https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/Family Business Review
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/content/15/1/17The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00017.x
2002 15: 17Family Business Review Louise Cadieux, Jean Lorrain and Pierre Hugron
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
Published by:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html, On behalf of:
Family Firm Institute can be found at:
Family Business Review Additional services and information for
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/subscriptions Subscriptions: https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/content/15/1/17.refs.html Citations:
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
Louise Cadieux, Jean Lorrain, Pierre Hugron
Succession is one of the most studied aspects of family businesses. However, although it is estimated that women own more than 33% of such organizations, to our knowledge, few studies focus on succession in them. Our objective is to explore and understand the process of succession in family-owned businesses run by women. This paper presents the results of a case study of four women who own and run family businesses in the manufacturing sector and who have shared the management of their organizations with their successors for at least three years.
Introduction
Family businesses have been part of the business world from the beginning. They are even said to be the oldest organizations in the world and the most widespread (Aronoff & Ward,1995; Hugron,1998). Active in all economic sectors, in Canada alone they generate 45% of the GNP, provide work for 50% of the labor force, and account for between 70% and 85% of the new jobs created yearly (CAFE,2000). Nevertheless, most of them were founded after the Second World War and, whether they are in Canada, the United States, or Europe, today they face a ma-jor challenge—the problem of succession (Allouche & Amann,1998).
The process of succession in family-owned businesses is not a new subject of research. How-ever, although by the end of the 1990s women ran more than one-third of businesses in the United States and Canada, compared to one-quarter 10 years earlier (Brush & Hisrich,2000; Ratté,1999), most of the research focuses on the process of succession in businesses that men man-age (Handler,1994; Harveston, Davis, & Lyden, 1997).
The few studies on women-owned businesses center mainly on two periods in the life cycle of the organization: the start-up and the growth F AMILY B USINESS R EVIEW, vol. XV, no. 1, March 2002 ? Family Firm Institute, Inc.period. This is in spite of the fact that, like busi-nesses run by men, women-owned businesses go through the entrepreneurial phase before enter-ing the family phase (Gersick, Davis, McCollom Hampton, & Lansberg, 1997; Hugron,1998), the latter being marked by the official entry of one of the members of the family into the business for the express purpose of taking it over from the parent and ensuring the continuity of the business into the next generation.
The objective of the present exploratory study is to examine and understand how the suc-cession process unfolds in the case of four Que-bec businesses in the manufacturing sector that were founded and are run by women. The ana-lytical framework for the present study was based on existing literature in two areas: family-owned businesses and women entrepreneurs. In addi-tion to bringing together two areas of research that were never before combined, we wanted to know to what extent the succession process in the businesses in our case study differs from what we already know about the process of succession in family businesses.
17
Succession in Family-Owned Businesses: What We Already Know
By definition, succession is a dynamic process during which the roles and duties of the two main groups of individuals involved, i.e., the prede-cessor and the successor,1 evolve interdepen-dently and overlap, with the ultimate goal being to transfer both the management and ownership of the business to the next generation. The ex-isting models are based on the principle that the process begins well before the successor is brought into the business and ends when the pre-decessor retires. As shown in Figure 1, the phases in those models (Barnes & Hershon,1976; Longenecker & Schoen,1978; Churchill & Hatten,1987; Handler,1990; Holland & Oliver,1992; Hugron & Dumas,1993) can be summarized as follows: the initiation phase, the integration phase, the joint management phase, and the retirement phase.
During the first phase, the owner-manager is often completely and solely in charge of the daily affairs of the business. Although the suc-cessor does not visibly hold a position in the busi-ness, it is during this time that he or she is intro-duced to the business and develops a positive perception of his or her parent as a manager (Matthews, Moore, & Fialko,1999). It is often during this phase that the successor begins to show an interest in the business and the owner implicitly chooses who will take over (Hugron & Dumas,1993; Matthews et al.,1999).
The second phase usually begins when the owner-manager brings his or her successor into the business by giving him or her a part-time or summer job. Considered to be in a learning pe-riod, he or she is often confined to minor tasks and involved very little in operational decisions (Longenecker & Schoen,1978; Handler,1990; Hugron & Dumas,1993).
The third phase, considered to be the tran-sitional step in the process, differs from the first two phases mainly in that it marks the official entry of the successor into the business as a suc-cessor (Stravou,1998). The predecessor and the successor work side by side, thereby ensuring a transfer of responsibilities and authority until the successor is able to make business decisions on his or her own.
Finally, the last phase in the process marks the official retirement of the predecessor and the complete transfer of responsibilities (Churchill & Hatten,1987; Hugron & Dumas,1993), lead-ership, authority (Handler,1990) and, ultimately, ownership (Churchill & Hatten,1987; Hugron & Dumas,1993).
