buffer between generations.

Female owners do not often socialize with others on how they start and run

their firms as well as how they prepare for the succession. Thus, it is expected

that female owners would not often make written succession plans as male

owners do (1998, cited in Lee, Jasper, and Goebel, 2003, p. 33). Female owners

tend to view the future of their organization based on the significant sudden

events. They can decide to bring their children into the businesses when some

triggered events occur. For example, when they lose their husbands, or when

their children are present and show commitment to their mothers’ business

(Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 23). In terms of retirement, female owners are willing to

step back from daily operation because they want to have more time for



themselves. However, they have intention to stay in control for their main

business decision-‐making processes (p. 24).

Cadieux et al. found out that the female owners begin to consider their

offspring as potential successors when the children start to develop an interest

in their mothers’ businesses. In the succession process, the female predecessors

are willing to share responsibilities, know-‐how, experiences and consult

decision-‐making with their successors in a pleasant manner. During the time of

transferring the businesses, female owners and their successors develop an

exchange between the two generations. Indeed, the female owners admitted

that they learned from their successors’ academic knowledge and other

perspectives of modern business world (2002, pp. 23-‐24).

A significant factor prevents mother – in daughter succession the mother’s

resistance to relinquish control and continuous involvement in key business

decisions after retirement (Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 23). Over-‐controlling

maternal behaviors or highly demanding daughters may be an important factor

which causes mother-‐daughter conflicts due to the need of self-‐identity (Vera et

al., 2005, p. 328). Daughters admit that working for their mothers is not easy,

especially when their mothers are perfectionists and become fearful of losing

control the business (p. 338). The authors explained that daughters as

successors also deal with frustration when they are put under their mothers’

success for comparison in term of managerial style or decision-‐making by

employees. Therefore, they believe that it is essential to make greater efforts to

prove their abilities (p. 333). This trait is found to be similar to that of a father-‐

son clash.

Literature review on the gender of owners and their successors leads to

the conclusions that gender differences do not hinder succession because

owners do not discriminate their children. Therefore, the gender of a possible

successor will not be taken into consideration for this research.

2.4. Core Model

A decision-‐making process involves many intangible matters that need to

be traded off so that the objectives of the decision makers can be achieved. In

order to obtain a possible link to the research propositions, a methodological



approach called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was selected. This is the

approach that constitutes one of the widely used multiple criteria decision-‐

making tools. In the late 1960’s, the AHP model was developed by Thomas

Saaty. The AHP proposed multiple criteria decision-‐making tools. The AHP

provides “a logical and scientific basis to decision-‐making, in which pair-‐wise

comparisons of components are made with respect to a common goal or

objective” (Harker, 1988, cited in Pyromalis, Vozikis, Kalkanteras, Rogdaki, and

Sigalas, n.d., p. 432). In this research paper, AHP was applied in qualitative

approach in order to emphasize the comparisons between male and female

owners.

The steps of the AHP’s pair-‐wise comparisons between male and female

successors were taken into consideration. The model presents possible weights

for the satisfaction, effectiveness and critical factors of the succession process.

An illustration can be seen on page 27 (Figure 2). First, the goal of the hierarchy

reflects the outcome of the succession process whether the succession process

can be regarded as successful or not. The second level in the hierarchy

determines two dimensions of the success of the succession, namely,

satisfaction with the succession process and effectiveness of the succession

process (Pyromalis et al., n.d., p. 434). However, within the scope of the

research, satisfaction and effectiveness are not the focus because interviewed

CEOs have already experienced satisfactory and effective succession.

The third level identifies the factors that causally influence the dimensions

of the overall success of the succession. These factors mentioned in the model

are: “incumbent’s will to leave”, “successor’s will to take over", "positive

relations, communication”, “succession planning”, and “successor

appropriateness” (p. 434). Critical factors of succession process are chosen

because they are relevant to research points. These factors were applied and

integrated into the categories analysis.

Lastly, an additional level, which differentiates between male and female

successors, integrates the gender issue into the AHP model. This integration is

used to build a coherent and concise two-‐dimensional succession framework. It

also addresses the role of the successor’s gender in the succession process (p.

434). It is crucial to compare the results based on categories analysis between



female and male CEOs so that the similarity and difference will be identified.

These comparisons will be used to establish a framework for the research

findings.

This application of the model was originally designed to include

quantitative data which allowed an according ranking of the importance of each

factor. This research adapts the model into a qualitative approach. Rather than

ranking each individual factor, they will all be considered correspondingly. This

ensures that each category is weighed equally and analyzed as important as all

the other factors may.

Moreover, these above-‐mentioned factors are not sufficient to build up the

result findings because there are many other perspectives perceived from the

interviewed CEOs that are not mentioned in the model. Additional categories

have been created for this research. The details may be examined on the matrix

in Appendix C. This method both exemplifies an inductive and deductive

approach. A number of categories were established before the first interviews,

whereas another few categories were developed over the course of the

research. This addition served to include views and perspectives from CEOs,

which were previously not considered. The category “role of employees” is an

example of such a case. This method allowed an inclusion of a broad spectrum of

categories, which evolved throughout the research and is more likely to include

further factors determining the process of succession.


IM&E Class 251 May 2014 of 63 435

Figu

re 2

3.3

Hie

rarc

hica

l dec

ompo

sitio

n of

the

asse

ssm

ent o

fth

e cr

itica

l suc

cess

fact

ors

affec

ting

the

succ

ess

offa

mily

busi

ness

succ

essi

on

Mal

eF

emal

eM

ale

Fem

ale

Mal

eF

emal

eM

ale

Fem

ale

Mal

eF

emal

eM

ale

Fem

ale

Mal

eF

emal

e

Succ

esfu

lnes

s of

suc

cess

ion

Satis

fact

ion

with

the

proc

ess

Incu

mbe

nt’s

will

to le

ave

Succ

esso

r’s w

illto

take

ove

rPo

sitiv

e re

latio

ns –

com

mun

icat

ion

Succ

essi

onpl

anni

ngPo

sitiv

e re

latio

ns –

com

mun

icat

ion

Succ

essi

onpl

anni

ngSu

cces

sor’s

appr

opri

aten

ess

Eff

ectiv

enes

s of

the

proc

ess

Figure 2: From "Hierarchical decom

position of the assessment of the critical success factors affecting the success of family business

succession", by Pyrom

alis, V. D., Vozikis, G. S., Kalkanteras, T. A., Rogdaki, M. E., & Sigalas, G. P. (n.d). An integrated fram

ework for

testing the success of the family business succession process according to gender specificity. In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X. Smyrnios, & S. B.

