Culture in a Family Business: A Reflection of the Owning Family?

A Thesis

Presented to

the Department of Psychology

University of San Carlos

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology

by

Wesley Kent C. Rasines

2015
 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel blessed to be surrounded by a number of wonderful people. Without them, this

book would not have been possible.

My sincere appreciation and admiration to Dr. Glenn Glarino, my thesis advisor and

graduate school teacher, who patiently and unselfishly taught me a great deal about

organizational research. My deep gratitude to Mr. Jon Ramos and Ms. Theresa Ramos of

Premier Family Business Consulting who introduced me to the field of family business

research and consulting. To the members of my thesis panel, Ms. Cholen Osorio, Mr. Erwin

Cudis and Mr. Stephen Taylaran, whose insights had provided me the guidance I needed.

I am deeply grateful to the families and employees who have participated in this

study. As a researcher, I really value the trust they have given me. I would also like to thank

my good friends Carl Canastra, Glenn Ong, Nicole Chua and Nico Ybañez who have helped

me in testing the reliability of my research instruments.

My thanks also goes to my teachers and fellow classmates at the Psychology

Department whom I had the fortune of learning from and having friendships with. To Acel,

whose presence, optimism and support have always been comforting. And to my family,

whose love enables me to aspire for greater heights.

 ii

ABSTRACT

A significant part of the family business literature recognized that organizational culture in a

family business is a reflection of the owning family – an important yet seldom tested

assertion. This study investigated whether a relationship exists between the climate of the

owning family and the culture in their organization. Participants were composed of 136

family members and 403 non-family employees from 33 family businesses in Cebu City,

Philippines. Family members answered family climate questionnaires that measured

emotional cohesion and cognitive cohesion within their families, while employees answered

organizational culture questionnaires that measured sociability and solidarity within their

organizations. Correlation analysis revealed that there is no direct relationship between

family climate and organizational culture. Additionally, supplementary interviews provided

support in understanding why an absence of direct relationship exists. Findings suggest that

the organizational culture in any family business is not by default a reflection of the owning

family’s climate. This insight serves as an invitation to reexamine widely-held views and

renew the dialogue about organizational culture in family businesses.

 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

INTRODUCTION 1

Literature Review 2

Conceptual Framework 12

Statement of the Problem 14

Statement of Hypotheses 14

METHOD 15

Participants 15

Measures 16

Procedure 17

RESULTS 20

Quantitative Results 20

Qualitative Results 22

Other Findings 34

DISCUSSION 40

Understanding the Absence of Direct Relationship 41

Theoretical and Practical Contributions 45

Limitations of the Study 46

Recommendations for Future Research 47

Conclusion 48
 iv

REFERENCES 49

APPENDIXES 52

A. Letter of Entry 52

B. Family Climate Questionnaire 54

C. Organizational Culture Questionnaire 56

D. Modifications to the Organizational Culture Questionnaire 58

E. Guide Questions for Family Member Interviews 60

F. Guide Questions for Employee Interviews 61

G. Sample Qualitative Thematic Analysis – Family Member 62

H. Sample Qualitative Thematic Analysis – Employee 65

I. Qualitative Data Structure 70

 v

LIST OF TABLES

1. Descriptive Statistics of Family Business Participants 21

2. Correlations for Dimensions of Family Climate and

Organizational Culture 22

3. Themes Supporting Why There is No Relationship

between Family Climate and Organizational Culture 24

 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Family Cohesion 9

2. Organizational Culture 11

3. Family Climate and Organizational Culture 13

 1

CHAPTER 1

Culture in a Family Business: A Reflection of the Owning Family?

According to Schein (2010), culture is one of the most powerful and stable forces in

organizations. It is the “lens” through which members of an organization learn to interpret

the environment and serves to guide their behavior (Jex & Britt, 2008). These cultures

develop and persist because, externally, they help an organization survive and flourish and,

internally, they serve to keep the social structure of an organization together (Schein, 2010).

It is important to understand organizational culture because all behavior patterns in

organizations occur in a cultural context (Jex & Britt, 2008) and that these will eventually

determine whether or not an organization is successful (Kotter & Heskett, 1992).

For family businesses, organizational culture is their greatest strength (Denison, Lief

& Ward, 2004). It is a unique source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1986; Björnberg &

Nicholson, 2007; Denison et al., 2004; Vallejo, 2011). Organizational cultures in family

businesses are an embodiment of the founding personality (Hollander & Elman, 1988) and

are based on unique histories, values and relationships of the owning family (Dyer, 1994).

This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to imitate (Barney, 1986; Denison

et al., 2004; Dyer, 1994; Zahra, Hayton & Salvato, 2004). If acknowledged and managed

well, organizational culture in a family business can be used to perpetuate the founders’

values (Denison et al., 2004), ensure smooth transitions during succession (Lee-Chua, 1997),

and ultimately make this kind of competitive advantage survive across generations (Denison

et al., 2004; Dyer 1994).

 2

A number of scholars have observed that the owning family plays a fundamental role

in explaining the infusion of family values into the cultures of their businesses (Björnberg &

Nicholson, 2007; Dyer, 1988; Vallejo, 2011). Family businesses are said to be extensions of

the owning family’s cultures, dynamics, and biases (Hollander and Bukowitz, 1990; Zahra et

al., 2004). These suggest that the owning family influences the culture of their businesses and

that there is a resemblance between them. A thorough search of the literature, however,

seemed to have yielded no specific study that investigated this. As such, this study was

designed to empirically answer the question: In a family business, is there a resemblance

between the owning family and the organizations they own and manage?

Literature Review

Research on organizational culture has been around for almost four decades, but it has

largely ignored family business (Dyer, 1988, 1994; Hoy, 2003; Vallejo, 2011), the

predominant form of business organization in the world (Dyer, 1994; Shams & Björnberg,

2006; Sharma, Chrisman & Gersick, 2012). Beliefs such as ‘family firms are the antithesis of

'professional' firms’, ‘nepotism should be avoided’ and ‘family relationships have no

significant influence on business’ shape the opinions of most researchers (Dyer, 1994; Hoy,

2003). It was not until recently that scholars have begun to advocate a refocusing of their

attention from the business side of the topic onto the family side due to the realization that

the owning family is the fundamental entity that differentiates a family firm from other types

of firms (Shams & Björnberg, 2006). More importantly, researchers have come to realize that

the psychological aspects of the owning family cannot be ignored (Dyer, 1988; Lee-Chua,

1997).
 3

While the literature on organizational culture is evolving worldwide, there are still

very few studies of organizational culture focused on the family business context (Dyer,

1986; Vallejo, 2011). Here, we selectively review remarkable contributions to the literature.

Dyer (1986) categorized family businesses into four cultural types: paternalistic,

laissez-faire, participative and professional. He focused on the business side of the family

firm by gathering data from a variety of sources such as annual reports, memoirs of former

leaders, minutes of the board meetings, historical information of the company and interviews

with key people. From these, he derived the four cultural types and determined the patterns

that tend to be associated with successful family firms.

Denison and colleagues (2004) studied cultural differences between family firms and

non-family firms using the four cultural traits posited by the Denison Organizational Culture

Model: adaptability, mission, consistency and involvement. They found that family firms

have a “performance-enhancing” culture, but were quick to follow it up with questions for

further investigation.

In the Philippines, psychological research on family businesses is largely absent (Lee-

Chua, 1997; Santiago, 2000). Most of the research view family businesses with a business

management perspective that seldom, if at all, involve psychological issues (Lee-Chua,

1997). Two notable exceptions are Lee-Chua’s (1997) Successful Family Businesses:

Dynamics of Five Filipino Business Families and Santiago’s (2000) Succession Experiences

in Philippine Family Businesses.

Lee-Chua’s (1997) book is a pioneer in thoroughly investigating psychological family

dynamics in Philippine family businesses. Using the case study method and the family

systems approach, her study focused on five families who own and manage successful
 4

businesses. The focal variable of her study was the perception of each family member which

she used to determine family functioning and ultimately the family’s situation in the

business.

Santiago’s (2000) case studies focused on the succession phenomena in Philippine

family businesses specifically in Manila. The results of her study suggest that an absence of

formal succession planning does not necessarily result in succession failure and what is more

important is that a family adopts a succession process consistent with the values they live by.

In other words, how a family business is managed will really depend on the owning family’s

values, which ultimately are brought into the business. Santiago concluded that the family

system greatly influences the business system and that family values shape the corporate

culture.

Around the world and in the Philippines, the studies discussed above have been

foundational to the field of family business research. These invaluable contributions have

significantly advanced our understanding of family businesses. They don’t, however, shed a

clear light as to how similar a business is to the family that owns it. Dyer (1986) chose to

focus exclusively on the business side by ignoring the family side. Denison and colleagues

(2004) only compared family firms to non-family firms. In the Philippines, Santiago (2000)

only focused on a specific family business issue which was succession, while Lee-Chua

(1997) employed a more clinical approach, with the individual being the main level of

analysis. Furthermore, both studies in the Philippines used frameworks and measurements

not specifically designed for the family business context. As such, the researcher was

compelled to investigate further and design a study that empirically answers the research

question: Is there a resemblance between the owning family and the organizations they own
 5

and manage? To answer this, one must first understand why and how an owning family

influences the organizational culture of their businesses.

Organizational culture in a family business. Family business research is always in

need of good theories and researchers have looked to other fields such as organizational

behavior to provide this opportunity (Dyer, 1994). One of them was Vallejo (2011) who

designed a comprehensive theoretical model by which to analyze organizational culture in a

family firm. Using general systems theory and neoinstitutional theory, a part of his model

demonstrates how organizational culture in a family business will be conditioned by

characteristics of the owning family.

Vallejo’s model begins by delineating the difference between a family firm from a

non-family firm. Under the lens of general systems theory, an organization is like the human

body. It consists of subsystems that must work together in order for it to function optimally

(Jex & Britt, 2008; Katz & Kahn, 1978). But if we look at a family business, it is different

from other types of organizations because it features an additional subsystem: the owning

family.