According to Handler’s(1994) observations, it is not unusual for the predecessor to stop the succession process at either the second or third phase. This means that, through the dependency effect of role adjustments that Handler proposes (1990), the successor will never entirely take over the role of manager that would normally be his or hers in the retirement phase. Accordingly, some of the transfers inherent to that phase—authority, leadership, and ownership—will not be complete as long as the predecessor is capable of assuming them (Barnes & Hershon,1976; Davis & Harveston,1998; Hugron & Dumas,1993).
Setting aside health or age reasons, some authors (Barnes & Hershon,1976; Kets de Vries,1977,1993; Lansberg,1988; Peay & Dyer,1989; Rubenson & Gupta,1996) propose that the sources of resistance to succession are closely related to psychological traits that are characteristic of entrepreneurs. For example, having devoted most of his or her time to the business, the predecessor probably never had the opportunity to develop other interests. This point is important insofar as the greater the range of interests, the easier it is to let go of the business. Furthermore, because of certain uncontrollable fears—such as the fear of death, growing old, losing his or her identity, or losing power—the successor will subconsciously do everything pos-sible to delay the beginning of the succession process. We can, therefore, make a connection between the psychological and behavioral char-acteristics of the predecessor and the transfer of his or her needs to the business and assume that
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
1 Although there may be more than one predeccessor or successor, the singular form is used for purposes of simplicity.
18
one of the major obstacles in the planning or completion of the succession is a result of a diffi-culty in letting go.
Other sources of resistance must be taken into account in the analysis of the process of succession. For example, results of empirical studies show that in addition to the presence of a successor who has the necessary qualifica-tions for taking over the business (Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma,1998; Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua,2000), the quality of the relationship be-tween the two main individuals involved and among all the members of the family is the key to the success of the transfer of the business to the next generation (Davis & Harveston,1998; Dunn,1999; Lansberg & Astrachan,1994; Morris, Williams, Allen, & Avila,1997). Nor can one ignore the internal and external envi-ronment of the business, where significant re-sistance may come from employees, manage-ment personnel, clients, suppliers, etc., who have developed a close and trusting relation-ship with the predecessor over the years (Lansberg,1988).
Women Owners of Family Businesses: Another World
Our knowledge of the process of succession and sources of resistance is based mainly on studies carried out on family businesses founded and managed by men (Handler,1994; Harveston et al.,1997). But to what extent can we transfer that knowledge to family-owned businesses founded and managed by women? According to some authors (Buttner,2001; Carter & Cannon,1992; Chaganti,1986; Helgesen,1990; Hisrich & Brush,1984), women are different from men in their business dealings in a number of ways. For example, in the few studies done on how women owners perceive their managerial skills, the women stated that they have good communica-tions skills and a facility for interpersonal rela-tionships and team work (Brush & Hisrich,2000;
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
Figure 1. The Succession Process in Family Businesses
Predecessor
19
Helgesen,1990; Brush,1992). According to Brush’s(1992) integrated perspective, contrary to their male counterparts, women see their busi-ness operations and the business itself as a coop-erative network of relationships rather than sim-ply a profit center. Such an attitude would ex-plain why they are more open to sharing, less distrustful, more conciliatory, less directive, more attentive, and less competitive in their business dealings (Brush,1992; Folker,1999).
Because women place more importance on human and social values, their value system partly explains their so-called “feminine” style of man-agement. This style is reflected in their business objectives and criteria for success which, unlike men, are calculated not only based on traditional indicators, such as profit, sales figures, the num-ber of employees, and the return on investments, but also on social contribution, the quality of work life, client satisfaction, and their own per-sonal growth (Brush, 1992; Lee-Gosselin & Grisé, 1990).
Furthermore, because of the traditional role they play in society, women entrepreneurs must devote themselves to two different spheres in their lives: family and business. They also develop interests that are nonbusiness related, once again, unlike men.
The results of various surveys show that even if 90% of women business owners work full time and 25% of them devote more than 70hours per week to their businesses, they are still responsible for household tasks and bring-ing up the children (Belcourt, Burke, & Lee-Gosselin,1991). Mothers who run businesses al-ways keep up a relationship with their children, whereas fathers are often absent or too preoc-cupied with their business dealings (Wallott,1984). For women, simultaneously playing the roles of mother and business man-ager is totally normal. They watch their chil-dren grow up and mature, and because they are often the first ones to whom their children turn during difficult times in their lives, women are with them through both their successes and fail-ures, their happy times and sad times. All in all, they are in tune with their children and their lives—their personality, their interests, their ambitions, and their potential. This finding sug-gests the possibility of a different type of suc-cession dynamic: In businesses managed by women, the relationship between the two main individuals involved is already well established, whereas fathers and their children often really get to know one another when they find them-selves working together.
For women, having a successful life goes beyond running a successful business; it is based on their personal and family life. The questions in our study are: What happens during the suc-cession process in family businesses founded and managed by women? How do women plan the succession of businesses they have founded? What are the main sources of resistance? How do women integrate their successors into their business? What role do family dynamics play in the succession process? How do women trans-pose the relationships they have with their chil-dren into the business context?
