Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence

References

• Akerloff G. A. The market for “lemons”: Quality, uncertainty, and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. (1972) 84:488–500Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alchian A. A., Woodward S. The firm is dead: Long live the firm. The economic institutions of capitalism. J. Econom. Literature (1988) 26:65–79A review of Oliver E. Williamson’sGoogle Scholar
• Alderfer C. P. Understanding and consulting to family business boards. Family Bus. Rev. (1988) 1(3):249–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen M. P., Panian S. K. Power, performance, and succession in the large corporation. Admin. Sci Quart. (1982) 27:538–547Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersen E. The salesperson as outside agent or employee: A transaction cost analysis. Marketing Sci. (1985) 4(3):234–254Link, Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J.Social Choice and Individual Values (1963) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Arthur Andersen & Co1995 American Family Business Survey (1995) (Arthur Andersen Center for Family Business, St. Charles, IL) Google Scholar
• Arthur W. B. Designing economic agents that act like human agents: A behavioral approach to bounded rationality. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1991) 81(2):353–359Google Scholar
• Barnes L. B., Hershon S. A. Transferring power in the family business. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1976) 54(4):105–114Google Scholar
• Baum J. A. C., Wall J. L., Jauch L. R. Inertial and adaptive patterns in the dynamics of organizational change. Acad. Management Pro. (1990) (San Francisco, CA)165–169Google Scholar
• Baum J. A. C., Clegg S. R., Haroy C. A., Nord W. R. Organization ecology. Handbook of Organization Studies (1996) (Sage, London, U.K) 77–114Google Scholar
• Baum J. A. C., Singh J. V. Dynamics of organizational responses to competition. Social Forces (1996) 74(4):1237–62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G. S. A theory of social interaction. J. Political Economy (1974) 82:1063–1093Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G. S.A Treatise on the Family (1981) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Becker G. S., Murphy K. M. A theory of rational addiction. J. Political Economy (1988) 96(4):675–700Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckhard R., Dyer W. G. Managing continuity in the family owned business. Organ. Dynam. (1983) Summer):5–12Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T. C. A fresh look at the rotten kid theorem and other household mysteries. J. Political Economy (1989) 97:1138–1159Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T. C. On the evolution of altruistic rules for siblings. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1995) 85(5):58–81Google Scholar
• Berk K. H., Hechtman J. A., Goldstein K. A. The competitive edge: Creating attractive incentive plans for privately-held entities. J. Corporate Taxation (1998) 25(2):133–148Google Scholar
• Besanko D., Dranove D., Shanley M.Economics of Strategy (1996) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Buchanan J. M., Phelps E. S. The Samaritan’s dilemma. Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory (1975) (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) Google Scholar
• Carland J. W., Hoy F., Boulton W., Carland J. A. C. Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Acad. Management Rev. (1984) 9:354–359Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavusgil S. T., Zou S. Marketing-strategy performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. J. Marketing (1994) 58:1–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chami R. What’s different about family business? (1997) . Working paper series, file no. 98061505, Social Science Research Network: Organizations and Markets Abstracts, InternetGoogle Scholar
• Chrisman J. J., Chua J., Sharma P.A Review and Annotated Bibleography of Family Business Studies (1996) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Cohen J., Cohen P.Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (1983) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Crampton S. M., Wagner J. A. Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. J. Applied Psych. (1994) 79(1):67–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daily C. M., Dollinger M. J. An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally-managed firms. Family Bus. Rev. (1992) 5(2):117–136Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daily C. M., Dollinger M. J. Alternative methods for identifying family vs. non-family managed small businesses. J. Small Bus. Management (1993) 31(2):79–90Google Scholar
• Davis S. M. Entrepreneurial succession. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1968) 13:402–416Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demsetz H., Lehn K. The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. J. Law and Econom. (1985) 26:375–390Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dess G. D., Robinson R. B. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management J. (1984) 5:265–273Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dillman D. A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (1978) (John Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Dreux D. R. Invited research symposia. (1997) . 1997 International Family Business Program Association, Northhampton, MAGoogle Scholar
• Economist In praise of the family firm (editorial). (1996) 46(March 9Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Management Rev. (1989) 1:57–74Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eshel I., Samuelson L., Shaked A. Altruists, egoists, and holligans in a local interaction model. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1998) 88(1):157–179Google Scholar
• Fama E. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J. Political Economy (1980) 88:288–307Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama E., Jensen M. C. Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law and Econom. (1983a) 26:325–344Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama E., Jensen M. C. Separation of ownership and control. J. Law and Econom. (1983b) 26:301–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama E., Jensen M. C. Organizational forms and investment decisions. J. of Financial Econom. (1985) 14:101–119Crossref, Google Scholar
• Federal Reserve Board of GovernorsNational Survey of Small Business Finances (1994) . www.federalreserv.govGoogle Scholar
