Advising Family Enterprise

Abstract

Family firm advisors have expertise and skills that can significantly contribute to the long-term success of family-owned and/or family-managed enterprises. However, as noted by Strike (2012), so far there has been very little research attention focused on these advisors and the services they provide. In the early days of Family Business Review (FBR), many advisors contributed articles describing their practice in an effort to share knowledge and improve their collective ability to provide helpful services for clients (Sharma, Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012). In fact, providing assistance to advisors in understanding family firms was one of the many reasons cited for FBR’s creation in the first issue: “Hence, lawyers and accountants as well as business consultants and family therapists are seeking to learn more effective ways of helping their clients” (Lansberg, Perrow, & Rogolsky, 1988, p. 4). Strike (2012) reports in her thorough and insightful review on family firm advising: Early articles were based on personal consulting experiences whereas more recent ones used surveys. The majority of articles focused on offering prescriptions (64), followed by surveys (22), conceptual (8), qualitative (6) interviews, and one literature review with a section on advisors. (p. 157) This has changed over time as FBR became much more research focused, turning attention to quantitative empirical research that follows the strong tradition of theory building and testing expected in high-quality business journals (Sharma et al., 2012). As a result, the role of the advisor remains somewhat cloaked in mystery—from a research perspective it is not clear what family firm advisors really do and how they bring value to the firm. Although Family Firm Institute (FFI) conferences provide an excellent opportunity for advisors to share their practices with others, what is still missing is a systematic database that can advance knowledge about advisors and the process of advising. We believe that it is time to refocus attention on family firm advisors themselves and to do so from a research perspective. This significant gap in the literature has propelled our editorial team to take on the adventure of a special issue focused on advisors themselves. Thus, we are very pleased to introduce this special issue, Advising Family Enterprise, in FBR! In response to our call for papers, we received a wide variety of empirical and conceptual papers addressing different types of advisors and different ways of accomplishing their work. All submitted articles were scrutinized by all editors, and those selected to be peer reviewed underwent multiple rounds of revisions. This special issue contains five empirical articles that provide important insights into what family firm advisors do and how they do it. Consistent with the goals of FBR to “advance the understanding of family enterprise around the world,” we are proud to showcase articles that make theoretical contributions to the literature (Reay & Whetten, 2011); rely on high-quality methodology, both quantitative and qualitative (Chenail, 2009; Pearson & Lumpkin, 2011); and give us a sense of the international context through studies based in Australia, Italy, Canada, and the United States. Furthermore, this issue illustrates the success of advisors and researchers working together to enhance the research agenda (e.g., Davis et al., 2013). The important point overall is that all the articles published here highlight the role of family firm advisors—giving us a platform to spur further research. Family firms, family offices, and family business groups operate within the interface of family, business, and ownership dynamics. Because of this, they face a unique set of dilemmas that necessitate decisions likely to significantly affect not only their enterprises but also University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.