The Method
The most common research method used in studies on women entrepreneurs is ex post facto surveys using convenient sampling. When we began our investigation into the succession process in family businesses managed by women, we also began to question our research methods. We realized that a more qualitative research method was essential to understand-ing and tackling aspects that are intrinsic to the process of succession. Understanding the reality of women owner-managers faced with succession in their businesses requires in-depth case studies, and the tools for such research are available. Yin(1994) and Eisenhardt(1989) propose an interesting empirical approach for the study of a complex contemporary phenom-enon that evolves over time, such as the one that interests us. Langley(1999), on the other hand, suggests a number of methods that may help researchers conduct a rigorous analysis of studies involving processes, and it is those methods that we have opted to use in the
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
20
present exploratory study.
The Sample. T o explore and understand the process of succession in businesses run by women, we deliberately chose to limit our study to enter-prises that met exact criteria directly related to what we refer to as family businesses. Therefore, the women who participated in our study had to have founded their business, be the controlling owner, and manage the business with the firm intention to pass it on to a member of the next generation. The specificity of our criteria signifi-cantly limited the number of cases in our sample. Furthermore, due to our limited time and finan-cial resources, we subsequently had to lower our initial number of cases (six) to four.
T o begin with, data specifically on women owner-managers is nonexistent. We turned to two data banks: files of the Quebec Centre for In-dustrial Research and files belonging to the Re-search Group on Family Businesses at the école des Hautes études Commerciales, a school of business administration in Montreal. Sixty-nine businesses were selected according to the follow-ing criteria:
?Annual revenues of at least $1 million (Canadian)
?Minimum of 20employees
?In the manufacturing sector
?President of the company is a woman
?At least one high-level manager with the same last name as the president (suggest-
ing that there was already a successor in
the wings)
T o ensure that the businesses met our sam-pling criteria, we contacted a person of authority from each of the businesses from the data by tele-phone. At this point, we had to eliminate the majority of the businesses, either because they did not meet our sampling criteria or because the women owner-managers declined the invitation to participate in our research project due to lack of time. Only the four businesses that appear in T able 1 were selected for our case study.
The businesses chosen are all in the manu-facturing sector, have annual revenues between $1 million and $5million (Canadian), employ between 21 and 47 full-time or part-time em-ployees, and have members of at least two gen-erations that have worked in the company for at least three years with the objective of transfer-ring the business to the second generation.
Gathering and Analyzing the Data. T o gather data, we initially gave each participant a detailed report on the research project, as well as the topics that were to be developed. They were, therefore, able to prepare themselves properly before meeting with us individually at their places of business. The interviews were carried out us-ing an interview guide designed to gather all of the information we needed about the business, the changing roles and duties of the owner-man-ager and the successor, the various transfers that are normally observed during the succession pro-cess, the sources of resistance, the personal char-acteristics of the owner-manager and the succes-sor, and the family dynamics.
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
Table 1. The Sample
Number of
T otal Number Generations Number of
of Employees Working in the Active
Range of(Part Time and Business at Successors in
Annual Revenues Full Time)Time of Interview Organization Angers Furniture Inc.1M-3M3733
Mode-elle Inc.3M-5M2122
Longpré Inc.1M-3M4722 SilverShoes Inc.1M-3M2721
21
With the permission of the participants, con-versations were recorded on microcassettes and transcribed word for word on the day after the interview. T ranscribing the data immediately enabled us to become familiar with the informa-tion gathered, and at the same time, prepared us for subsequent interviews. Although we intended to meet only with the owner-managers, in three of the cases, the successors were present and par-ticipated spontaneously in some of the interviews. Although none of the successors spoke in an of-ficial capacity, their comments were taken into consideration when processing the data. At the end of the interviews, we asked participants to send us any documents concerning their busi-ness that would help us reconstruct the history of the company as accurately as possible.
Using Atlas.ti, we processed and coded all data gathered during the interviews, all notes taken during the interviews and those kept in the log book, and all secondary data from newspa-per articles, résumés of videocassettes, or any other documents provided by the businesses. Ini-tially, they were coded intuitively and then re-processed as new codes emerged and provided more accuracy. Processing the data twice gave us a better understanding of each of the cases.
Finally, although we used specialized data analysis software, we also analyzed the data us-ing two strategies often used in qualitative re-search (Langley,1999)—the grounded theory strategy proposed by Strauss and Corbin(1990) and the visual mapping strategy by Miles and Huberman(1994).