Stafford, Duncan, Danes and Winter (1999) observed that ownership affords a family

to define success in their own terms. Therefore, an organization will additionally need to

accommodate the interests of members of the owning family and pursue the goals that satisfy

them (Westhead & Cowling, 1997). As Alcorn (1982) argues, “the business is to serve as a

vehicle for family enjoyment and betterment…logically, decisions about management and

perpetuation of the business must take family…into account.” Hence, it is imperative that we

consider the owning family as an additional subsystem that interacts and conditions the

greater organizational system (Churchill & Hatten, 1987; Tagiuri & Davis, 1996).
 6

So how does the owning family actually influence the culture of their organizations?

Vallejo (2011) explains that culture is carried out by the people within the organization who,

upon entering the organization, experience a process called socialization. Broadly speaking,

socialization involves learning the culture of an organization (Schein, 2010). It is the process

by which an individual makes the transition from being an outsider to becoming a member of

the organization (Jex & Britt, 2008). Socialization is achieved by learning the organization’s

history, language, politics, people, goals and values, and performance proficiency (Chao,

O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein & Gardner, 1994) – all of which are initially shaped by the most

important factor when considering the culture of an organization: its leader (Jex & Britt,

2008).

Leaders are the main architects of culture (Schein, 2010). According to Jex and Britt

(2008), leaders will most likely choose people who they perceive to share similar values. As

a result, people that don’t really share their values would either decline to join the

organization or choose to leave after experiences of working in the organization. For those

that do remain in the organization, they will most likely shape a culture that is very similar to

their leader (Jex & Britt, 2008).

In the context of a family firm, the transmission of an owning family’s values to the

organizations they own and manage is largely due to the institutional nature of the family.

According to Denison and colleagues (2004), family members involved in the business are

able to derive legitimate power from two sources: their position in the organization and their

position in the family. Thus, this legitimate power (French & Raven, 1959) affords members

of the owning family to have control over who is hired into their organizations and, therefore,

the socialization of an employee in a family firm would require the capacity to navigate
 7

through the idiosyncratic culture of the owning family (Sacristán Navarro & Gómez Ansón,

2006; Stewart & Hitt, 2012).

In summary, the addition of a family subsystem, the institutional nature of the owning

family and the socialization of employees – all come together to facilitate the formation of a

family firm’s organizational culture. Although patterns of organizational life are often

conditioned by external factors such as competitive environment, industry situation and

technological pace, an organization’s culture is also governed by leadership choices – which

ultimately have the ability to affect what kinds of experiences members of an organization

enjoy and don’t enjoy on a daily basis (Goffee & Jones, 1996). As Denison and colleagues

(2004) have asserted, the behavior of family businesses does not emanate from external

pressures. Rather, they originate from a “deeply ingrained, learned-at-the-dinner-table sense

of history and morality.” – which is, to some extent, family climate.

Family climate. In response to the lack of attention on the psychological dimensions

and mechanisms that are most relevant to the family business context, Björnberg and

Nicholson (2007) performed a comprehensive review of the family psychology literature and

developed what they called family climate. They defined family climate as significant

aspects of family functioning in the family business context. Within the framework of family

systems theory (Bateson, 1972) which states that families are open systems that depend on

the environment for survival and that this environment regulates their interactions both

internally and externally, Björnberg and Nicholson concluded their review of the literature

with three overarching categories of family functioning: intergenerational style, family

process and family cohesion. In this section, each category is briefly defined. Afterward, the

chosen category for this study is discussed in greater detail.

 8

Intergenerational style reflects how demanding and responsive the older generation is

of the younger generation. It is different from parenting style because it may involve senior

relatives other than parents. Although both older and younger generations have the capacity

to influence one another, the actions and attitudes of the senior generation usually set the

standards of family conduct and will most likely define the model of leadership for

successors to adapt to (Shams & Björnberg, 2006).

Family process represents how a family’s members adjust, communicate and make

decisions with one another. Family process is characterized by a family’s ability to practice

open communication among members and ability to adapt when solving problems together.

Family cohesion reflects how close or distant family members are in terms of ideas

and sentiments. It is the interpersonal atmosphere of a family (Shams & Björnberg, 2006).

This certain aspect of family climate is what this study had chosen to focus on. The reason,

which will become more apparent in subsequent sections, was that it provided the most

probable link between family climate and organizational culture.

Family cohesion. What keeps a family together through rough times is the emotional

and intellectual oneness they feel among each other. As such, family cohesion is

characterized by two types of cohesion: emotional cohesion and cognitive cohesion.

Emotional cohesion embodies the degree of emotional attachment experienced in the family

system as expressed in feelings and emotions. Cognitive cohesion, on the other hand,

represents the extent to which members in a family share the same norms, values and

worldviews.
 9

Figure 1

Family Cohesion (Björnberg & Nicholson, 2007)

high
Diverse Bonded
Emotional Cohesion

Fragmented Like-Minded
low

low Cognitive Cohesion high

Based on relative levels of cognitive and emotional cohesion, there are four types of

families: diverse, like-minded, fragmented and bonded families. As illustrated in Figure 1,

each quadrant represents a type of family. Björnberg and Nicholson (2007) explained that

making this distinction is necessary in order to account for different degrees of family

involvement, which ultimately create varied orientations. To demonstrate, a family with high

levels of emotional cohesion but low levels of cognitive cohesion is considered a diverse

family. Inversely, a family with low levels of emotional cohesion but high levels of cognitive

cohesion is called a like-minded family. For a family that is low in both emotional and
 10

cognitive cohesion, it is regarded as a fragmented family, while a family that is high in both

types of cohesion is categorized as a bonded family.

Organizational culture. While there are numerous dimensions of organizational

culture (Zahra et al., 2004), this study uses Goffee and Jones’ (1996) model of organizational

culture to examine two dimensions that are expected to be associated with family climate,

specifically family cohesion. These dimensions are sociability and solidarity. Goffee and

Jones (1996) defined sociability as the measure of sincere friendliness among members of a

community, while solidarity as the measure of their ability to pursue shared goals effectively

and efficiently regardless of personal relations. Said in another way, sociability reflects how

relationship-oriented people in an organization are, while solidarity reflects how

performance-oriented they are.

 11

Figure 2

Organizational Culture (Goffee & Jones, 1996)

high
Networked Communal
Sociability

Fragmented Mercenary
low

low Solidarity high

Based on relative levels of sociability and solidarity, Goffee and Jones (1996) posited

that there are four types of organizations: networked, mercenary, fragmented and communal

organizations. As illustrated in Figure 2, each quadrant represents a type of organization. An

organization high in sociability but low in solidarity is considered a networked organization.

Inversely, an organization low in sociability but high in solidarity is called a mercenary

organization. For an organization that is low in both solidarity and sociability, it is regarded

as a fragmented organization, while an organization that is high in both is categorized as a

communal organization.
 12

So far, this chapter has reviewed selected literature on organizational culture in

family businesses, why and how owning families influence the culture of their businesses and

the frameworks of family climate and organizational culture. In the subsequent section, this

study presents how it intends to answer the research question: In a family business, is there a

resemblance between the owning family and the organizations they own and manage?

Conceptual Framework

This study empirically examines the direct relationship between family climate and

organizational culture. More specifically, this study advances specific hypothesis about links

between different dimensions of family climate and organizational culture as well as different

types of families and organizations. Figure 3 presents the study’s conceptual framework.

First, by specifically using family cohesion to compare with organizational culture,

clear connections between the characteristics of the owning family and their organization can

be made.

Take the two dimensions of emotional cohesion and sociability. Since emotional

cohesion of a family is about being emotionally close to one another (Björnberg &

Nicholson, 2007; Shams & Björnberg, 2006), this study expects that it is positively related

with the sociability of an organization which is about having strong personal ties with one

another (Goffee & Jones, 1996).

Same would be for the dimensions of cognitive cohesion and solidarity. Since

cognitive cohesion of a family is about having shared norms, values and worldviews

(Björnberg & Nicholson, 2007; Shams & Björnberg, 2006), this study also expects it to be
 13

positively related with the solidarity of an organization which is about having relationships

based on common tasks, shared goals and mutual interests (Goffee & Jones, 1996).

Second, by specifically using family cohesion to represent family climate, a good

one-on-one correspondence between the different types of family climates and the different

types of organizational cultures can be established.

Figure 3

Family Climate and Organizational Culture

high

Diverse Bonded
Emotional Cohesion

Networked Communal
Sociability

Fragmented Like-Minded

Fragmented Mercenary
low

Cognitive Cohesion

low Solidarity high

 14

As illustrated in Figure 3, this study posits that diverse family climate (high emotional

cohesion, low cognitive cohesion) will correspond with networked organizational culture

(high sociability, low solidarity). In the same way, this study posits that like-minded family

climate (low emotional cohesion, high cognitive cohesion) will match with mercenary

organizational culture (low sociability, high solidarity), that fragmented family climate (low

emotional cohesion, low cognitive cohesion) will match with fragmented organizational

culture (low sociability, low solidarity) and that bonded family climate (high emotional

cohesion, high cognitive cohesion) will match with communal organizational culture (high

sociability, high solidarity).

Statement of the Problem

This study empirically investigates the direct relationship between family climate and

organizational culture. The main research question is: In a family business, is there a

resemblance between family climate and organizational culture? More specifically:

1. Does family climate’s emotional cohesion dimension relate with organizational

culture’s sociability dimension?

2. Does family climate’s cognitive cohesion dimension relate with organizational

culture’s solidarity dimension?

3. Do specific types of families correspond with specific types of organizations?

Statement of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Emotional cohesion positively relates with sociability.

Hypothesis 2: Cognitive cohesion positively relates with solidarity.

 15

CHAPTER 2

Method

To investigate the relationship between family climate and organizational culture, this

study employed the survey method to obtain quantitative data from family businesses.

Additionally, interviews were conducted with family members and non-family employees to

obtain supplementary qualitative data. The main level of analysis for this study was

organizational.

Participants

Thirty three family businesses from Cebu City, Philippines participated in this study.

These businesses have been in operation for at least 5 years with at least 15 non-family

employees and at least 3 members from the nuclear or extended family involved in the

ownership and management of the business. These businesses are active in the industries of

architecture, distribution, financial services, furniture, hospitality, manufacturing, real estate,

retail and travel.