• Finkelstein S., D’Aveni R. A. CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Acad. Management J. (1994) 37(5):1079–1108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S., Hambrick D. C. Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:484–503Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S., Hambrick D. C.Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their Effects on Organizations (1996) (West, St Paul, MN) Google Scholar
• Forbes Are dynasties dying? (2000) 165(6):126–131Google Scholar
• Ford R. H. Outside directors and privately-held firms: Are they necessary? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1988) 13(1):49–57Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fraser J. A. Executive compensation survey: Missed opportunities. INC Magazine (1990) 12(11Google Scholar
• Geeraerts G. The effect of ownership on the organization structure in small firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1984) 29:232–237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geletkanycz M. A. The salience of ‘Culture’s Consequences:’ The effect of cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Management J. (1998) 18(8):615–634Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick K. E., Davis J. A., Hampton M. M., Lansberg I.Generation to Generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Greco S. Employee package deal. INC Magazine (1997) 19(15):30Google Scholar
• Hambrick D. C., Fukutomi G. D. S. The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Acad. Management Rev. (1991) 16(4):719–742Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick D. C., Geletkanycz M. A., Fredrickson J. A. Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14(6):401–418Crossref, Google Scholar
• Handler W. C. Methodological issues and considerations in studying family business. Family Bus. Rev. (1989) 1(4):257–276Crossref, Google Scholar
• Handler W. C. Succession in owner-managed and family firms. A mutual role adjustment between the entrepreneur and the next generation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1990) 15(19):37–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansmann H.The Ownership of Enterprise (1996) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Haveman H. A. Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1993) 38:593–627Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn L., Gilmore T. The application of family therapy concepts to influencing organization behavior. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1980) 25:18–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holtz-Eakin D., Joulfian D., Rosen H. S. The Carnagie conjecture: Some empirical evidence. Quart. J. Econom. (1993) 108:413–435Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunter J. E., Schmidt F. L.Methods of Meta-analysis: Connecting Error and Bias in Research Findings (1990) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
• Ilgen D. R., Locke E. A. Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings (1986) (Heath, Lexington, MA) 257–267Google Scholar
• INC Magazine INC 500 Almanac, 1997. (1996) 17(15):23–26Google Scholar
• Internal Revenue Service1996 returns of active corporations: Selected balance sheet, income statement, and tax items by industrial division and size of business receiptsGoogle Scholar
• Jensen M. C. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J. Finance (1993) 48(3):831–880Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C. Self-interest, altruism, incentives, and agency. (1994) 7(2). J. Appl. Corporate FinanceGoogle Scholar
• Jensen M. C. Self-interest, altruism, incentives, and agency. Foundations of Organizational Strategy (1998) (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. (1976) 3:305–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Specific and general knowledge and organization structure. J. Applied Corporate Finance (1995) 8(2):4–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Murphy K. Performance pay and top management incentives. J. Political Economy (1990) 98:225–263Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Smith C. L., Altman E. I., Subrahmanyam M. G. Stockholder, manager and creditor interests: Applications of agency theory. Recent Advances in Corporate Finance (1985) (Irwin, Homewood, IL) 95–131Google Scholar
• Johnson R. A., Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A. Board of director involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14(Summer):33–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang D. (2000) . The impact of family ownership on performance in public organizations: A study of the U.S. Fortune 500, 1982-1994. 2000 Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Ketchen D. J., Thomas J. B., Snow C. C. Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Acad. Management J. (1993) 36(6):1279–1314Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kets De Vries M.Family Business: Human Dilemmas in the Family Firm (1996) (Thomson Business Press, London, U.K) Google Scholar
• Koch M. J., McGrath R. G. Improving labor productivity: Human resource management policies do matter. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17(5):335–354Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krebs D., Crawford C., Smith M., Krebs D. The challenge of altruism in biology and psychology. Sociobiology and Psychology (1987) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J) Google Scholar
• La Porta R., Lopez-de-Salanes F., Shleifer A. Corporate ownership around the world. J. Finance (1999) 54(2):471–517Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinson H. Conflicts that plague family business. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1971) 49:90–98(March–April)Google Scholar
• Levinson R. E. Problems in managing a family owned business. (1989) . Business Development Publication MP3, Small Business Administration, www.sba.govGoogle Scholar
• Lew M. I., Kolodzeii E. A. Compensation in a family-owned business. Human Resources Professional (1993) 5(3):55–57Google Scholar
• Lin L. The effectiveness of outside directors as corporate governance mechanism: Theories and evidence. Northwestern University Law Rev. (1996) 90:898–951Google Scholar
• Litz R. A. The family business: Toward definitional clarity. Proc. Acad. Management (1995) 100–114Google Scholar
• Lunati M. T.Ethical Issues in Economics: From Altruism to Cooperation to Equity (1997) (MacMillan Press, London, U.K) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margolis H.Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K) Google Scholar