The Four Cases
Angers Furniture Inc. was founded at the begin-ning of the 1980s by a couple in their 50s who had owned a company in the service sector for over 20years and, upon selling it, decided to start a furniture manufacturing firm. The wife, who put up the capital required, was in charge of man-aging the business, whereas her spouse took care of purchasing and production. In the early years, the couple’s four children, two sons and two daughters, had little involvement in the business.When the firm began to grow rapidly, the wife then asked her two daughters, who were unem-ployed at the time, to assist her in her manage-ment duties. After the death of her husband, she became the sole owner and remained as such up to the time when she decided to transfer her shares to the four children. At the time of the interview, three of the children were actively in-volved in the business along with their mother, who still owned some of the firm’s assets, and a member of the third generation held a tempo-rary job in the production department.
The owner-manager of Mode-elle Inc., a clothes manufacturing firm, founded her busi-ness in 1980, having previously been self-em-ployed and then the owner of several boutiques. She was initially the sole owner, but for the past few years she has run the business with her spouse, who provided the working capital neces-sary to keep the firm viable and running smoothly. The contract between the two business partners is clearly defined: Her spouse has certain deci-sion-making powers relating to the operation of the business, whereas she still makes the busi-ness decisions. The couple has four children—three sons and a daughter. At the time of our in-terview, two of the children were actively involved in the family business. Their youngest son worked in a full-time managerial position for three years and their daughter worked in the pro-duction department and would continue to do so for an undetermined period of time.
Having had many years of experience in the garment industry, the owner-manager of LongpréInc., a manufacturer of specialized clothing, founded her firm near the end of the 1980s. Sole owner since being in business, she received support from members of her family, who provided funds and took care of the account-ing. Divorced and the mother of two daughters who live full time with their father, she started them off in her organization as soon as they were old enough to work so that they could earn some spending money. At the time of our interview, the elder daughter worked for six years, the last three as production manager, whereas the younger daughter, who was still in school, worked
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
22
part time.
The owner-manager of SilverShoes Inc., a shoe manufacturing firm, founded her business in 1960 when she was in her 20s. She is the sole owner, but her spouse helped her run the busi-ness for the first 15 years. Their son, who goes away to school during the week, works with his mother on weekends and during school holidays and has done so the entire time he has gone to college. After the couple was divorced, the owner-manager chose to go into partnership with a member of her family, who has always held an important management position in the business. Several years ago, the two owners gave some of their shares to the founder’s only son who, upon completing his post-secondary education and on his own initiative, officially entered the family business with the precise objective of taking it over. At the time of our interview, the son had worked for seven years full time—the last three in a managerial position where he officially shares decision-making powers with his mother. The Results
The fact that we chose the intention to continue the business as a decisive criterion in the defini-tion of a family-owned business led us to identify two main stages in the evolution of businesses in general: the stage when a business is considered to be entrepreneurial and the stage when its sta-tus changes to family business (Gersick et al.,1997; Hugron,1998). In all four cases, although some members of the family were actively involved in the business, it would appear that over a certain period of time—ranging from seven to 24 years, depending on the case—none of the owner-man-agers had foreseen, or even thought, that the fu-ture of their firm would depend on the willing-ness of a member of their family to take over. When we brought up the subject with the founder of Angers Furniture Inc., she stated that prior to the death of her husband, she had never even thought to bring her children officially into the business. The founder of Mode-elle Inc. told us,“When I started up my firm, it never even crossed my mind … Now that my son is working here, I realize that it’s possible.” The founders of LongpréInc. and SilverShoes Inc. had both seriously con-sidered selling their businesses until their succes-sors showed some interest in taking over.
All four women did, however, mention one significant sudden event that they believe brought about a change in how they viewed the future of their organizations. For the founder of Angers Furniture Inc., it was the death of her husband that led to her need to bring her children into the business on a full-time basis. At Mode-elle Inc., the fact that the founder’s youngest son was involved in a serious accident led him to commit himself completely to his mother’s business and show an interest in taking it over. For the other two organizations, Longpré Inc. and SilverShoes Inc., it was the completion of the children’s post-secondary education that resulted in them be-coming officially involved full time in their moth-ers’ business.
Figure 2 shows that the phases in the suc-cession process of the four businesses we studied are comparable to those outlined previously in the literature. However, although the intention to continue the business becomes a deciding fac-tor in the dynamics of these businesses, it would appear that it does not take on the same dimen-sion nor even the same meaning throughout the process because it, too, undergoes changes. In all four cases, the successors became aware of their interest for their mothers’ businesses at the same time that their mothers began to consider them as potential successors. As a result, the in-tegration phase is also a period of time during which the individuals involved are getting used to working together and, at the same time, actu-ally becoming aware of the possibility of continu-ing the business. The intention to continue the business is, then, perceived as a possibility—an ideal that was never verbalized that can finally become a reality.
In all four cases, it would take between two and three years before, once again, trigger events occurred that would enable the process of suc-cession to reach another decisive level—that is, the time when the intention to hand down the business to the next generation becomes clearly
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
23
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
and firmly implanted in the mind of each founder. At Angers Furniture Inc., when the founder her-self reached the age at which her husband had passed away, she confirmed her intention to hand over the business by legally transferring it to the children. At Mode-elle Inc., the son’s verbaliza-tion of his intention to take over his mother’s business was a definite turning point for the fam-ily business. In the two other businesses, the need to fill a new managerial position officially opened the door to the successors.