For the quantitative data, a total of 136 family members and 403 employees answered

questionnaires on family climate and organizational culture respectively. Among the family

members, 68 were male, 66 were female and two refuse to be identified. They ranged in age

from 17 to 80, with a mean age of 39.48 years. Among the employees, 145 were male, 268

were female and 32 refuse to be identified. They range in age from 20 to 65, with a mean age

of 33.28.
 16

For the qualitative data, three family businesses were selected to participate in

interviews. They are identified here as Company A, B and C. Company A is an architectural

firm managed by the second generation with two of their third generation recently joining the

business as junior associates. Company B is a hotel owned by the second generation and

managed by their third generation. Company C is a chain of retail stores owned and managed

by both of their second and third generations. Within each of these companies, one owning

family member and two non-family employees were individually interviewed.

Measures

Family cohesion. Family cohesion of the owning family was measured using two of

Björnberg and Nicholson’s (2007) Family Climate Scales: emotional cohesion and cognitive

cohesion. These measures are outlined in Appendix B. Reported reliability coefficients

ranged from .75 to .90 (Björnberg & Nicholson, 2007). For this study, local reliability was

.82. In terms of validity, they reported that emotional and cognitive cohesion are known to

correlate positively with other family climate dimensions such as adaptability and open

communication.

Emotional cohesion. This was measured using Björnberg and Nicholson’s (2007) 8-

item scale for emotional cohesion. An example item would be “In this family, the emotional

bond between all of us is very strong.” For this study, local reliability was .84.

Cognitive cohesion. This was measured using Björnberg and Nicholson’s (2007) 8-

item scale for cognitive cohesion. An example item would be “In this family, we think alike.”

For this study, local reliability was .74.

 17

Organizational culture. Organizational culture was measured using the two

dimensions of Goffee and Jones’ (1996) organizational culture: sociability and solidarity.

These measures are outlined in Appendix C. There were no psychometric characteristics

given for these items. For this study, local reliability was .82.

Minor modifications were made to the wording of questions. This was done to

enhance comprehensibility of items and appropriateness to the study. These modifications are

outlined in Appendix D.

Sociability. This was measured using Goffee and Jones’ (1996) 7-item scale for

sociability. An example item would be “In this organization, people try to make friends and

keep relationships strong.” For this study, local reliability was .73.

Solidarity. This was measured using Goffee and Jones’ (1996) 7-item scale for

solidarity. An example item would be “In this organization, work gets done effectively and

efficiently.” For this study, local reliability was .75.

Procedure

Quantitative sample selection. Due to the lack of databases on family businesses

and their reputation for being private (Shams & Björnberg, 2006), convenience sampling

method, specifically personal referrals, was used to obtain participants for this study.

Quantitative data collection. Two types of questionnaires were given to each family

business. First, the family climate questionnaire consisting of 16 items on family cohesion

was administered to at least three members of the owning family. Second, the organizational

culture questionnaire consisting of 14 items was administered to at least 15 non-family

employees.
 18

Quantitative data analysis. To answer the first two research questions, simple

correlation data analysis was used. First, reverse scale items were reverse coded. Second,

individual scores within each family group were averaged by dimension to determine the

means for emotional cohesion and cognitive cohesion. Third, individual scores within each

organizational group were averaged by dimension to determine the means for sociability and

solidarity. Corresponding means were then subjected to correlation data analysis: emotional

cohesion with sociability and cognitive cohesion with solidarity.

Role of qualitative research. The nature of the qualitative research is contingent on

the results of the quantitative research. When the hypotheses of this study are supported, the

qualitative research becomes confirmatory and directed towards answering the third and final

research question: do specific types of families correspond with specific types of

organizations? On the other hand, when the hypotheses of this study are not supported, the

qualitative research becomes supplementary and directed towards explaining why the

hypotheses are not supported. The quantitative research of this study, which will become

more apparent in subsequent sections, is supplementary.

Qualitative sample selection. Three family businesses were selected to participate in

the interviews. Selecting only three family businesses allowed the researcher to delve deeper

into the responses of the participants within each of them. The intention was not to represent

the entire sample (e.g. through frequency count) but to look into specific family businesses so

that a better understanding of the phenomenon can be gained. Companies were also selected

based on their willingness to continue participating in the study, which they expressed earlier

during the gathering of quantitative data.

 19

Qualitative data collection. Within each of the three family businesses, one owning

family member and two non-family employees were individually interviewed. Family

members were asked questions such as “How would you describe the relationships within

your family?” while employees were asked questions such as “How would you describe the

culture in this organization?” Guide questions for the interviews with family members and

employees are outlined in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively. Each interview was

recorded with the participant’s consent. A transcriptionist was hired to transcribe the

recordings verbatim. Real names were then replaced with fictional names to preserve the

anonymity of participants and the confidentiality of their parties.

Qualitative data analysis. To understand why the hypotheses of this study were not

supported, qualitative content analysis was used. First, the data was analyzed for surfacing

themes. These were then identified as subthemes. Second, interrelated subthemes were then

grouped together. Third, based on these grouping of interrelated subthemes, higher-order

main themes were identified. Throughout the analysis, tables were used to facilitate the

identification and association of themes. A sample thematic analysis of interviews with a

family member and an employee are presented in Appendix G and Appendix H respectively.
 20

CHAPTER 3

Results

The results section is divided into two parts, quantitative and qualitative. The

quantitative results present whether there is a direct relationship between family climate and

organizational culture, while the qualitative results lend support by suggesting answers as to

why there may or may not be a direct relationship between these two variables.

Quantitative Results

Descriptive statistics. Table 1 presents the means for family climate (emotional and

cognitive cohesion) and organizational culture (sociability and solidarity) for each of the

thirty three family businesses that participated in this study.

Correlations. Table 2 presents the correlations between emotional cohesion and

sociability, and correlations between cognitive cohesion and solidarity. Both correlation

analyses yielded no significant relationships.

Based on the quantitative results, there is no direct relationship between family

climate and organizational culture. First, emotional cohesion did not positively relate with

sociability. Second, cognitive cohesion did not positively relate with solidarity. These results

negated the hypotheses of the study. Therefore, the answers to the first two research

questions are no – family climate’s emotional cohesion dimension does not relate with

organizational culture’s sociability dimension and family climate’s cognitive cohesion

dimension does not relate with organizational culture’s solidarity dimension.

 21

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Family Business Participants

Family Climate Organizational Culture

Family
Emotional Cognitive
Business Sociability Solidarity
Cohesion Cohesion
1 3.97 3.50 3.64 4.07
2 4.33 3.63 3.63 3.99
3 3.98 3.48 3.10 3.64
4 3.96 4.13 2.97 4.02
5 4.95 4.20 3.36 3.86
6 4.13 2.75 3.58 4.20
7 4.06 4.00 3.68 4.26
8 4.17 3.17 3.32 3.86
9 4.56 4.21 3.82 3.68
10 3.28 3.33 3.61 3.74
11 4.21 3.71 3.44 3.81
12 3.79 2.88 3.59 3.79
13 4.10 3.25 3.71 4.18
14 4.33 4.04 3.30 4.21
15 3.98 3.70 3.79 3.92
16 3.34 3.03 3.92 4.07
17 3.34 3.03 3.59 3.91
18 3.63 3.18 3.66 4.09
19 4.13 3.80 3.55 3.98
20 4.68 4.50 3.67 4.23
21 4.08 3.71 2.94 3.39
22 4.06 3.72 3.61 3.83
23 4.04 3.71 4.04 4.36
24 3.96 3.17 3.35 4.09
25 4.47 3.69 3.50 3.74
26 3.75 3.13 3.07 3.69
27 3.50 2.83 3.68 4.27
28 3.50 2.83 3.69 3.66
29 3.88 3.35 3.80 4.09
30 3.94 2.94 3.32 3.87
31 4.09 3.28 4.14 4.04
32 4.75 3.88 3.81 4.13
33 4.03 3.45 3.76 3.98
 22

Table 2

Correlations for Dimensions of Family Climate and Organizational Culture

Family Climate Organizational Culture

Sociability Solidarity
Emotional Cohesion -.058
Cognitive Cohesion .060

Furthermore, the quantitative results made it no longer possible to answer the third

and final research question (Do specific types of families correspond with specific types of

organizations?) because specific types of families and organizations cannot be matched with

one another since their identification is to be based on the dimensions of family climate and

organizational culture. Since there is an absence of direct relationship between these two

variables, it is no longer possible to determine correspondence.

The results of the quantitative research are particularly baffling because it seems to be

in contradiction to the existing literature. For this reason, obtaining supplementary qualitative

data gained an even more prominent importance, specifically, in understanding why there is

no direct relationship between what seemed to be theoretically related variables.

Qualitative Results

In the interviews, members of the owning families were asked questions such as

“How would you describe the relationships you have within your family?”, “How close or

distant are you emotionally?” and “How similar or different are your views on things?” Non-

family employees, on the other hand, were asked questions such as “How would you describe

the culture in this organization?”, “How close or distant are you among coworkers?” and
 23

“How similar or different are your views about work?” After the interviews, their answers

were then analyzed and organized into themes.

In this section, the qualitative results are organized into three parts. First, to provide

an overview of the data gathered, initial subthemes and subsequent main themes are

presented. Second, as to why there seems to be an absence of relationship between family

climate and organizational culture, three themes are highlighted to suggest answers. Lastly,

to enrich the understanding of family climate and organizational culture even further, some

of the remaining themes are explored. To ground the findings of the research, quotations

from the interviews and their corresponding English translations are included.

Subthemes and main themes. Appendix I illustrates the structuring and ordering of

the qualitative data: from selected quotations, to interrelated subthemes, and to high-order

main themes. The results yield 13 subthemes and 4 main themes.

Absence of Relationship. As to why there seems to be no relationship between

family climate and organizational culture, three themes suggest an answer: multifaceted

factors affecting organizational culture, no explicit intentions from the owning family and

inconsistencies between what is espoused and what is practiced. Table 3 presents these

themes together with representative quotations.

Multifaceted factors affecting organizational culture. The first reason why there

seems to be no relationship between family climate and organizational culture is that there

are many factors affecting culture in an organization other than an owning family. There is

the presence of subcultures formed around different occupations (e.g. departments), cultures

formed around different industries (e.g. hotel), significant changes in organizational

membership and then, of course, there is leadership.