Klein (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Fam

ily Business (pp. 422-‐442). Cheltenham

: Edw

ard Elgar.

Passing the Baton Methodological Procedure


3. Methodological Procedure

3.1. Qualitative Methodology

The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of a family

business owner’s behavior and way of thinking. Silverman argues that when

areas in social reality have to be measured, which statistics cannot measure the

most appropriate methodology for this purpose would be a qualitative approach

(Silverman, 2013, p. 8). This is fitting because family business succession may

be handled differently in each firm, depending on the business and family

context and interaction. Though each business may be unique, a strategic

sampling approach and narrative interviews will allow for inter-‐case

comparison.

3.2. Empirical Design

The aim of the narrative interviews in this research is to obtain detailed

stories of past experiences and current thought processes concerning the

transfer of company control from one generation to another. When given the

interviewees the chance to give encompassing answers, as opposed to

structured interviews, they might “hold the floor for lengthy turns and

sometimes organize replies into long stories” (Riessman, 1993, p. 3). Rubin and

Rubin point out that in order to avoid setting limitations for the interviewee on

the depth and specificity of an answer, the interviewer should refrain from

interrupting and allow the interviewee to expand on the answer (2005, p. 112).

This could ensure that the researchers refrain from making too early

evaluations and allows all aspects and topics relevant to the research questions

to be mentioned during the interview. However, Rubin and Rubin also

accentuate that in interviews the researcher is seeking particular information

and consequently should gently guide the discussion. The ideal way to achieve

this would be by focusing into specific topics with follow-‐up questions and

encouraging the interviewee to answer the questions at length (2005, p. 113).

For this reason the interview outline is based on five main questions

which directly concern the main topics analyzed in this research. Each

interviewee is asked to answer these questions at length and encouraged to



expand in detail and depth. Following their answers, numerous follow-‐up

questions may be asked concerning topics the interviewee did not consider or

elaborate upon. The interview outline (see Appendix A) may be considered a

guide to ensure each topic is addressed. However, diverging from the exact

outline may also be considered a possibility if a specific topic addressed by the

interviewee may prove to be important for the process of succession.

3.3. Strategic Sample

In order to gather valid data for the research, specific conditions need to

be met in the sample. These include those that (1) the businesses owners

interviewed manage family businesses as per the definition on page 11 (2) the

businesses have already been passed on before. This means that the current

owners did not found the company, but have taken over the business from a

family member. Consequently, at least second generation owners are being

considered. This serves to take into account the different treatment first

generation owners have on succession planning (Sonfield and Lussier, 2004, p.

196). First generation owners may have views which may differ greatly from

other owners (p. 196). The scope of additional information through such

business owners may additionally create themes and categories which may only

concern data provided by these specific owners. To ensure the validity of the

data, first generation owners will not be included in the sample. The last

condition (3) is that the number of female and male businesses owners

interviewed should be relatively equal. The aim of this research is to

differentiate in behavior between the genders. For this reason the data

collection should occur with a balanced approach on gender.

The three specifications might raise the question to the credibility of the

data gathered since limiting the sample to a too specific group may influence the

outcome of the research. This point might especially come into play considering

the lower number of family businesses run by women in the region of Central

Switzerland. To stress this point, it is noteworthy that the majority of prior

research on family owned businesses rarely includes a sample of female

business owners (Dumas, 1998, p. 219). A partiality towards choosing a female

interviewee over a male interviewee may be considered to be inevitable when a



choice is present between the two genders in order to ensure this balanced

approach.

Moreover, a balance is sought through the diversification of the business

branches the family businesses are involved in. Furthermore, by ensuring that

the chosen interviewees have first-‐hand experience and are knowledgeable in

the field of inquiry differentiating opinions can be expected (Rubin and Rubin,

2005, p. 64). Contending or even contrasting points of view may even out an

unintended slant in results and deliver a balanced perspective in the

information acquired (p. 64). These points may reestablish the credibility of the

data given the strict and relatively small sampling range suggested.

The sample which adhered to the three specific conditions for this

research consisted of 25 family owned businesses in the region of Central

Switzerland. The participants were contacted by letter and telephone and given

information to the nature of this research. Ten owners of family businesses

were sought for an in-‐depth interview, whereas four female business owners

were part of the sample. Additionally, two firms agreed to a sample interview in

order to pretest the design of the research.

3.4. Procedure

Each company in the empirical sample was contacted by a letter

describing the research and with a request to participate. Additionally, a letter

of recommendation by the specialist coach, was included which promoted the

research. The former letter informed the business owners that contact by

telephone will be attempted within the next few days of receiving the letter.

More information was provided by telephone and if the business owner agreed

to a meeting a date was settled for a narrative interview in person.

While contacting the empirical sample, two pretest interviews were held

with two CEOs of different companies. The interview outline was tested in its

application to an actual interview. The knowledge gained through the pretests

caused a change in the original outline. Dimensions of succession explored were

added when aspects have not yet been considered in the research and other

dimensions were changed or removed. Through this, the remaining ten

interviews were held with a tested and optimized outline.



3.5. Overview Outline Structure

The outline interview for the pretest is structured as a narrative interview.

This means that only a few main open questions are asked and requested to

elaborate upon. Herein, a number of follow up questions are listed which touch

on certain specific aspects of the research in case the interviewee might not

have mentioned them in the initial narration. These follow up questions in

themselves are also designed openly to allow the interviewee to answer again in

a descriptive narrative. The whole outline is structured as to that no specific

direction is initially given to the business owners. This may reveal information

which the research may not have covered yet. Only afterwards are more

specifically follow-‐up questions added to fill in on already recognized themes

and data categories.

3.6. Data Analysis

In this research for the analysis of the data a careful transcription and the

development of categories and themes in which to place specific behaviors or

thought processes will be necessary. The theoretical background of this paper

may serve as foundation when developing these categories. Nevertheless,

additional categories may develop in this research when reoccurring patterns

are distinguishable in the data. The data may then be organized around the

categories or key themes and finally examined to see how far they confirm or

disconfirm the categories (Kohlbacher, 2006, p. 9). Rubin and Rubin confirm

this with the argument that “theories are induced from the data to discover how

different concepts and themes mentioned in the interviews relate to one

another” (2005, p. 56). A theory can be worked out by recognizing concepts and

themes central to the research while still collecting data (p. 56).