• MacDougall P., Robinson R. B. New venture strategies: An empirical identification of eight ‘archetypes’ of competitive strategies for entry. Strategic Management J. (1990) 11(6):447–468Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAfee R. P., McMillan J. Competition for agency contracts. Rand J. of Econom. (1987) 18(2):296–307Crossref, Google Scholar
• McConnell J. J., Servaes H. Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. J. Financial Econom. (1990) 27:595–612Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton R. K.Social Theory and Social Structure (1968) (The Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Meyer M., Zucker L. G.Permanently Failing Organizations (1989) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
• Mohlo I.The Economics of Information: Lying and Cheating in Markets and Organizations (1997) (Blackwell, Oxford, U.K) Google Scholar
• Morck R. On the economics of concentrated ownership. Canadian Bus. Law J. (1996) 26:63–85Google Scholar
• Morck R., Shleifer A., Vishney R. W. Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. J. Financial Econom. (1988) 20:293–315Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash J. M. Boards of privately-held companies: Their responsibility and structure. Family Bus. Rev. (1988) 1(3):263–369Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nayyar P. R. On the measurement of service diversification strategy: Evidence from large U.S. service firms. Strategic Management J. (1992) 13(3):219–235Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelsen J. F., Frishkoff P. A. Boards of directors in family-owned business. Akron Bus. and Econom. Rev. (1991) 23(8):88–96Google Scholar
• Nelton S. The agony of quitting the family firm. Nation’s Bus. (1995) 83(10):62Google Scholar
• Nowak M. A., May R. M. Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature (1992) 359:826–829Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norusis M. J.SPSS for Windows Base System User’s Guide (1993) (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Nunnelly J. C.Psychometric Theory (1978) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Perrow C.Complex Organizations (1986) (Random House, New York) Google Scholar
• Piliavan J. A., Charng H. Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Ann. Rev. Soc. (1990) 16:27–65Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell T. C. Strategic planning as competitive advantage. Strategic Management J. (1992) 13:551–558Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan R. G., Zingales L. Power in a theory of the firm. (1998) . Social Science Research Network www.ssrn.comGoogle Scholar
• Reagan P. B., Stulz R. M. Risk bearing, labor contracts, and capital markets. Res. Finance (1986) 6:217–232Google Scholar
• Rediker K. J., Seth A. Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management J. (1995) 16(2):85–99Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubenson G. C., Gupta A. K. The initial succession: A contingency model of founder tenure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1996) 21(2):21–35Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sackett P. R., Larsen J. R., Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M. Research strategies and tactics in industrial organization psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organization Psychology (1990) (Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) Google Scholar
• Simon H. A. Altruism and economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1993) 83:156–161Google Scholar
• Small Business Reports New pay ethics. (1993) 18(5):42Google Scholar
• Sonnenfeld J.The Hero’s Farewell (1988) (Oxford Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Spector P. E. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. J. Appl. Psych. (1987) 72(3):438–443Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stark O. Altruism and the quality of life. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1989) 79(2):86–90(AEA Papers and Proceedings)Google Scholar
• Stark O., Falk I. Transfers, empathy formation, and reverse transfers. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1998) 88(2):271–276Google Scholar
• Stulz R. M. On takeover resistance, managerial discretion, and shareholder wealth. J. Financial Econom. (1988) 20:25–54Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan J. J., Litschert R. J. Environment-strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management J. (1994) 15(1):1–20Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R. H., Shefrin H. M. An economic theory of self-control. J. Political Economy (1981) 89(2):392–406Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trostel A. O., Nichols M. L. Privately held companies and publicly held companies: A comparison of strategic choices and management processes. Acad. Management J. (1982) 25(1):47–62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trow D. B. Executive succession in small companies. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1961) 6:228–239Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsh J. P., Seward J. K. On the efficiency of internal and external control mechanisms. Acad. Management Rev. (1990) 15(3):421–458Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ward J. L.Keeping the Family Business Healthy: How to Plan for Continuous Growth, Profitability, and Family Leadership (1987) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Ward J. L. The special role of strategic planning for family businesses. Family Bus. Rev. (1988) 1(2):105–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ward J. L., Handy J. L. A survey of board practices. Family Bus. Rev. (1988) 1(3):298–308Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whisler T. L. The role of the board in threshold firms. Family Bus. Rev. (1988) 1(3):309–321Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O.The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985) (The Free Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Wiseman R. M., Gomez-Mejia L. R. A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(1):133–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wortman M. S. Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: A conceptual and research-based paradigm. Family Bus. Rev. (1994) 7(1):3–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright P., Ferris S. P., Sarin A., Awasthi V. Impact of corporate insider, blockholder, and institutional equity ownership on firm risk taking. Acad. Management J. (1996) 39(2):441–465Crossref, Google Scholar