 24

Table 3

Themes Supporting Why There is No Relationship between Family Climate and

Organizational Culture

Themes Representative Quotations

(Company B, Employee 2, Line 20 and 22)

“Usually murag ang ilaha, murag naa silay own standard. Unya
murag example kami murag naa pud mi standard kanang i-attain
and then kana sila kay murag dili magkamatch...so ang views, I
Multifaceted factors think, different gyud ang among views kay among target is…
affecting different man ang scope sa among work is different, so most
organizational culture probably different ang kuan sa views sa each department.”

(Usually, other departments have their own standards. We here also

have our own standards that we need to attain. However, ours may
not match with their standards. So our views can really be different
because our targets and the scope of our work are different.)

(Company A, Family Member, Line 19)

“When we started, first and second generation were like more inato
ba. But it’s not sustainable if it is run like a family. Business should
be run like a business. There has to be a formal structure especially
No explicit intentions from
when the family grows.”
the owning family
(When we started, the first and second generation did business in a
much more personal manner. But it’s not sustainable if it is run like a
family. Business should be run like a business. There has to be a
formal structure especially when the family grows.)

(Company B, Employee 1, Line 22)

“Naa sad siya’y conflict…because I have my GM there, supposed to

Inconsistencies between
what is espoused and what
is practiced
be the one who’s leading the hotel. But they have issues upstairs. I
mean, every member is also a manager of the different
departments…ang GM nako mu-instruct and the rest will also
instruct. So kinsa man ang imong i-follow? Maglibog ang tao…if
we have policies to follow. And then someone will just cut in with, “I
don’t like this, you do this”, conflict gihapon siya.”
(It’s really conflicting. The general manager is supposed to be one
leading the hotel. But they have issues upstairs. Every family
member is also a manager of different departments. The general
manager gives me instructions to follow, while the rest also gives me
their own sets of instructions. So who will you follow? An employee
gets confused. We have policies to follow, but when someone will
just cut in with, “I don’t like this, you do this,” it can get really
conflicting.)
 25

Industry culture. Different industries have different cultures and organizations may

have to adapt certain characteristics in order to be a part of their chosen industry. For

example, one of the organizations that participated in this study is a hotel that operates under

the brand of an international network of hotels and is obliged to adhere to certain standards.

As one employee reported,

(Company B, Employee 2, Line 31 and 32)

“It is an international hotel chain so naa pud mi murag goals nga amo gi-

follow, mga rules nga according sa standard sa Hotel Chain Brand. Naa

sila’y mission, vision…. Naa silay own nga… kanang ang ilang tagline is

world’s largest hotel chain. So, naa gyud sila’y specific standard nga mu-

follow gyud mi nga by that ma-shape pud ang among culture.” (It is an

international hotel chain. Therefore, we also adhere to the established goals,

rules and standards of the Hotel Chain Brand. They have a mission and vision.

They have this tagline of being the world’s largest hotel chain. So, we really

have specific standards to follow and, by that, our culture is shaped as well.)

Departmental subcultures. Most organizations are composed of people with different

knowledge and skills who perform different tasks in order to address the different needs of

their organizations. Thus, work is divided and allocated to different groups of people, usually

identified as departments. This departmentalization, in turn, creates occupational differences

that influence how individuals within a department see themselves, their work, other

departments as well as the whole organization they belong to. As an example, one employee

mentioned,

(Company B, Employee 2, Line 2)

 26

“In each department naa gyuy different culture pero murag magka bonding

gihapon mi.” (In each department, there is a different culture, but we are all

still able to get along well.)

He continued,

(Company B, Employee 2, Line 20 and 22)

“Usually murag ang ilaha, murag naa silay own standard. Unya murag

example kami murag naa pud mi standard kanang i-attain and then kana sila

kay murag dili magkamatch...so ang views, I think, different gyud ang among

views kay among target is… different man ang scope sa among work is

different, so most probably different ang kuan sa views sa each department.”

(Usually, other departments have their own standards. We here also have our

own standards that we need to attain. However, ours may not match with their

standards. So our views can really be different because our targets and the

scope of our work are different.)

Significant changes in organizational membership. Cultures in organizations are also

affected by significant changes in the membership of the organization. This can either be

through the history and evolution of the organization (e.g. group of old employees replaced

by a group of new employees) or through a regular cycle of change (e.g. annual hiring of

apprentices). As one employee narrated,

(Company A, Employee 1, Line 19 and 21)

“Sauna naa jud silay murag super senior gyud. Karon lang gyud na pag-

resign sa super senior, medyo na-usab…before pa gyud, naa toy ka-batch daw

sa iyang daddy ni Gerard. Unya ning-resign. Naa pud toy maguwang napud,
 27

siguro mga early fifties or late forties ning-resign. Mao na ang culture karon

sa office lahi na kaayo. Almost ka-batch na tanan. (There used to “super

seniors” here. But now, when all of them have resigned, things changed. A

long time ago, there used to be a former classmate of Gerard’s dad here.

Eventually, he resigned. There also used to be another senior here. He was

probably in his early fifties or late forties when he resigned. That’s why the

culture here in the office now is very different. All of us are now of the same

age.)

On top of this, another fellow employee reported,

(Company A, Employee 2, Line 25)

“Mostly, ang pinaka-dako gyud na mu-determine sa culture kay ang people

man gyud. For example, by apprentices man ni. Every year naay mu-replace

na apprenticeship, mga apprentices. Usually, kung unsay ilang mood, mao

nay mu-affect sa ilang personality, mao nay mu-affect sa whole group.” (The

most significant factor as to culture is the people. Here in the firm, there is a

regular cycle of apprentices. Every year, we have new apprentices that replace

the previous year’s apprentices. Usually, how the year’s batch of apprentices

is can ultimately affect our whole group.)

Leadership. Beyond the factors discussed earlier, the culture in an organization is

still, to a large extent, dependent on the leaders it has. As one employee related,

(Company C, Employee 1, Line 11)

“Mag-start jud siya sa management. Kung unsa ang management, mao man

sad gud na ilang ma-tudlo sa mga tawo…Mutakud-takud bitaw? Just like a

 28

tree, kung naa’y dunot dinha nga prutas, manakod na na siya.”(It really starts

with management. How management is, that is also what they will teach the

people they are leading. And it can be quite contagious. Just like a tree, if

there is rotten fruit, it can contaminate the rest.)

Another employee also reported,

(Company C, Employee 2, Line 20)

“Ang mga leaders. Usa man gyud na. Kung unsa ang leaders, so usa man

gyud na na mu-form gyud ang culture sa company kung unsa bitaw gusto sa,

for example, kanang, sa management… kung unsa’y gusto nila.” (The leaders.

That’s really one factor that can form the culture in the company. For

example, what the leaders in management wish to happen in the organization

can be formative.)

Despite the existence of other factors as discussed earlier, leadership is still one of the

most potent forces in shaping organizational culture. What leaders wish to happen in their

organizations can be formative because their intentions can be determining of how their

businesses are to operate. In a family business, this would be, to some extent, the intentions

of the owning family.

No explicit intentions from the owning family. Another reason why there seems to

be no relationship between family climate and organizational culture is that owning families

don’t seem to have explicit intentions of translating the kind of interpersonal relationships

they have within their family unto the organizations they own and manage. In fact, one

owning family emphasized that business should be run like a business and not like a family.
 29

Company A is an architectural firm managed by the second generation with two of

their third generation recently joining the business as junior associates. One of their second

generation family members involved in their business expressed that, as a family, they are

“very, very close”. However, he also asserted that being with family is not the same as being

in business. As he affirmed,

(Company A, Family Member, Line 19)

“When we started, first and second generation were like more inato ba. But

it’s not sustainable if it is run like a family. Business should be run like a

business. There has to be a formal structure especially when the family

grows.” (When we started, the first and second generation did business in a

much more personal manner. But it’s not sustainable if it is run like a family.

Business should be run like a business. There has to be a formal structure

especially when the family grows.)

In fact, they even manifest this in their organization. One of the most defining

features in their organization is a prevailing division between management and employees.

As one of their employees narrated,

(Company A, Employee 2, Line 2, 5, 7 and 9)

“As a whole, naa siya’y dako na divide. Ang mga employees kay naa sila’y

kaugalingon na circle na kami ra pud ang magkasinabot...most of the things

na among i-share, naa ra pod sa kana circle. Naay division gyud…sa mga

bosses, murag mahadlok mi mu-share sa ila or mahadlok mu-istorya nila.”

(As a whole, there is a big divide in our organization. We employees have our

own circle wherein we are able to express freely to one another. There really
 30

is a division here. With our bosses, we are afraid of sharing our ideas. We are

afraid of interacting with them.)

In the employee’s narration above, the bosses he is referring to are family members of

the second generation. So, what about the third generation junior associates?

(Company A, Employee 2, Line 35 and 37)

“Nahulog na siya…na cousins like ni Raymond ug Richard, nag-blend in ra

man sila sa amo ang group sa mga employees. Mahulog na naa sad siya sa

amoang circle, they are afraid of the bosses pud…murag nag-blend in ra gyud

sila. Pero sila maka-voice out sila better compared sa amoa. Pero murag

nahulog ra gihapon sila na naay gamay na divide nila sir.” (Cousins

Raymond and Richard just blend in with our group of employees. They are

part of our circle because they too are afraid of the bosses. They really just

blend in but they seem to be able to voice out their opinions better compared

to us. However, the divide still prevails.)

Through the example of Company A, an owning family can have strong family ties as

their family’s climate but it does not necessarily get translated into the culture in their

organization because the owning family can have a very different view about how family

members should relate to one another in business settings. In this case, business should be

run like a business and not like a family. As such, family climate cannot be related to

organizational culture. Furthermore, what is possibly more powerful than simply the explicit

intentions of an owning family are actually the behaviors of its family members involved in

the business.
 31

Inconsistencies between what is espoused and what is practiced. The third reason

why there seems to be no relationship between family climate and organizational culture is

that owning families, even if they may have some intention of translating the kind of

interpersonal relationships they have within their family unto the organizations they own and

manage, can sometimes be inconsistent with what they espouse to their employees and what

they actually practice. For instance, in Company B, the owning family considered their

business as the main reason why they are together. As one of them articulated,

(Company B, Family Member, Line 4, 5 and 7)

“Kami, as a family…close mi pero in a sense na murag ang business ra mao’y

mag glue together namo pero in terms of individual…murag weird man kay

lahi man gud…distant gyud, kung emotionally lang…pero in terms of terms

business, magkasinabot ra mi.” (As a family, we’re close in the sense that

business glues us together. But individually, it’s weird because we’re

different. We’re really emotionally distant. But in terms of business, we get

along.)