The basic idea of this approach is “fitting the material into a model of

communication, rules of analysis, categories in the center of analysis and

criteria of reliability and validity” (Mayring, cited in Kohlbacher, 2006, p. 21).

For this, first, an inductive approach is taken: the criterion of definition and the

theoretical background for the research are derived from textual material.

Second, the interviews may provide information and examples which can be



applied deductively to the research definitions and theories (Mayring, cited in

Kohlbacher, 2006, p. 19). Finally, the results may be combined within a coding

agenda and thus allow a systematic analysis and answer of the research

question.

Moreover, a matrix with a hierarchic structure was developed to illustrate

the conclusions drawn from the data (Appendix C). Categorizing the various

themes within this model may give an overview of the different factors

concerning the decision-‐making process in succession planning. How the

themes and concepts will be arranged within this model will be derived from

the data analyzed.

3.7. Quality Criteria

To ensure the reliability and the validity of the data attained a number of

measures are utilized. Firstly, each firm will be informed of the goal of the

interview and be guaranteed that the information they provide will remain

anonymous. This intends to ensure a more honest and open communication

during the interviews. Furthermore, the interviews will be conducted either in

German or English, depending on which language the business owner feels

more comfortable with.

Secondly, each interview will be held with two researchers present. The

four researchers involved with the interviews are arranged into teams of two,

one person to hold the interview and one person as an observer. Hereby, it will

be ensured that the teams consist of one male and one female person. Having

both a male and female perspective during an interview may deliver a more

balanced analysis of the gathered information. However, the teams will be

altered from interview to interview, to ensure the same systematic procedure

and interview structure in each family business. Asking the question in the same

manner, for instance, illustrates this point. The validity of the results will very

much be reliant on the transparency and precision in methodology (Davies,

2007, p. 241).

Lastly, each interview will be transcribed in English in order to avoid

communication differences in the analysis phase of the research. If necessary,

the interviews with German speaking interviewees will be directly translated



from the recordings. Due to various cultural manners of speech a direct

translation may not always be possible. The data, which was relevant for the

research, however, is translated exactly as recorded. Both present interviewees

reviewing the transcript intend to ensure this.

A further factor to consider is the duality of information provided by the

interviewee. Appendix C illustrates how the core model is separated into to

category levels: past and future categories. The past categories will take on a

retrospective view of the interviewee. Beckett, DaVanzo, Sastry, Panis, and

Peterson stress this point with their research outcome: “Consistent with

research based on shorter retrospective histories, we find evidence that while

overall the quality of long-‐term … retrospective reports is high, some systematic

problems emerge as the length of the recall period increases. Some events are

forgotten and details about events are blurred (resulting in, for example,

incomplete or inexact reports)” (Beckett, DaVanzo, Sastry, Panis, and Peterson,

2001, p. 619). The overall high quality of reports allows the consideration of

accurate data gathering from the interviews. For this reason, no measures will

be taken to ensure the data quality of such information.

The future categories rely on a provisional illustration of theoretical

events that might happen. Interviewees are asked how they imagine their future

or how they feel about if certain events may come to pass. This prospective data

should be seen as a temporary considering the situation given at the present

moment of time. The data gathered for those categories may be deliberated

upon as a reflection of how succession is viewed as from a CEO’s current

perspective. Unfortunately, no literature was found on how to increase the

quality of data from such prospective information, thus also here no measures

will be taken.

Passing the Baton Results


Type%of%Com

pany

Interviewee

Gender%of

Interviewee

Generation

*Age%of

Interviewee

Predecessor

**Age%of

Predecessor

1Glas%manufacturer***

CEO

Male

Second

60Father

602

Candle%manufacturer***

CEO

Male

Third

<Father

713

Construction%business

CEO

Male

Second

<Father

674

Jewellery%manufacturer

CEO

Male

Sixth

36Father

<5

Metal%construction

CEO

Male

Fifth

59Father

<6

Window%and%frontage%manufacturer

Former%CEO,%BoD

Male

Fourth

51Father

667

Real%estate

CEO

Male

Second

35Mother

<8

Real%estate

Former%CEO%and%founder

Female

First

709

Manufacturer%of%electrical%and%plastics%technologyCEO

Female

Fourth

55Father

7110

Metal%solutions

Former%CEO,%President%BoD

Male

Second

<Father%and%uncle

<11

Furniture%business

CEO

Female

Second

46Father

<12

Manufacturer%of%tools

CEO

Female

Fourth

<Husband

<

*age%was%not%specifically%asked%for%in%the%interview

**at%the%tim

e%of%the%handover%and%age%was%not%specifically%asked%for

***Pre<test

Table 1: Overview of Conducted Interviews

4. Results

4.1. Empirical Sample

In total 12 interviews, including two pre-‐tests, were conducted. The

following Table 1 provides an overview.



The aim was to conduct six interviews each with representatives of both

genders. However, it has shown that it is difficult to find female CEOs, which are

in at least the second generation and are willing, or have the time to give an

interview. That is why in the end solely four interviews with female CEOs were

conducted.

In addition, one female CEO has just recently handed over the business to

her son. Providing this chance, both, the former CEO and her son and newly

appointed CEO, were interviewed. Concerning male CEOs, the same chance

arose. Two former CEOs have just recently handed over the company and are

still represented in the board of directors.

It is worth to mention that 10 out of 11 predecessors were male, whereas

only one woman was a predecessor in our empirical sample.

Finally, it was the aim to look for interviewees in different generations

and industries. Table 1 shows that the CEOs interviewed were between the

second and sixth generation in a mix of various industries.

4.2. Female Past

All female CEOs interviewed took over the company from a male

predecessor. For the predecessors it was easy to let go of the business. Two

reasons indicate the ease of departure. First, they knew that they once have to

let go of the business. Second, they prepared themselves well for this occasion.

Reasons why the predecessor handed over the business were in all cases

age. The predecessors mostly remained in the board of directors and in one

case, even in the executive management.

The succession was discussed within the family around two to five years

before the actual handover. The discussions took place in the families and

among the siblings. However, just around two years before the handover, the

topic was discussed seriously with the predecessor. Nevertheless, the reasons

why the incumbent CEO took over the company were mostly due to short notice

of events.

After all female CEOs started working in the family business and after

taking over the position as CEO, they felt well treated from their predecessor

and their relationship remained good. However, the female CEOs stated that



they needed to prove themselves (in a man-‐dominated industry). In addition,

one remembered that she was treated differently than a man would have been

in a similar situation. However, all interviewees were never forced by their

predecessor to take over the company. After evaluating the business situation,

all interviewees were willing to take over the family company. Moreover, all

predecessors were ready to sell the business if none of their heirs was willing to

take over.