From that time on, the two main groups of individuals involved were officially in place, with the goal of ensuring that the business was car-ried on. The owner-managers were present and willingly shared some of the responsibilities with their successors and, on the pretext that they were relaying a certain amount of their know-how, took pleasure in consulting them before making certain business decisions. This period marked the beginning of an exchange between the two generations. The owners stated that they were transmitting their knowledge of the business world, sharing their experiences, and guiding their successors, while at the same time admit-ted that they were learning a lot from their suc-cessors—their academic knowledge and their perspective of the world of business. As they play their respective roles, they are, therefore, both going through a learning period, each contrib-uting their experiences, their biases, and their way of managing a business.
Because all of the owners were still very ac-tively involved in their organizations at the time of the interviews, we are not in a position to dis-cuss the last phase—the retirement phase. How-ever, when we asked them how they saw their retirement, all four stated that they would like to have more time for themselves and to step back from the daily operations of their businesses. At the same time, they clearly indicated their inten-tions to stay in control, especially where busi-ness decisions are concerned. The latter com-ment corresponds to the results of a survey taken of male managers of second-generation family businesses; it revealed that in all of the businesses, the founder or the founder’s wife continued to control the business as long as he or she was ca-
24
pable of doing so (Davis & Harveston,1998).
Steps in Planning. As we mentioned above, in all four cases it took a major event to make the owner-managers aware of their intention to con-tinue the business into the next generation and a second series of lesser events to confirm that in-tention. It appears, therefore, that these “trigger events” (Isabella,1990) lead to a series of con-crete actions that could be considered as steps in planning the succession—steps that intensify as the presence of a potential qualified successor (Sharma et al.,2000) and the intention to keep the business going become more real.
At Mode-elle Inc., Longpré Inc., and SilverShoes Inc., these planning steps were in the form of a for-malization of duties or a restructuring of personnel, which reinforced the status of the newly determined successor, which in turn confirmed the intention to carry on the business. In all four cases, as the clear and firm intention to continue the business becomes greater and the presence of a potential successor be-comes more real, there is an increase in the number of clear and formal actions taken that are aimed at ensuring the transfer of the management and owner-ship of the business to the next generation.
The results of our study point to the impor-tance of the concept of the “intention of continu-ity” in our understanding of the dynamics of fam-ily-owned businesses and the actions that are taken are designed to plan the succession. Just as in the past the founders decided to create their own busi-nesses and took the necessary steps to do so, from the time they decide to hand it down to a member of the family, they take concrete actions and make the necessary decisions to reach their new objec-tives (Bird,1988; Frese, VanGelderen, & Ombach,2000). As a result, we could conclude that the continuity of their businesses depends as much, if not more, on the owners’ awareness of their desire to see the business continue as on the steps taken in planning the succession, as revealed in the literature cited (Chrisman et al., 1998; Davis & Harveston,1998; Lansberg & Astrachan,1994; Morris et al.,1997; Sharma et al.,2000).
The Sources of Resistance. T o understand the sources of resistance present during the process of succession, we also had to understand the fam-ily dynamics in each of the cases. Based on the Circumplex model proposed by Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle(1989), we categorized the families according to the following criteria:
?Quality of communication between mem-bers of the family
?Ability of family members to adapt dur-ing periods of change
?Commitment of family members toward one another
?Methods of decision making displayed among family members, regardless of
whether the members of the family are
involved in business
?The extent to which a line has been drawn between the family and its environment Our analysis of the criteria suggests that the family of the founder of Angers Furniture Inc. is collaborative, Mode-elle Inc.’s is enmeshed, and Longpré Inc. and SilverShoes Inc.’s are compart-mentalized. It also helped us understand how family dynamics are related to the dynamics dis-played between the two main groups involved when they find themselves in a business environ-ment.
In the case of Angers Furniture Inc., al-though the owner has very few interests outside the business, it would appear that it does not rep-resent a barrier to her transfer of the manage-ment and ownership of the business. From an early age, the children were involved in their par-ents’ business activities on weekends and on school holidays. During the interview, the founder’s three children were present and par-ticipated very spontaneously. They spoke openly with their mother, not hiding any differences of opinion. The familial roles and duties of the mother and each of the children are clearly de-fined, as are their roles and duties in the busi-ness. Used to working together and encouraged to communicate openly and frankly, all members of the family have confidence in one another. Such confidence diminishes the effect of indi-vidual resistance on the part of the founder, who admits freely that she will always want to have a hand in the business’s affairs.
In the case of Mode-elle Inc., because the
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
25
line between the family and the business is non-existent, it would be illusory to try to separate the family from the business dynamics. Ever since the founder has been in business, her children, husband, grandparents, cousins, and other mem-bers of the family have been available to help out and have done so in a perfectly natural manner. They discuss business and family matters at home and at work.