According to him, the key to getting along well in business is their family’s practice

of open communication with one another, which is also a characteristic that they wanted their

employees to adapt. As one of their family members expressed,

(Company B, Family Member, Line 16)

“Di mi close pero open mi with each other…about business. So akong

employees sad, ganahan sad mi na open sad sila namo. Na anyone…from the

room attendant, maka duol rajud nako…dili kinahanglan mu-adto siya sa

iyahang boss para mu-storya…open ra mi…naay open door policy. Maski

 32

kinsa, maka-approach.” (We’re not close in the family, but when it’s about

business, we are open with one another. It’s the same thing with our

employees. We also want them to be open with us. Anyone, like the room

attendant, can just approach me. They don’t need to approach their boss.

We’re open. There is an open-door policy here, so anyone can simply

approach us.)

So, how did they manifest this in their organization? They have what they called an

“open-door” policy. As defined by one family member earlier, it meant that anyone in the

organization can simply approach management. Employees, however, had mixed feelings

about such a policy. Instead of providing timely and relevant information, employees avoided

disclosing issues for fear of being reprimanded by management. As one employee narrated,

(Company B, Employee 1, Line 31)

“It’s a roller coaster ride. Of course, naay isa karon. My seatmate diri

ningkalit lang ug hilak. “Nganong ninghilak man ka, ‘day?” Gikasaban siya

sa president. That’s typical example. If the president notices something, he is

supposed to talk to the GM, then GM talk to the department head, the

department head will talk to the staff. Pero mu-diristo man siya.” (It’s a roller

coaster ride. For example, my seatmate here just broke out in tears. I asked

her, “Why are you crying?” She was scolded by the president. That’s a typical

example. If the president notices something, he is supposed to talk to the

general manager. Then, the general manager will talk to the department head,

the department head will then talk to the staff. But he circumvents that system

and goes directly to the person.)

 33

She continued,

(Company B, Employee 1, Line 28)

“Sometimes man gud there’s a conflict between an idea of an open-door

policy, di ba? Sometimes there’s a conflict between them on how they see it,

how they interpret it.” (Sometimes, there’s conflict in the idea of an open-

door policy. Sometimes, there’s conflict between how they see it and how

they interpret it.)

She expounded,

(Company B, Employee 1, Line 22)

“Naa sad siya’y conflict…because I have my GM there, supposed to be the

one who’s leading the hotel. But they have issues upstairs. I mean, every

member is also a manager of the different departments…ang GM nako mu-

instruct and the rest will also instruct. So kinsa man ang imong i-follow?

Maglibog ang tao…if we have policies to follow. And then someone will just

cut in with, “I don’t like this, you do this”, conflict gihapon siya.” (It’s really

conflicting. The general manager is supposed to be one leading the hotel. But

they have issues upstairs. Every family member is also a manager of different

departments. The general manager gives me instructions to follow, while the

rest also gives me their own sets of instructions. So who will you follow? An

employee gets confused. We have policies to follow, but when someone will

just cut in with, “I don’t like this, you do this,” it can get really conflicting.)

In Company B, an open-door policy is how the owning family tried to encourage their

employees to be open with them in the same way that they are open to one another in the
 34

family. However, it was difficult for employees to do this when they are fearful of and

intimidated by their leaders. As a result, employees resorted to hide issues until they can no

longer be hidden. Moreover, members of the owning family circumvented established

management systems, sometimes, in the name of this open-door policy. As such, employees

felt pessimistic about it.

Through the example of Company B, there can be inconsistencies between the

behaviors of owning family members and what they espouse to their employees. For this

reason, despite having some intention to have certain characteristics from the owning family

replicated unto the organization, family climate and organizational culture still cannot be

related.

Indeed, family climate and organizational culture do not have a direct relationship

because the latter is affected by many factors other than the climate of the owning family.

Furthermore, owning families don’t have explicit intentions to have their interpersonal

relationships replicated by the employees in their organizations. And even if they do have

some intentions, owning families can sometimes be inconsistent with what they espouse and

what they actually practice in the organizations they own and manage.

Other Findings

Digging deeper, some of the remaining themes in the qualitative results offer

important insights about owning families and their employees. Although beyond the scope of

this study, three themes appear to be useful in enriching the understanding about culture in

family businesses. These are the perspective of the owning family, the exposure of

employees to the owning family climate and employees perceiving members of the owning
 35

family as role models. Each of these themes are explored briefly through the example of

Company C.

Perspective of the owning family. Families vary widely from one another and

business-owning families are no exception. Some business-owning families regard their

business as the only reason why they are still together. Others strive to make the distinction

between business and family as much as possible. For the owning family of Company C,

their business is something that brings all of them closer to one another,

(Company C, Family Member, Line 20)

“Dili kaayo siya fulfilling if kwarta lang bitaw. Yeah…lingaw sad among

trabaho…it also makes us closer…we would like to think…business is not the

only reason the family is together. Like murag ra gihapon siya ug tool to be

this close.” (It wouldn’t be this fulfilling if it was all about the money.

Working together is interesting. It also brings us closer. We would like to

think that business is not the only reason that our family is together. It’s a tool

for us to be this close.)

Exposure of employees to the owning family climate. At times, not all employees

in a family business get the chance to work closely with members of the owning family. But

for employees who do, they may be more exposed to the climate of the owning family than

those that don’t. The exposure of employees to the owning family climate might enable them

to attribute the kind of relationships they have within the organization to how members of the

owning family relate to one another. As one of the employees in Company C explained,

(Company C, Employee 1, Line 2, 12 and 15)

 36

“…they are family-oriented…god-fearing…work as team…it starts with the

family because they have a very good family bonding…from there, ning

gamut-gamut na siya to the people…strong family ties…murag napasunod sad

nila sa ilang mga empleyado. Kung unsa man gud sila, kung unsa ang puno-

an, mao pud ang bunga.” (They are family-oriented and god-fearing. They

work together as a team. It all starts with their family because they are very

well-bonded with one another. From there, it spreads around to the people in

the organization. Just like a tree bearing fruit, the strong family ties of the

family produces the kind of relationships we have in the organization.)

Moreover, the level of closeness within Company C is most often referenced by their

employees as being like a family with really strong ties. As this employee proclaimed,

(Company C, Employee 1, Line 8)

“Dire sa Retail Store Brand, pundok jud as one and we work as one team in

reaching our goal as a whole. Di gyud ma- bungkag bitaw? “Strong family

ties” kung mao pa’y pasulti-on ba. So bisan unsa pa. Bagyo or what, di gyud

mabungkag. Strong gyud siya.” (Here in Retail Store Brand, we always see

ourselves as one. We work as one team in reaching our goals. The bond that

we have cannot be destroyed. “Strong family ties,” as they say. Whatever

comes, a strong typhoon or some calamity, we can’t be broken apart. The

bond that we have is really strong.)

Also, another employee reported,

(Company C, Employee 2, Line 22)

 37

“Dili bitaw sila mag lain-lain? Kanang grupo lang. Murag one big family

ba.” (They don’t put a lot of emphasis on factions. We’re just one group.

We’re just one big family.)

Employees perceiving members of the owning family as role models. Despite

owning families not having any explicit intentions of replicating the kind of interpersonal

relationships within the family unto the business, employees may still continue to look

towards members of the owning family as their role models. Sometimes, the owning family

may even be unaware of the effect they have on their employees. In Company C, for

instance, a non-family employee revealed at an informal breakout session during an annual

strategic planning retreat that the interpersonal relationships of the third generation as

siblings has had a profound effect on him. As one of the third generation narrated,

(Company C, Family Member, Line 27)

“Because of the way he sees us, the children, the way we treat each other,

inspired him to have a closer relationship with his own brothers and sisters.

So pag-uli niya sa Leyte, naninguha siya nga ma-gather niya iyang family ba

para maka family gathering sila, storya-storya sad sila. Because murag

medyo kuan kaayo siya, ganahan kaayo siya sa amoang relationship and he

wanted also to do that.” (Based on his observations of how we treat each

other as siblings, he was inspired to have a closer relationship with his own

brothers and sisters. When he went home to Leyte, he really persevered in

gathering all of his family together so that they can spend time and bond with

one another. He really liked the kind of relationships we had and wanted that

for him and his siblings as well.)

 38

Though grateful, the owning family confessed that they never intended it,

(Company C, Family Member, Line 29)

“We didn’t push it but, apparently, it has affected someone in the office and

siya lang ang ning open up. We hope nga maybe others also see it that way.”

(We didn’t push it but, apparently, it has affected someone in the office and he

was the one who opened up and shared his story with us. We hope that maybe

others would also see it that way.)

This particular employee was inspired by the owning family and aspired to have the

same quality of relationships with his own siblings. His aspiration, however, was in the

direction towards his own family and not to his fellow employees.

In Company C, the family believed that being in business brings all of them closer to

one another. While they had no explicit intentions of transferring this level of closeness to

their organization, employees attribute the kinds of relationships they have to that of the

owning family’s, saying that they are inspired by their strong family ties. One employee even

aspired to have the same quality of relationships in his own family. Therefore, the behaviors

of family members towards one another had exerted some influence on some of their

employees.

Through the example of Company C, the possibility of an indirect relationship

between family climate and organizational culture seems to exist. It might be because of the

owning family’s perspective of their business in relation to their family, the exposure of

employees to their family climate and the employees perceiving members of the owning

family to be role models. However, further investigation is needed to fully understand this

possibility.
 39

Summary

In the quantitative results, it was discovered that there was no direct relationship

between family climate and organizational culture. This meant that the hypotheses of this

study were negated. Emotional cohesion of an owning family did not correlate with

sociability of their organization while cognitive cohesion of an owning family also did not

correlate with solidarity of their organization. Therefore, answers to the first two research

questions of this study were no. Thus, obtaining supplementary qualitative data gained an

even more prominent importance, specifically, in understanding why there is no relationship

between what seemed to be theoretically related variables.