Reasons why the CEOs were chosen for this position were their

experience, skills, and their prominence in the industry as well as in the family

business. However, the females were not prepared for their position as CEO.

Their experience was their only preparation for the position.

The whole succession process was in all cases overseen by external

experts and by the board of directors. This support was crucial for all

interviewees and their own succession. In addition to experts and the board of

directors, employees played an important role in the succession process. Even

though some employees showed skepticism that the newly appointed CEO was a

woman, it worked out well. The employees accepted the women due to their

expertise.

Overall, all female CEOs were satisfied with their own succession. It is

hard for them to identify issues that should have been done differently.

4.3. Female Future

All interviewed female CEOs stated that they have already thought about

the topic succession or have discussed the issue to a certain extent within the

family. Female CEOs plan in advance for a replacement so that they can retire at

a certain age. They foresee that health and age will be the reasons for them to

hand over the business. The older the owners become, the more concrete plans

of succession are made.

Female CEOs prefer to have internal successors. However, if there is no

viable option, they will consider external options to continue the business. The

firm’s continuity is more important than the succession of an internal successor.

They expect the successors to have knowledge about the business, to have an

appropriate behavior, to be committed to the firm, to be able to make decisions



independently, and he or she can resist pressure. Successors are also expected

to be involved in the business before taking over.

Female CEOs can imagine handing over the company differently than

their fathers did. A crucial step for female CEOs is to give themselves a long time

to plan the succession and if necessary, take external advisers into account.

Additionally, they seek advice from family members and employees. A clear

sense of ownership, also with regard to legal aspects, is important for the

incumbent CEOs.

Female owners devoted most of their time to the job and thus, express a

strong attachment to the business. After their handover, they are open to

remain in the company and to continue their contribution for the family

business. However, while remaining in the company, the female CEOs can

imagine to pursue their hobbies or to take care of other responsibilities, like

taking care of grandchildren for example.

4.4. Male Past

All predecessors were male CEOs, except one woman who founded her

own company and recently handed it over to her son. The former CEOs across

the board seem to have been willing to leave the company or at least hand over

the responsibility and stay within the company in a supporting function. The

exception is again the female CEO, who is still working in the operative part of

the business. Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that she actually wanted to

reduce her workload but came back 100% because of an emergency situation.

Advanced age was the main reasons to leave the company, only one CEO wanted

to focus on another interest, namely his political career.

The idea that their sons would take over the company came

predominantly from the predecessors; the intent to leave the company led to

the entrance of the incumbent CEO. Again, the case with the former female CEO

is an exception; there, the son called his mother and asked if he could start

working at the company. All incumbent CEOs used to work first at other

companies, and seven out of eight have not thought from the beginning to take

over the company. While half of the CEOs were not prepared at all for this

position by their predecessors, the rest was gradually involved in the business



operations and had the possibility to work in different departments to

profoundly understand the way the company works.

When it came to discussing the succession within the family, only half of

the CEOs stated that this topic was mentioned or discussed within the family.

Furthermore, only five out of eight CEOs describe their relationship with the

predecessor as good.

The current CEOs consider the fact that they are the oldest son or the

only one who showed interest for this position, to be the reasons why they were

chosen by their predecessors. According to the description of the current CEOs,

their male predecessors expected them to take over the company, while the

former female CEO initially not even wanted her son to work with her.

None of the CEOs stated that they were treated as an employee or on a

professional level, but always as a son. This led to the feeling that more was

expected from them than from a regular employee. Paradoxically, only one

current CEO mentioned that the employees were skeptical because he came

“into the made nest”. Other CEOs described that employees seem to have taken

over a supportive function during their succession and integration process.

Although the former CEOs did not seem to have any difficulties handing

over the company, they are all still involved in the company when health allows

it, mostly in the board of directors.

All but one incumbent CEO experienced his succession as successful. The

one case where it did not worked perfectly, the incumbent and the former CEO

had completely different views of the way how to lead a company and the

product design.

4.5. Male Future

The male CEO’s are at different stages of their business and private life.

Therefore, the willingness to leave the company varies. One of them has recently

handed over the company, another is already concretely planning the

succession, and for the majority the succession has not been considered yet.

This leads to different stages of the possible successor’s life, which in return

explains the different degrees of willingness to take over the company -‐ some of

the potential successors have just been born. There is also a connection to the



discussion aspect of succession; only half of the male CEOs have discussed the

topic of succession within the family. Two out of eight CEOs have taken concrete

steps such as involving their potential successors in the board of directors, and

one has split up the company to four independent corporations to simplify the

handover process. The ones who have not taken concrete steps have not really

thought about it yet but want to do it the same way as their predecessor did. It

seems like the incumbent CEOs have not actively thought about the reasons why

they could leave the company one day.

All but one have not made a definite choice who the successor will be.

Although a quarter of the male CEOs consider knowledge about the industry and

accounting skills to be essential required abilities, the majority of the CEOs sees

“soft skills” as the critical characteristics for a successor. In their eyes, a

successor must have leadership qualities such as being able to lead and

convince people, has to be able to motivate the employees, and have to continue

the family’s philosophy and vision.

For all the male CEOs the continuity of the company is more important

than an internal succession. Nevertheless, all except one would appreciate it if

the company stayed within the family, but the continued survival of the

company has clear priority. This also confirms the result that none of the

incumbent CEOs expects his children to take over the company one day.

Although potential successors are already partly involved in the family business

(for example, in the board of directors or own shares), there is no fixed time

horizon when the incumbent CEOs have planned to effectively hand over the

company. When the time comes to handover the business, each of them could

imagine staying within the company as an advisor or in the board of directors.

They all have a strong emotional attachment to the company and some of

them describe it to be “like a child”. Nevertheless, spending time with their

families is really important and so they try not to work too much or at least

reduced the working hours when they became fathers.

4.6. Comparison Female-‐Male Past

This section’s aim is to highlight the differences of how female and male

CEOs experienced their own succession to the head of a family business. After



allocating the information provided by the interviews into various categories

(see Appendix C), each category’s information was summarized in a final results

section. The results of each category were then compared accordingly to each of

the two genders. The majority of categories, however, showed very little

discrepancy. The section will rather highlight the differences identified in the

results.

