Examining the Link between “Familiness” and Performance: Can the F–PEC Untangle the Family Business Theory Jungle?

By Matthew W. Rutherford, D. Kuratko, Daniel T. Holt. 2008

299 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/328fe1aa4a6104480f42bd51072ecb7df11ef609

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms' financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects (2012, background): “However, recent conceptualizations of family involvement view the construct along a continuum (e.g., Rutherford et al., 2008) and in reporting results, we opted to provide correlations (r) rather than standardized differences (d).”
The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth (2014, background): “Financial performance is the most commonly used performance indicator when studying family businesses (Rutherford et al. 2008).”
Examining the Relation Between Ethical Focus and Financial Performance in Family Firms: An Exploratory Study (2010, background): “The value congruence, participative continuance, and ownership and control factors are constructs related to family involvement that have been cited many times in the extant literature (e.g., Rutherford et al., 2008; Smith, 2008; Zahra et al., 2008).”
Ability and Willingness as Sufficiency Conditions for Family‐Oriented Particularistic Behavior: Implications for Theory and Empirical Studies (2014, background): “Some researchers suggest that the inconsistencies in the empirical evidence are due to measurement issues (e.g., Anderson and Reeb 2003; Rutherford, Kuratko, and Holt 2008) because, for example, empirical studies do not use the same definition to differentiate family from non-family firms.”
The Varying Effects of Family Relationships in Entrepreneurial Teams (2013, background): “For 126 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE example, Rutherford, Kuratko, and Holt (2008) found a mixture of negative, positive, and nonsignificant relationships between being a family firm and firm performance.”
Owner‐Management, Firm Age, and Productivity in Italian Family Firms (2014, background): “The evidence has been mixed (Rutherford et al., 2008) and the relationship between family involvement and performance is still controversial.”
Family Firm(s) Outcomes Model: Structuring Financial and Nonfinancial Outcomes Across the Family and Firm (2017, methodology): “First, researchers often use multiple, singleitem outcome measures with each measure being treated as an independent outcome (i.e., several regression models each with different outcome measures are compared and tested, Rutherford et al., 2008).”
Advancing the Field of Family Business Research: Further Testing the Measurement Properties of the F-PEC (2010, background): “First, we find ourselves in agreement with the premise that essence is crucial in understanding family businesses; scholars, in fact, have noted that understanding essence may unlock important relationships between involvement and multiple outcomes (Craig & Moores, 2005; Rutherford et al., 2008).”
Innovativeness in family firms: a family influence perspective (2010, methodology): “As such, this is one of only a few studies that utilize a multidimensional view of family influence in investigating firm performance (see also Rutherford et al. 2008).”