In the qualitative results, three themes explained why there is no direct relationship

between family climate and organizational culture. First, it was found that family climate and

organizational culture do not have a direct relationship because the latter is affected by many

factors other than the climate of the owning family. Second, owning families don’t have

explicit intentions of replicating the interpersonal relationships within their families unto the

interpersonal relationships within their organizations. Third, even if they do have some

intentions, owning families can sometimes be inconsistent with what they espouse and what

they actually practice in the organizations they own and manage.

In other findings, some of the remaining themes seemed to suggest the possibility of

an indirect relationship between family climate and organizational culture. These findings,

however, need to be investigated more completely in future research.

 40

CHAPTER 4

Discussion

This study empirically investigated the relationship between family climate and

organizational culture. The main research question was: In a family business, is there a

resemblance between family climate and organizational culture?

More specifically, the study asked whether dimensions of interpersonal relationships

between family members (emotional cohesion and cognitive cohesion) correlate with the

dimensions of interpersonal relationships between organizational members (sociability and

solidarity). Answers to all the research questions of this study were no.

As quantitative results revealed, there is no direct relationship between family climate

and organizational culture. Furthermore, several themes substantiated why there is a clear

absence of direct relationship.

As established in the qualitative results of this study, organizational culture is affected

by multifaceted factors other than the owning family such as industry culture, departmental

subcultures and significant changes in organizational membership. Furthermore, not every

family has intentions of replicating family characteristics unto their organization. And even if

they did, their initial intention can be thwarted by inconsistencies between what they espouse

to their employees and how they actually behave.

These strongly confirm the quantitative results which demonstrated that there is no

direct relationship between family climate and organizational culture. But why does the

existing literature claim the contrary?

 41

To fully understand this significant puzzle, it is necessary to go through the several

lines of reasoning scholars have used to support such claims and weigh them against the

divergent findings of this study.

Understanding the Absence of Direct Relationship

Multifaceted factors affecting organizational culture. Family business scholars

have argued that family businesses should be regarded differently from other types of

organizations. They have emphasized that their uniqueness lies in the presence of an owning

family – which is not present in other types of organizations (Churchill & Hatten, 1987;

Shams & Björnberg, 2006; Tagiuri & Davis, 1996; Vallejo, 2011). It is true that family

businesses can be different from non-family businesses by virtue of this additional

subsystem. Beyond this, however, they are quite similar.

For instance, organizational cultures exist in a context, often called macrocultures

(Schein, 2010). There are macrocultures that apply to non-family businesses as much as they

apply to family business, such as the cultures formed around particular industries (Shams &

Björnberg, 2006).

Also, organizational cultures are composed of subcultures that are formed around

different occupations inside an organization. These subcultures may share many assumptions

of the total organization but they also hold assumptions beyond those of the total

organization (Schein, 2010). Like most types of organizations, a family business can also

have a number of departments that have different functions.

Furthermore, culture in an organization originates from a number of sources. One

source is the new beliefs, values and assumptions brought in by new members (Schein,
 42

2010). Just like most types of organizations, a family business can also experience significant

changes in its membership throughout its history.

Therefore, family businesses are not radically so different that they are exempted

from forces that are also present in non-family businesses. Although the owning family is a

factor that can have a potential influence on the organizational culture of a family business, it

exists within several contexts and contends with other forces inside and outside the

organization.

No explicit intentions from the owning family. Family business scholars have

assigned a great deal of the potential to influence culture in a family business unto the

owning family. They support this with the reasoning that culture in an organization primarily

originates from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders. They assert that the basis for

forming culture is the intentions of the owning family. However, do all business-owning

families have the same intentions?

Across family businesses, intentions of owning families can vary widely (Basco, R. &

Rodríguez, M., 2009; Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Shams & Björnberg, 2006;

Stewart & Hitt, 2012). Some family businesses, like Company A, strive to keep family and

business separate as much as possible, while others, like Company B, would like their

employees to replicate a particular characteristic of their family. As Schein (2010) had stated,

there is nothing automatic about founders imposing themselves on their organizations

because it largely depends on their personal needs to externalize their various assumptions.

Therefore, it is not automatic that owning families want to replicate their interpersonal

relationships unto their organizations.

 43

Inconsistencies between what is espoused and what is practiced. Even when an

owning family does have some intention to replicate the kind of relationships they have

within their family unto their organization, it is still contingent on how they manifest it in

their organization. According to Dyer (1988), one of the greatest problems facing leaders in

family businesses is their lack of awareness of two things. First, they can be unaware of the

impact their behaviors have on people in their organizations and, second, they can be

unaware of the kind of cultural patterns their behaviors promote.

Leaders may sometimes be unaware of their own conflicts and, consequently, send

mutually contradictory messages that lead to varying degrees of culture conflict (Schein,

2010). For example, in Company B, an open-door policy is how the owning family tried to

encourage their employees to be open with them in the same way that they are open to one

another in the family. Their initial intention, however, was weakened by their unconscious

conflicts between a stated philosophy of open communication and a need to intervene

frequently on very detailed issues and strongly correct subordinates. As a result, the opposite

happened. Instead of providing timely and relevant information, employees avoided

disclosing issues for fear of being reprimanded.

In Schein’s (2010) mechanisms for embedding culture in organizations, he divided

them into primary (the most powerful daily behavioral things that leaders do) and secondary

(the more formal mechanisms that come to support and reinforce them), saying that

secondary embedding mechanisms (e.g. Company B’s open-door policy) only work when

they are consistent with primary mechanisms (e.g. behaviors of leaders).

Furthermore, some of the family members in Company B felt free to go around the

hierarchy in the name of this open-door policy. Although this made some employees feel
 44

pessimistic about it, they still found ways to work around it. According to Schein (2010),

subordinates will tolerate and accommodate contradictory messages, because people in

higher levels are most often granted the right to be inconsistent or, in any case, are too

powerful to be confronted. The emerging culture will then reflect not only the leader’s

assumptions but also the complex internal accommodations created by employees.

Therefore, even though an owning family can have some intentions of replicating the

kind of relationships they have within their family unto their organization, their initial

intention can be diluted if there are inconsistencies in what they espouse and what they

actually practice.

Summing it up. It is understandable that some scholars make the assumption that

culture in a family business is a reflection of the owning family because, when one observes

certain family businesses, the prospect may appear to be quite probable. For instance, in

Company C, the owning family considered their business as a tool that brings all of them

closer to one another. Furthermore, their employees described the level of closeness within

their organization as that of a family with really strong ties. Moreover, they attributed the

owning family as the source for all of this. In instances like these, one can draw near to the

assumption that the climate of the owning family is the basis for the culture in their

organization.

This type of assumption, however, does not thoroughly consider the complexities that

are involved. As detailed in prior arguments, family climate and organizational culture exists

in several contexts, organizational culture is composed of subcultures and it can be altered by

new members entering the organization. Also, not all families have the intention of

replicating the kind of relationships they have unto their organization. And even if they did,
 45

their initial intention can be diluted when there are inconsistencies between what they

espouse to their employees and what they actually practice. Therefore, to simply say that, in

any family business, the organizational culture is by default a reflection of the owning

family’s climate seems to be unfounded.

Theoretical and Practical Contributions

First, the findings of this study enhanced the literature where there was not much

detail about the relationship between owning families and the cultures in their organizations.

These two entities were said to resemble one another, yet the relationship between them had

not been tested. The findings of this study clarified that there is no direct relationship

between family climate and organizational culture. Hence, this offered promising

opportunities for future research, such as investigating whether there could be an indirect

relationship and, if so, what mediators and moderators could be involved.

Second, the findings of this study provided support for organizational consultants

who may feel that their usual methods of consulting are difficult to execute with family

business clients. When making decisions about modifying their methods, the knowledge that

there is no direct relationship between family climate and organizational culture can help

them sharpen their focus and not lose sight of other organizational factors that are common to

family businesses and non-family businesses.

Last but not least, the findings of this study offered owning families an insight into

the cultures in their organizations. When an owning family has the desire to have its

employees adapt certain characteristics from their family, the awareness that there is no

direct relationship between family climate and organizational culture can help them
 46

understand that there is nothing automatic about their initial intentions. Instead, these

intentions still need to be translated into their organization through daily behaviors and

formal policies that are consistent with each other.

Limitations of the Study

First, this study explicitly focused on a limited set of relevant dimensions of family

climate and organizational culture. By choosing to focus on the interpersonal relationships

within owning families and interpersonal relationships within their organizations, the study

was able to quantitatively illustrate a clear picture of whether a direct relationship exists

between two variables. However, it had limited the richness that could be elicited by

investigating other dimensions of family climate (e.g. intergenerational style and family

process) and organizational culture (e.g. involvement and adaptability). Future research may

consider including or focusing on other relevant dimensions of family climate and

organizational culture.

Second, this study explicitly selected family businesses in Cebu City, Philippines.

This allowed the study to control for the potential influence of cultural regional variables.

This choice, however, limited the ability to generalize across all family businesses. Future

research may compare family businesses from different geographic locations (e.g. between

regions of a country or between countries).

Third, this study explicitly conducted individual interviews to supplement the

quantitative research. This provided the depth of understanding needed to support the

quantitative results. On the other hand, this had limited the breadth that could be elicited

from inquiring into group phenomena in a group context. Future research may employ group
 47

interviews to surface deeper shared elements in the climates of families and cultures of

organizations.

Recommendations for Future Research

With the knowledge that there is no direct relationship between family climate and

organizational culture, is it possible to take a step back and entertain the idea that perhaps

there is an indirect relationship? Could there possibly be mediating and moderating variables

between the two main variables? If this possibility exists, it might be in the details. Future

research may consider the different perspectives that owning families have about what their

businesses are in relation to their families. For example, some see business as a means for

family members to be closer to one another, others see it as the only reason why their family

is together and some strive to make the distinction between business and family as much as

possible. These perspectives may influence how family members behave towards one another

in organizational settings, which may have an impact on the cultures in their organizations. A

further line of inquiry may reflect on the exposure of employees to the climate of the owning

family. For instance, in a small organization, possibly all employees have the experience of

working with the owning family. In a larger organization, however, perhaps only a few get

the chance to work closely with them. Sometimes, the opportunity to be exposed might not

be there at all, especially when the owning family is no longer involved in the operation and

management of the business.