The first difference may be recognized in how the succession process

was discussed in the family prior to the actual process. Female CEOs alleged that

every succession was discussed more or less thoroughly before the succession

process came into play. Only half of the male CEOs, which corresponds to four

interviewees, admitted that the succession was discussed beforehand. The other

half explained that they were simply appointed to the position after they agreed

to take over on short notice. A prior discussion did not take place in these

situations.

The second difference lies in how the incumbent CEOs were chosen by

the predecessor. Whereas it was expected by some degree of the male CEOs

because they were the eldest or single offspring, the female CEOs disclosed that

it was rather their qualifications, readiness, or will to take over. Many male

CEOs confessed that they were simply asked by the predecessors, in most cases

the father, as soon as the predecessor wanted to leave the company and that

they were the first person who was asked because they were the sons of the

owner. The majority of female CEOs revealed that they had to work years in the

company before taking over and thus prove their worth. A simple short notice

take-‐over did not take place for a female CEO in the sample.

Finally, the last major difference obtainable from the analysis is the past

preparation process to take over a family company. As mentioned beforehand,

male CEOs were mostly taken into the company on short notice and appointed

directly to the CEO position. Only four out of the eight male CEOs in the sample

were prepared internally before taking over. A contrast may be recognized here

with the female CEOs: all of them worked for years in various sections of the

company before being appointed to the CEO position. A greater internal

preparation may thus be recognized with the female CEOs compared to their

male counterpart.



4.7. Comparison Female-‐Male Future

Like in the previous section of the comparison of the past categories, the

future categories were compared identically. By summarizing each category

into a results section a direct comparison was undertaken. Also here there are

small discrepancies, which differ how female and male CEOs view the process of

the next succession in which they will one day take over the role as a

predecessor.

The first difference lies in how the future succession is discussed within

the family. Also here, similar to the past discussion, female CEOs enclosed that

this topic was discussed on some level within the family. Only four of the male

CEOs showed the same pattern. The other four confessed that this topic has not

arisen within the family and thus was not discussed.

Second, female CEOs have on some degree formulated a plan for

retirement and succession. Noticeable here is that the range of the age of female

interviewees is between 40-‐60 years old. The older the interviewee, the more

concrete plans have been formulated. However, even 40 year old female CEOs

admitted to having a plan. This is not the case with male CEOs. Only half of them

have thought of how to handle retirement and the future succession. The range

of age here also lies within 40-‐60, but a distinguishable pattern in which the

older CEOs had more concrete plans or apart from that even had a plan was not

recognizable.

This is further accentuated by the third difference: the reasons for a

future retirement. Whereas females described that age or health might become

an issue one day, males disclosed that they have not given it any thought yet or

would not know what the future holds for them. All male interviewees had this

similar answer and would not diverge into further speculation as to what other

reasons could be a possibility. Noticeably, none of them said that health might

be an issue.

The fourth difference between female and male CEOs is present in their

perception of what the necessary characteristics are of the future successor.

Both genders agreed that a certain degree of knowledge of the business and an

appropriate behavior are necessary. Female CEOs further accentuated the

commitment to the family company, the ability to resist pressure, and the skill



to make decisions independently. Male CEOs, however, gave more importance

to accounting skills, leadership abilities, and capacities of motivating oneself

and the people one is working with.

The fifth and final difference lies in the regard to the work-‐life balance of

the CEOs. Female CEOs do not really distinguish between the two aspects. They

admitted that it is a mixed affair. Many described that they are almost

constantly in touch with the company, in one case going as far having her cell

phone ready at all times even on vacation time. Each female CEO described that

making time for oneself such as for hobbies, family, and friends are essential,

but they are never completely excluded from the daily business of the company.

Four male CEOs described a similar work-‐life balance. Male CEOs, however,

highlight the importance of family more directly. The majority of the sample

group are fathers and thus making time for the wife and children, though not

always possible, takes a very important role. Four male CEOs stressed a clearly

separated work-‐life balance. One CEO even admitted to not owning a cell phone

for the sole purpose of not being in touch with the business all the time. A clear

distinction was made here. Said interviewee disclosed that “business is business

and life is life”. A difference in perception may thus be recognized between the

two genders.

Passing the Baton Discussion and Conclusions


5. Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to identify how the decision-‐making process

between female and male CEOs in Switzerland differs. After conducting 12

interviews, whereof four were with female CEOs and eight with male CEOs,

some minor differences are obvious.

First, female CEOs prefer to discuss the succession topic within the

family, whereas most male opponents do not. As mentioned in the literature

review, female possessors often establish the relationship with the potential

successors prior to the succession; meanwhile male owners and their children

usually build work relationship when they start working together (Cadieux et

al., 2002, p. 20).

Second, it seems that female CEOs already think about their life after

retirement. Male CEOs mostly do not bother what comes after they handed over

the business. As reviewed in the theory, female owners are willing to step back

from daily operation because they want to have more time for themselves

(Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 24). However, the findings are different from the

literature review for male CEOs, which showed that they may feel the anxiety of

becoming “directionless and unfulfilled” (Kets de Vries, 2003, p. 381) after the

retirement.

The attitude towards retirement is connected with the third difference.

Female CEOs all consider age and health as possible reasons to hand over the

business. Males do not think about this issue. According to the theoretical

background, female owners tend to view the future of their organization based

on significant sudden events. They can decide to bring their children into the

businesses when some triggered events occur (Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 23). On

the contrary, male CEOs may tend to stick to their business since it is the most

significant creation in their life. Also, their feelings of losing power, control, and

an important part of their identity may overwhelm the succession plan

(Lansberg, 1988, p. 125; Cadieux et al., 2002, p. 18).

Fourth, and the most obvious and important difference between female

and male CEOs is the perception of the future successor. Female CEOs are

looking more for a communicative and committed successor. Male CEOs would

rather choose a leader with financial and technical skills. In accordance with the



theory, female owners are prone to value a stronger attachment to ownership

that strengthens social utility, whereas male owners exhibit a stronger

attachment to organizational ownership, which primarily relates to increase the

financial value (Astrachan and Zellweger, 2008, pp. 355-‐356). These different

attitudes toward attachment can explain the different preferences of choosing a

potential successor between female and male CEOs.

The fifth and last difference is the one regarding the two genders work-‐

life balance. It is interesting to see that female CEOs do not really distinguish

between work and life. Moreover, most male CEOs clearly separate the business

and their private life. In line with the theoretical background, female owners

consider the combination of two roles as the mothers and business managers is

absolutely natural, thus while operating the business, they stay in tune with

their children lives. Nevertheless, the male owners as fathers are more engaged

in the business dealings (Jimenez, 2009, p. 55) and thus, they tend to separate

between work and life.