The founder of Mode-elle Inc. has very few interests outside her business. Her ambition is to work at home; draw and create new models, new dresses, and new children’s clothing; and manage her business from a distance. For her, life has no meaning without her business. She is clear about her son’s place: He will take over op-erations and she will remain in charge of busi-ness decisions. But despite the fact that there is excellent communication between the two, he must prove himself before she can completely put her trust in him.
Because the children have always worked in the business, none of the employees displays any resistance to the arrival of the son as a successor. They have watched him grow up and have grown fond of him. They are aware of his capabilities and his limitations, and they accept him com-pletely as the future head of the business. The greatest source of resistance is the business rela-tionship between the son and his father. The founder mentioned several times how much the two had trouble working together and how she must act as a mediator—something she has only had to do since her son has worked full time in the business.
Contrary to the two founders described above, the founder of Longpré Inc. has interests unrelated to her work. During the interview, she stated that she intended to retire to devote more time to things she enjoys. Having compartmen-talized her family life and her role as a business-woman during the early years of her business, the founder has problems communicating with her daughter, especially when they interact in the workplace. Her daughter must prove herself and demonstrate her capabilities. During the inter-view, however, the founder made contradictory statements. At one point she said that she gave her daughter carte blanche when it came to per-sonnel management, but later stated that her daughter could absolutely not dismiss an em-ployee without consulting her beforehand.
In this firm, the greatest resistance comes from supervisors who have been working in the production department for a number of years. Having developed very close ties with the founder, they have displayed a great deal of re-sistance toward the daughter since she has worked as director of production. Both the mother and the daughter mentioned it several times during the interview. The mother finds herself in an awkward position: Every time a contentious issue comes up, the supervisors go to see her instead of going directly to the direc-tor of production. The daughter, feeling that she has little respect from the employees, ad-mits that she is in such a touchy and unpleasant position that she is seriously questioning her choice of career. All in all, several indications show just how much the process of succession is fraught with pitfalls that are significant enough to jeopardize the transfer of the busi-ness to the next generation.
The founder of SilverShoes Inc. always had diversified interests. Several times during the in-terview, she referred to the fact that she is au-thoritarian, has difficulty delegating responsibil-ity, is insecure, and needs to be in control. Highly involved in her business, upon the birth of her only son, she chose to compartmentalize her two roles—mother and businesswoman. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, her son constantly complained that his parents put their business affairs ahead of him. As a result, he stated that he would never be like his mother. The founder admits that she felt guilty for a number of years. For a long time, the relationship between mother and son was strained and difficult. Certain that they would never understand one another and would always be at odds, she was astonished to learn that her son intended to join her in the business after he completed college.
Interpersonal resistance became very evident the moment the son officially took over his du-
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
26
ties. The lack of communication and mutual trust between the founder and her successor extended into the workplace. Because their respective roles and duties were not clearly defined, the employ-ees, not knowing who was in charge, felt as though they were on their own. After three difficult years, aware that the survival of the business was at stake, the mother and son decided to consult a specialist in family psychology. They were able to develop clearer and healthier communication mechanisms. It appears to have had a positive effect on organi-zational resistance; according to the founder, such resistance has since disappeared.
Our detailed analysis of each of the cases brought out the effect that the various types of family dynamics might have on the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the main in-dividuals involved during the process of succes-sion. Does that then imply that the relationship developed between the mother and her child in a family where the dynamics are collaborative or enmeshed has a positive effect on the quality of their interpersonal relationship in the business environment? In the same way, it could imply that the relationship developed between them in a family where the dynamics are compartmen-talized has a negative effect on the quality of their interpersonal relationship in the workplace. The mothers and children, therefore, transpose their methods of communication, their way of being, the manner in which they have developed mu-tual trust, and their way of interacting into their
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study Figure 3. Sources of Resistance
Angers Furniture Inc. Mode-elle Inc.
Longpré Inc. SilverShoes Inc.Family Dynamics
Collaborative
Enmeshed
Compartmentalized
Compartmentalized
Resistances from
Individual
Characteristics of
Owner-Managers
Few interests
outside the business
Few interests
outside the business
Characteristics and
traits of the owner-
manager
Characteristics and
traits of the owner-
manager
Resistances from the
Quality of the
Relationship Between
Owner-Managers
and Their Successors
None
T rust between
owner-manager and
her son to be
consolidated
Poor quality of
communication
between father and
son
Poor quality of
trust and communi-
cation between
owner-manager and
her daughter
Poor quality of
trust and communi-
cation between
owner-manager and
her son
Resistances from
Organizational
Environment
None
None
Supervisors working
in production
department
All employees
27
28
business relationship.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, in all four cases, it would appear that the quality of communication and degree of mutual trust be-tween the founders and their successors has an effect on resistance that may arise in the inter-nal environment of the organization; the more difficult the relationship between the two main individuals involved, the more hostile the man-agement or production personnel are toward the successor.