 48

Conclusion

This study was designed based on notion that organizational culture in a family

business resembles the owning family – an important yet seldom tested assertion in the

family business literature. In this study, the quantitative findings revealed that there is no

direct relationship between family climate and organizational culture. Furthermore,

supplementary qualitative research offered several reasons why a direct relationship is hardly

possible. Therefore, contrary to popular claims, the findings of this study suggest that the

organizational culture in any family business is not by default a reflection of the owning

family’s climate. Scholars, consultants and family members may have to rethink their

fundamental understanding of culture in a family business, as some of them might have lost

sight of the forest for the trees. In the final analysis, a family business is still, like any other

kind of organization, shaped by numerous factors both inside and outside – with the owning

family as being just one of those factors. However, the owning family is still a factor worth

considering as other findings of this study appear to suggest that a relationship between

family climate and organizational culture might be an indirect one. Hence, the insights

gained from this study serve as an invitation to reexamine widely-held views as well as a

lighted path for future research to take.

 49

References

Alcorn, P. (1982). Success and survival in the family-owned business. New York: McGraw

Hill Book Co.

Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive

advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656-665.

Basco, R. & Rodríguez, M. (2009). Studying the family enterprise holistically evidence

for integrated family and business systems. Family Business Review, 22, 82-95.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology,

psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.

Berrone, P., Cruz, C. & Gomez-Mejia, L. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms

theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future

research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279.

Björnberg, A. & Nicholson, N. (2007). The family climate scales – Development of a new

measure for use in family business research. Family Business Review, 20, 229-246.

Chao, G., O'Leary-Kelly, A., Wolf, S., Klein, H. & Gardner, P. (1994). Organizational

socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730-

743.

Churchill, N. & Hatten, K. (1987). Non-market-based transfers of wealth and power: A

research framework for family businesses. American Journal of Small Business, 12,

53-66.

Denison, D., Lief, C. & Ward, J. (2004). Culture in family-owned enterprises: Recognizing

and leveraging unique strengths. Family Business Review, 17, 61-70.

Dyer, W. (1988). Culture and continuity in family firms. Family Business Review, 1, 37-50.
 50

Dyer, W. (1994). Potential contributions of organizational behavior to the study of family-

owned businesses. Family Business Review, 7, 109-131.

French Jr., J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies

in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modern company together?. Harvard

Business Review, 74, 133-48.

Hollander, B. & Bukowitz, W. (1990). Women, family culture, and family business. Family

Business Review, 3, 139-151.

Hollander, B. & Elman, N. (1988). Family‐owned businesses: An emerging field of

inquiry. Family Business Review, 1, 145-164.

Hoy, F. (2003). Legitimizing family business scholarship in organizational research and

education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 417-422.

Jex, S. & Britt, T. (2008). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kotter, J. & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.

Lee-Chua, Q. (1997). Successful family businesses: Dynamics of five Filipino business

families. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Sacristán Navarro, M., & Gómez Ansón, S. (2006). Family ownership, corporate governance

and firm value: Evidence from the Spanish market. Handbook of Research on Family

Business, 593-613.

Santiago, A. (2000). Succession experiences in Philippine family businesses. Family

Business Review, 13, 15-35.

 51

Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Shams, M. & Björnberg, A. (2006). Issue in family business: An international

perspective. Developments in Work and Organizational Psychology: Implications for

International Business.

Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. & Gersick, K. (2012). 25 years of family business review:

Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25,

5-15.

Stafford, K., Duncan, A., Danes, S. & Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable

family businesses. Family Business Review, 8, 197–208.

Stewart, A. & Hitt, M. (2012). Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily

business? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Family Business Review, 25,

58-86.

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business

Review, 9, 199-208.

Vallejo, M. (2011). A model to study the organizational culture of the family firm. Small

Business Economics, 36, 47-64.

Westhead, P. & Cowling, M. (1997). Performance contrasts between family and non-family

Unquoted companies in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour

& Research, 3, 30-52.

Zahra, S., Hayton, J. & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms:

A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 28, 363-381.

 52

Appendix A

Letter of Entry

University of San Carlos

Department of Psychology

December 15, 2015

Dear Sir / Miss,

I am Wesley Rasines, a graduate student at the University of San Carlos studying

Industrial/Organizational Psychology. I am currently working on my thesis entitled "Culture in a
Family Business: A Reflection of the Owning Family?". My study is seeking to find out whether, in a
family business, there is a resemblance between the owning family and the business organization they
own and manage.

In connection with this, I would like to invite your family and your business organization to
participate in my study. In return, I will be providing you with a written and oral report on the
analyzed findings which includes knowledge about the culture in your organization as well as the
potential impact your family has on that culture.

With your acceptance, data gathering will be on January 2015 and report delivery will be on February
2015. As participants, your family members will each answer a Family Climate questionnaire, while
15 of your employees will answer an Organizational Culture questionnaire. Both questionnaires are in
written English, have less than 20 items and are very easy to answer. I may also be asking one
member of your family and three of your employees to participate in individual interviews.

Please be assured that all data gathered in this study will be treated as confidential and will only be
used for academic purposes. I will be conducting the data gathering personally. As such, I have
attached a brief summary of my profile for your perusal. Thank you very much and I look forward to
your favorable response.

Sincerely yours,

Wesley Kent C. Rasines

Endorsed by:

Glenn G. Glarino, PhD

Chair
Department of Psychology
 53

Wesley Kent Chan Rasines

Mobile
0917 623 9882

Email
hello@wesleyrasines.com

Location
Cebu City, Philippines

EDUCATION

2011 – 2015 University of San Carlos

Master of Arts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology

2004 – 2008 University of San Carlos

Bachelor of Fine Arts major in Advertising (Cum Laude)

1994 – 2004 Sacred Heart School – Ateneo de Cebu

High School & Grade School

COURSEWORK

2015 IDEO.org
Design Kit: The Course for Human-Centered Design

2014 University of East Anglia

The Secret Power of Brands

WORK

Jan 2006 – Dec 2014 Freelance Graphic Designer and Art Director
Wesley Rasines
Selected Clients: The Grand Convention Center of Cebu, Prince Retail Group of Companies
(Prince Warehouse Club), ThreeSixty Pharmacy, The Islands Group (Islands Souvenirs, Islands
Banca Cruises, Islands Pasalubong), Bo’s Coffee Club – Cebu IT Park, United Architects of the
Philippines – Cebu, Kunstof uPVC Windows and Doors

Feb 2014 – Jul 2014 Brand Strategist and Consultant Trainee

Premier Family Business Consulting
Insular Life Cebu Business Centre, Cebu Business Park, Cebu City, Philippines

Jul 2008 – Mar 2010 Art Director

The Islands Group
Aldeguer Compound, Talamban, Cebu City, Philippines

To view a complete profile, please visit www.linkedin.com/in/wesleyrasines

 54

Appendix B

Family Climate Questionnaire

(Björnberg & Nicholson, 2007)

Emotional Cohesion

Strongly Strongly
In this family… Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. For many of us, our strongest
emotional ties are outside the
family.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2. The emotional bond between
us all is very strong. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3. We usually feel happy to be
with each other. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4. We miss each other when
we’re apart for a while. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
5. Family members make each
other feel secure. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6. Family members feel warmth
for each other. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7. We are not emotionally close. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8. We feel a lot of love for each
other. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 55

Cognitive Cohesion

Strongly Strongly
In this family… Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
9. We have similar views on
things ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
10. We tend to have widely
differing views on most social
issues.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
11. We have shared interest and
tastes. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12. Our attitudes and beliefs are
pretty similar. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
13. We do not have much in
common. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
14. We think alike. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
15. We have radically different
perspectives on things. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
16. Our values are very similar. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 56

Appendix C

Organizational Culture Questionnaire

(Goffee & Jones, 1996)

Sociability

Strongly Strongly
In this organization… Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. We try to make friends and
keep our relationships with one
another strong.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2. We get along with each other
very well. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3. We socialize with each other
outside the workplace. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4. We really like one another. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
5. When people leave the
organization, we stay in touch. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6. We do favors for each other
because we like one another. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7. We confide in one another
about personal matters. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 57

Solidarity

Strongly Strongly
In this organization… Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
8. We understand and share the
same business objectives. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9. Work gets done effectively and
productively. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
10. We take strong action to
address poor performance. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
11. Our collective will to succeed
is high. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12. When opportunities to gain
competitive advantage arise,
we move quickly to seize ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
them.
13. We share the same strategic
goals. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
14. We know who the competition
is. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 58

Appendix D

Modifications to the Organizational Culture Questionnaire

Sociability

Original questions
from Goffee and Jones (1996)
1. People here try to make friends and to
keep their relationships strong.
Modified questions for this study
1. We try to make friends and keep our
relationships with one another strong.

2. People here get along very well. 2. We get along with each other very well.

3. People in our group often socialize 3. We socialize with each other outside the
outside the office. workplace.

4. People here really like one another. 4. We really like one another.

5. When people leave the group, we stay in
touch.
6. People here do favors for others because
they like one another.
7. People here often confide in one another
about personal matters.
5. When people leave the organization, we
stay in touch.
6. We do favors for each other because we
like one another.
7. We confide in one another about personal
matters.
 59

Solidarity

Original questions
Modified questions for this study
from Goffee and Jones (1996)
1. Our group (organization, division, unit,
1. All of us understand and share the same
team) understands and shares the same
business objectives.
business objectives.
2. Work gets done effectively and 2. Work gets done effectively and
productively. productively.
3. Our group takes strong action to address 3. We take strong action to address poor
poor performance. performance.

4. Our collective will to win is high. 4. Our collective will to succeed is high.

5. When opportunities for competitive 5. When opportunities to gain competitive

advantage arise, we move quickly to advantage arise, we move quickly to
capitalize on them. seize them for the organization.