Although some differences are identifiable, there is no clear indication

that highlights a plain difference in the decision-‐making process of female and

male CEOs. However, the perception of the future successor differs slightly

between female and male CEOs. This indication might influence the decision-‐

making process of the future successor.

The qualitative research method for this paper delivered insight in

various aspects in the succession process in family businesses. However, the

difficulties in finding appropriate candidates limits the conclusion. To detect the

motivation and the influence of the perception of the future successor and the

decision-‐making process of the CEO, more female and male CEOs need to be

interviewed. Especially, there has to be an equal distribution among the

interviewees with respect to their gender (also with regard to their

predecessors). In addition, and probably the most important factor, the

interviewees must all be around the same age. Alternatively, the interviewees

have all to be at the same stage of their career. What is meant is that all CEOs,

whether female or male, need to be already in the decision-‐making process of

their succession or are already in the succession process. It is obvious that CEOs,



who are either too young or who did not think about their successor yet, are not

able to give detailed information about their future plans, choices, or actions.

A question, which might be part of further research in this area, is, if

these different perceptions of characteristics and skills of future successors

depend on the industry, company size, or generation the company operates in.

Differences might be identifiable between service and manufacturing business,

their size, or number of employees.

To conclude this research and to give an inspiration for further thoughts,

the own and the past succession of today's female and male CEOs in Switzerland

may influence the perception of how the incumbent CEO thinks about the future

succession. The question is how much the gender of the predecessor plays a role

and how much the gender perceptions over time have changed and therefore,

influence today's CEOs of family business regarding their succession.

Passing the Baton Bibliography


Bibliography

Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-‐family ownership and firm

performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1327.

Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-‐PEC scale of family

influence: a proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family

Business Review, 15(1), 45-‐58.

Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the

U.S. economy: a closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211-‐219.

Astrachan, J. H., & Zellweger, T. M. (2008). On the emotional value of owning a

firm. Family Business Review, 21(4), 347-‐363.

Beckett, M., DaVanzo, J., Sastry, N., Panis, C., & Peterson, C. (2001). The quality of

retrospective data. Journal of Human Resources, 36(3), 593-‐625.

Bernhard, F., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2011). Ownership perception in family business-‐

psychology difficulties of the retiring owner-‐manager. In I. Stamm, P.

Breitschmid, & M. Kohli (Eds.), Doing succession in Europe: generational

transfers in family businesses in comparative perspective (pp. 215-‐240). Zurich:

Schulthess.

Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J., & Hugron, P. (2002). Succession in women-‐owned family

businesses: a case study. Family Business Review, 15(1), 17-‐30.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by

behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-‐40.

Davies, M. (2007). Doing a successful research project: using qualitative or

quantitative methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.



Dugan, A. M., Krone, S. P., LeCouvie, K., Pendergast, J. M., Kenyon-‐Rouvinez, D. H.,

& Schuman, A. M. (2011). A woman's place: the crucial roles of women in family

business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dumas, C. (1989). Understanding of father-‐daughter and father-‐son dyads in

family-‐owned businesses. Family Business Review, 2(1), 31-‐46.

Dumas, C. (1998). Women's pathways to participation and leadership in the

family-‐owned firm. Family Business Review, 11(3), 219-‐228.

Elliott, V., & Orgera, A. (1993). Competing for and with workforce 2000.

American Management Association, 70(5), 3-‐4.

Frey, U., Halter, F., & Zellweger, T. M. (2004). Bedeutung und Struktur von

Familienunternehmen in der Schweiz [Importance and structure of Swiss family

businesses]. St. Gallen: Schweizerisches Institut für Klein und

Mittelunternehmen an der Universität St. Gallen (KMU-‐HSG).

Frishkoff, P. A., & Brown, B. M. (1993). Women on the move in family business.

Business Horizons, 36(2), 66-‐70.

Galiano, A. M., & Vinturella, J. B. (1995). Implications of gender bias in the family

business. Family Business Review, 8(3), 177-‐188.

Gomez-‐Mejia, L. R., Larraza-‐Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of

executive compensation in family-‐controlled public corporations. Academy of

Management Journal, 46(2), 226–237.

Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying

family businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), 257-‐276.



Handler, W. C. (1990). Succession in family firms: a mutual role adjustment

between entrepreneur and next-‐generation family members. Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice, 15(1), 37–51.

Handler, W. C. (1994). Succession in family business: a review of the research.

Family Business Review, 7(2), 133-‐157.

Handler, W. C., & Kram, K. E. (1988). Succession in family firms: the problem of

resistance. Family Business Review, 1(4), 361-‐381.

Harveston, P. D., Davis, P. S., & Lyden, J. A. (1997). Succession planning in family

business: the impact of owner gender. Family Business Review, 10(4), 373-‐396.

Ibrahim, A., Soufani, K., & Lam, J. (2001). A study of succession in a family firm.


Jaffe, D. T., & Brown, F. H. (2003). When succession crosses genders. Family

Business Magazine, 1-‐8.

Jimenez, R. M. (2009). Research on women in family firms: current status and

future directions. Family Business Review, 22(1), 53-‐64.

Kamptner, N. L. (1989). Personal possessions and their meanings in old age. In

S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of aging (pp. 165-‐196).

Newbury Park: Sage.

Kets De Vries, M. (2007). Executive complexes. Organisation Dynamics, 36(4),

377-‐391.

Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study

research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art. 21. Retrieved December

6, 2013, from http://www.qualitative-‐

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/%20view/75/153January%202006



Lambrecht, J., & Donckels, R. (2006). Towards a business family dynasty: a

lifelong, continuing process. In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X. Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein

(Eds.), Handbook of research on family business (pp. 388-‐401). Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar.

Lansberg, I. (1988). The succession conspiracy. Family Business Review, 1(2),

119-‐143.

Le Breton-‐Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, L. P. (2004). Toward an integrative

model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4),

305–329.

Lee, Y. G., Jasper, C. R., & Goebel, K. P. (2003). A profile of succession planning

among family business owners. Association for Financial Counseling and

Planning Education, 14(2), 31-‐41.

Levinson, H. (2002). Conflicts that plaque family business. In C. Aronoff, J. H.

Astrachan, & J. Ward (Eds.), Family business Sourcebook (3rd ed.) (pp. 398-‐407).

Marietta: Family Enterprise Publishers.

Littnunen, H., & Hyrsky, K. (2000). The early entrepreneurial stage in finnish

family and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 13(1), 41-‐54.