Discussion and Conclusion
Our review of the literature, which combined two fields of research that until now were considered separate from one another, suggests that women business owners may envisage or prepare the fu-ture of their organizations in a manner that is different from what is usually reported in the lit-erature. However, the results of our research do not allow us to put forward such a statement.
The sampling criteria and research method that we chose to use have significant limitations that cannot be ignored. For example, to what extent can we suggest that there are differences between businesses managed by men and women when the results we compare and the knowledge we have acquired do not stem from the same re-search strategies and the same methods for gath-ering and analyzing the data? T o compare men and women, should we not have examined a sample of businesses founded by men and by women that operate in the same economic sec-tor and are of the same size?
Another significant limitation stems from the size of the businesses in our case study. The size of the organizations that participated re-flects what we already know of the planning behavior of managers of small businesses. The issues facing small businesses are different from those facing larger companies, and the man-agement style in small businesses is strongly linked to the individual characteristics of the entrepreneurs, their values, and their way of communicating their vision of the company.
However, the planning behavior of the four Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron
women owners in our study corresponds to what is often reported in the literature on succession in family-owned businesses in general, insofar as there is a lack of planning right up until the ar-rival of a potential qualified successor (Sharma et al.,2000; Chrisman et al.,1998), and the suc-cessor must demonstrate his or her skills, develop his or her credibility, and be recognized as ca-pable of taking over the business by both the founder and the other members of the organiza-tion (Fiegener, Brown, Prince, & File,1996;Chrisman et al.,1998; Barach, Gantisky, Carson,& Doochin,1988). The four women owners that we interviewed waited until they were faced with the facts before they took the necessary steps to ensure the continuity of their businesses.
But does the lack of planning during the early phases of the process necessarily mean that the succession will fail? That remains to be seen.Considering the fact that planning begins from the time there is a firm intention to continue the business, to what extent should we rethink our way of tackling the issue of succession planning?
Furthermore, the results of the present ex-ploratory case study bring to light (a) the pres-ence of links that may exist between family dy-namics and the quality of communication and climate of trust that prevail between the main groups of individuals involved and (b) the pres-ence of sources of resistance that may have an impact on how the succession process unfolds.Exploration of the quality of the parent-child relationship as an important indicator of under-standing how the succession process will evolve could be another avenue of research.
Also, further studies are needed to measure the effect of family dynamics on the quality of communication and the climate of trust that ex-ist between the two main groups of individuals involved when they find themselves in a business relationship. It would then be possible to mea-sure the moderating effect they have on the vari-ous sources of resistance and to find out whether they have an impact on how long, i.e., the num-ber of years, each of the phases in the process of succession will last.
It is not a question of knowing whether fam-
ily dynamics play an important role in our un-derstanding of the succession process and fam-ily-owned businesses in general, because that has already been established (Hugron,1998; Lansberg & Astrachan,1994; Dunn,1999; Mor-ris et al.,1997; Davis & Harveston,1998; Seymour,1993). Rather, it is a question of un-derstanding how the relationship that develops between the parent and the child can become one of the most relevant sources of information for our understanding certain resistance factors that may have an effect on how smoothly the succes-sion process is carried out.
References
Allouche, J., & Amann, B. (1998). La confiance: Une explication des performances des entreprises familiales. économie et Société, 8(9), 129-154. Aronoff, C. E., & Ward, J. L. (1995). Family-owned businesses: A thing of the past or a model for the future? Family Business Review, 8(2), 121-130. Barach, J. A., Gantisky, J., Carson, J. A., & Doochin, B. A. (1988). Entry of next generation: Strategic challenge for family business. Journal of Small Busi-ness Management, 26(2), 49-56.
Barnes, L. B., & Hershon, S. A. (1976). T ransferring power in family business. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 105-114.
Belcourt, M., Burke, R., & Lee-Gosselin, H. (1991). Une cage de verre: Les entrepreneures du Canada. Conseil Consultatif Canadien sur la Situation de la Femme.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Re-view, 13(3), 442-453.
Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business own-ers: Past trends, and new perspectives and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-30.
Buttner, E. H. (2001). Examining female entrepre-neurs’ management style: An application of a rela-tional framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 253-269.
CAFE (2000). History and mandate: Profile/overview. Canadian Association of Family Enterprise. Available: https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/nat_history.html Carter, S., & Cannon N. T. (1992). Women as entrepre-neurs. London: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Chaganti, R. (1986). Management in women-owned enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(4), 19-29.Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family busi-nesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 11(1), 19-34.
Churchill, N. C., & Hatten, K. J. (1987). Non-market based transfers of wealth and power: A research framework for family businesses. American Journal of Small Business, 11(3), 51-64.
Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (1998). The influence of family on the family business succession process: A multi-generational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(3), 31-53.