Massis, A., Chua J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors preventing intra-‐family

succession. Family Business Review, 21(2), 183-‐199.

Mazzola, P., Marchisio, G., & Astrachan, J. H. (2006). Using the strategic planning

process as a next-‐generation training tool in family business. In P. Z. Poutziouris,

K. X. Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of research on family business (pp.

402-‐421). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

McDaniel, S. H., Cambell, T. L., Hepworth, J., & Lorenz, A. (2005). Family-‐oriented

primary care (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.



Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-‐Miller, I. (2006). Lost in time: intergenerational

succession, change and failure in family business. In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X.

Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of research on family business (pp. 371-‐

387). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Nelton, S. (1998). The rise of women in family firms: a call for research now.


Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological

ownership in organization. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-‐310.

Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2003). The stage of psychological ownership:

intergrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology,

7(1), 84-‐107.

Pyromalis, V. D., Vozikis, G. S., Kalkanteras, T. A., Rogdaki, M. E., & Sigalas, G. P.

(n.d). An integrated framework for testing the success of the family business

succession process according to gender specificity. In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X.

Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Family Business (pp.

422-‐442). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Schultz-‐Kleine, S., & Menzel-‐Baker, S. (2004). An integrative review of material

possession attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, (1), 1-‐35.

Schweizer Standards (2010). Schweizer Standards: aus bester Familie; 100

vorbildliche schweizer Familienunternehmen [Swiss standards: from the best

family; 100 exemplary Swiss family businesses]. Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher

Zeitung.



Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: current

status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1-‐36.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sonfield, M. C., & Lussier, R. N. (2004). First-‐, second-‐, and third-‐generation

family firms: a comparison. Family Business Review, 17(3), 189–202.

Stamm, I., Schmiade, N., Kohli, M., & Breitschmid, P. (2011). Introduction:

generational succession in the family firm. In I. Stamm, P. Breitschmid, & M.

Kohli (Eds.), Doing succession in Europe: generational transfers in family

businesses in comparative perspective (pp. 3-‐26). Zurich: Schulthess.

Trost, J. (1983). The changing roles of Swedish women in family and society. In

E. Lupri (Ed.), The changing position of women in family and society (pp. 225-‐

242). Leiden: Brill Publishers.

Vera, C. F., & Dean, M. A. (2005). An examination of the challenges daughters

face in family business succession. Family Business Review, 18(4), 321-‐345.

Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and

management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385-‐417.

Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). "My favourite things": A cross cultural

inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of

Consumer Research, 14(4), 531-‐547.

Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Ward, J. (2004). Perpetuating the family business: 50 lessons learned from long-‐

lasting, successful families in business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.



Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1997). Performance contrasts between family and

non-‐family unquoted companies in the UK. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 3(1), 30-‐52.

Passing the Baton Appendix A: Interview Outline


Appendix A: Interview Outline

1. Could you please briefly introduce yourself?

2. You have inherited the business X years ago, is this correct?

! How did you experience this process?

Possible follow-‐up questions:

! Have you thought about taking over the family business?

• When was that?

! How was the succession discussed within your family?

• Was it always clear that you would take over the company?

! How were you prepared for your position?

! What do you think were the reasons you have been chosen for this

position by your predecessor?

• Why do you think that?

! In your opinion, was it difficult for your (father/mother/uncle/aunt…)

to let go of the business?

! Did the predecessor stay in the business after you have inherited the

company?

• For how long?

• What was the predecessor's role?

! Did the predecessor leave readily?

! How was the relationship between you and your predecessor?

• If already worked there before: How were you treated?

! How were key employees involved in the whole succession process?

! Were you satisfied with your succession?

• Would you handle the next succession the same way as your

predecessor did?

Now we would like to ask you about the situation that might appear when you

will hand over your business.

3. What comes to your mind when you think about handing over your

business?



Possible follow-‐up questions:

! How do you feel about it?

! What are possible reasons for you to hand over the company?

• Do you think there is a "perfect" time?

! How would you involve your future successor within the company?

! What kind of abilities or characteristics do you expect from a possible

successor?

• How important is it for you that all these requirements are met

when you retire?

• Do you think there is a “perfect” successor?

• If no: What critical factor(s) need(s) to be fulfilled before you

hand over the business?

• Are you only looking for a possible successor within your family or

are external candidates also an option?

• If only family: What happens if you do not find an optimal

successor?

• If external possible: So is it more important for you to find an

appropriate successor than to keep the business within your

family?

• Do you expect that a family member will take over the

company?

! Do you discuss this topic within your family/with your relatives?

• How?

! Do you consider other opinions for the choice of a successor into

consideration?

• Could you imagine consulting an expert for the succession process?

! What do you think will be your role within the company after you have

handed over the business?

! Do you have any plans for the time after your retirement?



If already in succession process:

4a. What challenges have you faced so far during the succession process?

! What might be future challenges?

If succession process has not started yet:

4b. What might be challenging during the succession process?

To coming to an end, we would like to ask you two general questions about your

work.

5. How would you describe your work-‐life balance?

6. How would you describe your attachment to the family business?

Passing the Baton Appendix B: Symbols for Data Transcription


Appendix B: Symbols for Data Transcription

(…) Pause between utterances

-‐ Abruptly ended utterance

[ ] Transcription of inaudible talk

[word] Inaudible talk, guess at what might have been said

WORD Especially loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk

°word° Especially quiet talk relative to the surrounding talk

:word:: Stretched sounds or syllables

/word/ Transcriber’s description during interview

/word/ Transcribers’ comments, interpretations afterwards

*word* Name removed due to anonymity

<EG> Code for analysis themes or categories

Passing the Baton Appendix C: Categories and Codes


Appendix C: Categories and Codes

Background information

Category Code Description Gender <gender> Gender of the incumbent

CEO Predecessor <pred> From whom did the

incumbent CEO take over the business

Age of incumbent CEO <age> How old is the incumbent CEO at the moment

Age of predecessor <pred_age> Predecessor’s age when handing over the company

Age when becoming CEO <age_to> How old was the incumbent CEO when he/she took over the business

Siblings <sibling> Number and gender of siblings

Children <children> Does the incumbent CEO have children?

Time in business <time_busi> For how long is the incumbent CEO in the family business? For how long is he/she CEO?

Generation <gene> In which generation is the family business today?

CEO's own succession (Past)

Category Code Description Will to leave <p_will_l> How strong wanted the

predecessor to hand over the company? How did he/she manage it?