Dunn, B. (1999). The family factor: The impact of family relationship dynamics on business-owning families during transitions. Family Business Review, 12(1), 41-55.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fiegener, M. K., Brown, B. M., Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1996). Passing on strategic vision. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 15-26. Folker, C. A. (1999). Female vs. male family business owners: Exploring the differences through a trust/ distrust framework. USASBE Proceedings. Available: https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,/docs/proceedingsIII
Frese, M., VanGelderen, M., & Ombach, M. (2000). How to plan as a small scale business owner: Psy-chological process characteristics of action strate-gies and success. Journal of Small Business Manage-ment, 38(2), 1-18.
Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., McCollom Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation:Life cycles of the family business. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
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.
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.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New Y ork: Doubleday.
Hishrish, R. D., & Brush, C. (1984). The woman en-trepreneur: Management skills and business prob-lems. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(1), 30-37.
Holland, P. G., & Oliver, J. E. (1992). An empirical examination of the stages of development of family business. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 27-38.
Succession in Women-Owned Family Businesses: A Case Study
29
30
Louise Cadieux is working on her doctorate in administration at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières,Canada, where she is also a lecturer. Jean Lorrain teaches at the Université du Québec à T rois-Rivières, Canada.Pierre Hugron is an honorary professor at the école des Hautes études Commerciales, a business administra-tion school affiliated with the Université de Montréal, Canada. He is also founder of the Groupe de Recherche sur les Entreprises Familiales.Hugron, P . (1998). La régie d’entreprises familiales.Gestion, 23(3), 37-40.
Hugron, P ., & Dumas, C. (1993). Modélisation du pro-cessus de succession des entreprises familiales québécoises .(Cahier de Reherche No. GREF-93-07). Montreal:école des Hautes études Commerciales.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key orga-nizational events. Academy of Management Journal,33(1), 7-41.
Kets de Vries, M. F . (1977). The entrepreneurial per-sonality: A person at the crossroads. The Journal of Management Studies, 14, 34-57.
Kets de Vries, M. F . (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Or-ganizational Dynamics , 59-71.
Langley, A.(1999). Strategies for theorizing from pro-cess data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Lansberg, I. (1988). The succession conspiracy. In C.E. Aronoff, J. H. Astrachan, & J. L. Ward (Eds.),Family business sourcebook II (pp. 70-86). Marietta,GA: Business Owner Resources.
Lansberg, I., & Astrachan, J. H. (1994). Influence of family relationships on succession planning and training: The importance of mediating factors. Fam-ily Business Review , 7(1), 39-59.
Lee-Gosselin, H., & Grisé, J. (1990). Are women owner-managers challenging our definition of en-trepreneurship? An in-depth study. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 9(4-5), 423-433.
Longenecker, J. G., & Schoen, J. E. (1978). Manage-ment succession in the family business. In C. E.Aronoff, J. H. Astrachan, & J. L. Ward (Eds.), Fam-ily business sourcebook II (pp. 87-92). Marietta, GA:Business Owner Resources.
Matthews, C. H., Moore, T . W., & Fialko, A. S. (1999).Succession in the family firm: A cognitive categori-zation perspective. Family Business Review, 12(2),159-169.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, M. H., Williams, R. O., Allen, J. A., & Avila,R. A. (1997). Correlates of success in family busi-ness in transition. Journal of Business V enturing, 12(5),385-401.
Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1989).Circumplex model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth Press.
Peay, R. T ., & Dyer, G. (1989). Power orientations of entrepreneurs and succession planning. Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1), 47-52.
Ratté, S. (1999). Les femmes entrepreneures au Québec: Qu’en est-il? Fédération Canadienne de l’entreprise indépendante (Ed.). Montréal in MICST (2000), L’entrepreneuriat féminin: Une force un atout:Portrait statistique des femmes entrepreneures, Ministère de l’industrie et du commerce, Québec (Ed.).
Rubenson, G. C., & Gupta, A. K. (1996). The initial succession: A contingency model of founder ten-ure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(2), 21-32.
Seymour, K. C. (1993). Intergenerational relationships in the family firm: The effect on leadership succes-sion. Family Business Review, 6(3), 263-281.
Sharma, P ., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (2000). Percep-tions about the extent of succession planning in Canadian family firms. Canadian Journal of Admin-istrative Sciences, 17(3), 233-244.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.(1990). Basics of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stravou, E. T . (1998). A four factor model: A guide to planning next generation involvement in the family firm. Family Business Review, 11(2), 135-141.
Wallott, H. (1984). Les aspects humains de la crise dans la petite entreprise. Revue PMO, 1(2), 12-17.Women-owned businesses: An exploratory study com-paring factors affecting performance. (2000). RISE business, Research Institute for Small & Emerging Business, Inc. (Working Papers Series 00-02,https://www.doczj.com/doc/f06980100.html,). Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R. D.Washington, D.C.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cadieux, Lorrain, Hugron