Will to take over <p_will_to> When did the incumbent CEO decide that he/she wants to take over the family business? How strong was that will?

Communication <p_commun> How was the past succession discussed within the family?

Relationship <p_relation> How was the relationship between the



predecessor and the incumbent CEO (in private as well as in business life)?

Planning Process <p_plan> Did the former CEO think about handing over the business on day? Did she/he take specific actions for the succession planning?

Reason to leave <p_reason_l> Why did the predecessor hand over the company?

Choice <p_choice> Why was the incumbent CEO chosen by his/her predecessor for that role?

Required characteristics/abilities

<p_ab_cha> What characteristics and abilities did the former CEO require from his or her successor?

Family vs. external successor

<p_fam_ex> How important was it for the former CEO that a family member would take over the company? Was it more important to find an appropriate successor or to keep the company within the family?

Preparation <p_prep> How was the incumbent CEO prepared for his present position?

Time horizon <p_time_h> When did the predecessor started with the succession planning? When did he/she hand it over?

Expectation <p_exp> Did the predecessor expect a family member to take over the business? Did he/she force the children to join the company?

Treatment <p_treat> How was the incumbent CEO treated by his/her predecessor in the company (if worked there before)? How was that treatment



experienced? External advice <p_ext_adv> Were external people

involved in the past succession process?

Role of employees <p_employee> What was the employees’ role in the past succession? Did the predecessor take their opinion into account? Did they support the new CEO? Were there a lot of changes after the handover?

Notion of ownership <p_own> What was the sense of CEO if the company belonged completely to family? Did he/she could imagine selling the company? How were the shares distributed? Emotional ownership?

Role of predecessor <p_role> What was/is the predecessor’s role within the company? If stayed: for how long?

Emotional attachment <p_em_att> What meant the company for the predecessor? How was he/she emotionally attached to the family business?

Next succession (Future)

Category Code Description Will to leave <f_will_l> Does the incumbent

already want to leave? Can he/she imagine wanting to leave one day? How strong is that will?

Will to take over <f_will_to> Is there already someone who would like to take the company over one day? How strong is that will?

Discussion <f_commun> Is the succession discussed within the family? If yes, how?



Relationship <f_relation> If there is a possible successor or the successor is already chosen, how is the relationship between the incumbent CEO and the successor?

Planning process <f_plan> Does the incumbent CEO already think about handing over the business? Does she/he has already taken specific actions for the succession?

Reasons to hand over <f_reason_l> What are reasons for the incumbent CEO to hand over the business?

Choice <f_choice> Is a successor already chosen? Are there variable options? Should the successor be a family member?

Required skills/characteristics

<f_ab_cha> What abilities and characteristics does the incumbent CEO expect from the successor?

Family vs. external successor

<f_fam_ex> Is it for the incumbent CEO more important that the business stays within the family or that an adequate successor is found?

Preparation <f_prep> How would/does the incumbent CEO involve a potential successor in the business? How would the preparation look like?

Time horizon <f_time_h> When would/did the incumbent CEO start with the succession planning? What is the planned/thought time horizon between starting with the succession planning and actually handing over the company?

Expectation <f_exp> Does the incumbent CEO expect a child or another



family member to take over the family business one day? Is he/she open for the children’s choice?

Treatment <f_treat> How does/would the incumbent CEO treat his/her successor within the company?

External advice <f_ex_adv> Are external people involved or planned to be involved in the succession process? (help from outside)

Employees <f_employee> Would/does the incumbent CEO involve the employees in the decision-‐making process of the succession?

Notion of ownership <f_own> How important is it for the incumbent CEO that the company will belong to the family in the future? (even though there might be an external CEO). What about emotional ownership? How does the incumbent CEO plans to distribute the shares?

Role after handing over <f_role> What would be the incumbent CEO’s role after handing over the company?

Emotional attachment <f_em_att> How does the incumbent CEO describe his/her attachment to the company? Is there a stronger connection to the family business than it would be to another business?



Categories

Gender-CEO

Gender-

predecessor

Age-CEO

Age-

predecessor

Age-when-

taking-over

Siblings

Children

How-long-in-

business

Generation

Background+informa

tion

<gender>

<pred>

<age>

<pred_age>

<age_to>

<sibling

><children>

<time_busi>

<gene>

Categories-(deductively-

derived)

Will-to-leave

Will-to-take-

over

CommuniA

cation

Relationship

Planning

Reasons-to-

leave

Reasons-for-

choice

Required-

characteristicsFamily-vs.-

external-

Past+succession

<p_will_l>

<p_will_to>

<p_co

mmun>

<p_relation

><p_plan

><p_reason_l>

<p_ch

oice>

<p_ab_cha>

<p_fam_ex>

Future+succession

<f_will_l>

<f_will_to>

<f_co

mmun>

<f_relation

><f_plan

><f_reason_l>

<f_ch

oice>

<f_ab_cha>

<f_fam_ex>

Categories-(inductively-

derived)

Preparation

Time-horizon

Expectation-

Treatment

External-

advice

Role-of-

employees

Notion-of-

ownership

Role-of-

predecessor

Emotional-

attachem

ent

Past+succession

<p_prep>

<p_time

_h>

<p_exp>

<p_treat>

<p_ext_adv>

<p_emp

loyee>

<p_own

><p_role>

<p_em_att>

Future+succession

<f_prep>

<f_time

_h>

<f_exp>

<f_treat>

<f_ex_adv>

<f_emp

loyee>

<f_own

><f_role>

<f_em_att>

Hierarchic Structure of Categories

Figure 3: Hierarchic Structure of Categories

Passing the Baton Declaration of Sole Authorship


Declaration of Sole Authorship

We, Arabiano Nikolas, Bugmann Lea, Nguyen Han Ha Ngoc, and Niederer

Roberto, hereby certify that the attached work, Passing the Baton, is wholly and

completely our own and that we have indicated all the sources (printed,

electronic, personal, etc.) that we have consulted. Any sections quoted from

these sources are clearly indicated in quotation marks or are otherwise so

declared. We further attest that we have included acknowledgement of the

name(s) of any person(s) consulted in the course of preparing this assignment.

Date: _____________________________ Place: _____________________________

Arabiano Nikolas Signed: ___________________________

Bugmann Lea Signed: ___________________________

Nguyen Han Ha Ngoc Signed: ___________________________

Niederer Roberto Signed: ___________________________

251 pa45 project dissertation - hochschule-luzern · passingthebaton! ! management!summary!...

Documents