6. We share the same strategic goals. 6. We share the same strategic goals.

7. We know who the competition is. 7. We know who the competition is.
 60

Appendix E

Guide Questions for Family Member Interviews

1. How would you describe the relationships you have within your family?

2. How close or distant are you emotionally?

3. How similar or different are your views on things?

4. Do you see family and business as interconnected or separate?

5. Does your family affect the business? If so, how? If not, why not?

6. Are there certain aspects from your family that you try to bring into the business and

to your employees?
 61

Appendix F

Guide Questions for Employee Interviews

1. How would you describe the culture in this organization?

2. How close or distant are you among coworkers?

3. How similar or different are your views about work?

4. What do you think are factors that shape the culture in your organization?

5. Do you think the owning family has an effect on the culture?

6. If so, in what way? If not, why not?

 62

Appendix G

Sample Qualitative Thematic Analysis – Family Member

Company B - Family Member

Line
Person Line Initial Themes Main Themes
Number
How would you describe the
BF-1 Researcher relationships you have within
your family?
I think, unique man. For
example sa akong brother ug sa
akong father… lahi pud pag
describe kung… kung sa akong
father murag lahi mi ug
thinking kay sa iya mas old
school. Unya kami sa mga
Company B children mas lahi napud amo
BF-2 – Family style sa pag manage sa mga
Member tao. Kung sa iya kanang murag
military style, kanang murag
discipline gyud which is sa
kaming mga new generations
murag mas muhatag mi ug
independence sa amoang mga
employees kung unsa ilang
kuan. Kana siya.
I see. How about as a family,
BF-3 Researcher
how are you as a family?
Kami, as a family…among…
close mi pero in a sense na Business
Company B Perspective of
murag ang business ra mao’y holds the
BF-4 – Family the owning
mag glue together namo pero in family
Member family
terms of individual kuan murag together
weird man kay lahi man gud.
Ambot sa Chinese man siguro
na na pagka bring-up na
Business
Company B murag… naa juy space…di kay Perspective of
holds the
BF-5 – Family mi… di ko ka-ingon nga close the owning
family
Member mi pero in terms of sa business family
together
maka kuan ra mi.. get along
rami.
 63

How close or distant are you

BF-6 Researcher
emotionally with one another?
I think distant gyud, kung
Business
Company B emotionally lang. Pero in terms Perspective of
holds the
BF-7 – Family of terms business, the owning
family
Member magkasinabot ra mi. Magka family
together
kuan ra mi.
Do you see family and business
BF-8 Researcher as interconnected or as
separate?
I think no choice but
interconnected gyud siya kay in
terms of decision making, dili
Company B
man mi maka decide
BF-9 – Family
without…Individually…so
Member
mura gihapon siya’g ma relate
ra gihapon siya…ang business
ug ang family relationship.
Example nay problems sa
business…like di sila ganahan
sa akong decision nabuhat…
aw, ma kuan jud ma affect sad
Company B
ang family dynamics… naay
BF-10 – Family
mga mag away tungod sa
Member
business. Ingon ana. So ma-
affected gyud siya. Yes. Ang
business maka affect sa family.
Oo! And vice versa.
Are there certain aspects from
your family that you try to
BF-11 Researcher
bring into the business and to
your employees?
I think more on kanang…
values… more on kanang being
prudent sa pag-control sa
money. Unya mao sad na
Company B among i-kuan sa staff nga
Prudent use of Intentions of the
BF-12 – Family conscious sila sa among
money owning family
Member expense diri sa hotel. Mao na
siya and I think ang pinaka
kuan gyud na characteristic sa
family na kuan ma-bring sa
business.
Is there anything else aside
BF-13 Researcher
from being prudent?
 64

Company B Unsa paman ha? Unsa to?

BF-14 – Family Characteristic no sa family?
Member
Do you see anything nga you
know within your family that
BF-15 Researcher
you are also trying to bring into
the employees?
I think more on sa kanang…di
mi close pero open me with
each other sa kanang about
business. So akong employees
sad ganahan sad mi na open sad
sila namo. Na anyone nga from
Company B
the room attendant, maka duol Prudent use of Intentions of the
BF-16 – Family
rajud nako… dili kinahanglan money owning family
Member
mu-adto siya sa iyahang boss
para mu-storya… pwede ra
ingon ana. Mao na siya.
Open ra mi. Murag naay open
door policy. Maski kinsa,
maka-approach.
That ends our interview. Thank
BF-17 Researcher you very much for sharing your
time and your insights.
 65

Appendix H

Sample Qualitative Thematic Analysis – Employee

Company C – Employee 1

Line
Person Line Initial Themes Main Themes
Number
How would you describe the
CE1-1 Researcher
culture in this organization?
Culture means… so we are…
first we are… when it comes
to the management they are
family-oriented, so...God-
fearing and then we work as
team. So to achieve our goal
which is to give back to our
customers. So whatever is the
input, the output would also
reflect on us. So as a Exposure of
Company C management or as a team, we employees to the
Behaviors of the
CE1-2 – Employee work hand in hand, owning family owning family
1 coordinate with each other. climate
So if ever there are problems,
we have to...ano lang...to
consult one another.

Sa management side…
they’re very...what’s this?
God-fearing and then they are
very serious about the job and
we also have seen kanang we
are not…what’s this?
They don’t see us as an
employee but we are part of
the family. So murag close
jud kaayo ba. So we feel nga, Exposure of
Company C we feel at home. So we are employees to the
Behaviors of the
CE1-3 – Employee open to each other so kung owning family owning family
1 naay problema, so we are climate
open to siguro to discuss to
the management. At least the
management will know kung
unsa sad amo mga
 66

complaints, mga suggestions,

di ba? If ever there mga
feedback, positive or negative
at least, we’re aware so it will
be corrected. And at the same
time or in the long run, so we
come up with the same goal
and we’re happy to have it.
What about among
CE1-4 Researcher employees? Close ba mo or
dili mo close?
Sa mga employees? Yeah,
we’re very close. It’s not
really close nga close to the
point nga mag chika-chika
mo, kanang ana-ana. Pero at
least, we know each other. So
naa mi mga acquaintances,
naa mi mga team buildings.
At least to get to know each
other ba. Especially to those
new hires, so we also have
activities na kanang we come
Company C
close together and then that’s
CE1-5 – Employee
the time also when we can
1
speak up, about what we feel
as a person and about our
work and our job. So at least,
in the team building we are
gathered by group and then
you are given a chance to
express your thoughts and
ideas, what you feel about the
company. So at least your
expectations are being met.
So that’s one thing also. We
share our thoughts and ideas.
Dire sa kaning sa amo, wala
bitaw kanang “Ah! Dili lang
ko niya kay lahi na siya.”
Company C Murag ana ba. Walay murag
CE1-6 – Employee iya-iya or ato-ato. Like that.
1 Kung sa Bohol pa, “Idja-idja.
Adjo-adjo.” We work as a
team. So dili kay “Iyaha na,
iyaha ni! Akoa ni, akoa na!”
 67

Ana bitaw? So aron to come

up harmoniously,
harmoniously we work as a
team, mao nay importante. To
reach one goal also. Mao na
siya. So wala’y kanang
murag “Aaah, di lang ko, di
lang ko ana niya kay...” You
know sa company bitaw
naa’y mga pulitika bitaw?
Murag something like that ba.
So dire, we avoid that and we
will not be doing that also
because that’s one thing man
gud na kanang makaguba
bitaw sa relationship to the
company kung naa’y mga
ingon ana bitaw. So at least
close mo, you know each
other and then you know
you’re job also, so that’s one
thing.
Is that something you’ve
CE1-7 Researcher experienced before in other
companies?
Yeah. In other companies
man gud kanang like, mao
man gud na kanang naa’y
mga kanang istorya-istorya,
unya kanang naay pundok-
pundok. Murag naay gurpo-
grupo ba...murag lahi-lahi na
bitaw? Murag lahi man gud
Company C Exposure to the
siya. Pero dire sa Retail Store Behaviors of the
CE1-8 – Employee owning family
Brand, pundok jud as one and owning family
1 climate
we work as one team in
reaching our goal as a whole.
Di gyud ma- bungkag bitaw?
“Strong family ties” kung
mao pa’y pasulti-on ba. So
bisan unsa pa. Bagyo or what,
di gyud mabungkag. Strong
gyud siya.
Company C Before man gud sa previous
CE1-9 – Employee company nako is I experience
1 that. Especially kana ilang gi-
 68

ingon nga pulitika sa job

bitaw. Bati man gud na siya.
So I don’t like that also. So
here in Retail Store Brand,
I’ve already stayed here for
almost seven years. So far, so
good. The management is
very good. So wala nako’y
masulti pa lain. Mao ra na
siya. It’s a very good
company. It’s a very good
management.
What factors shape the
CE1-10 Researcher
culture in this organization?
Yeah. Mag-start jud siya sa
management. Kung unsa ang
management, mao man sad
gud na ilang ma-tudlo sa mga Multifaceted
Company C
tawo. So kung bati ang factors affecting
CE1-11 – Employee Leadership
management, bati na jud na organizational
1
siya tanan. Mutakud-takud culture
bitaw? Just like a tree, kung
naa’y dunot dinha nga prutas,
manakod na na siya.
So it’s starts with the family
because they have a very
good family bonding, family
ties. Kung ang center...I
know and I believe that God
Company C is the center of their life. So Exposure to the
Behaviors of the
CE1-12 – Employee mao na. Diha lang nagsugod. owning family
owning family
1 So from there…from there so climate
ning gamut-gamut na siya to
the people and then mao na.
Napasunod nila og maayo ba.
So kanang strong family ties
sad na sila.
Bilib ko nila ba kay they’re
Company C very serious to their job and Exposure to the
Behaviors of the
CE1-13 – Employee they’re very well-trained. owning family
owning family
1 Very good, well-mannered climate
people.
Siguro sad because of the
Company C Exposure to the
papa and the mama so then Behaviors of the
CE1-14 – Employee owning family
the children, so the new owning family
1 climate
generations now. So nindot
 69

sila pagka-train sa ilahang

parents.
Leadership
So mao na. Murag napasunod
Exposure to Multifaceted
sad nila sa ilang mga
owning family factors affecting
empleyado. Kung unsa man
Company C climate organizational
gud sila, kung unsa ang puno-
CE1-15 – Employee culture
an, mao pud ang bunga. So
1 Employees
nindot siya. Nindot siya. The
perceiving Behaviors of the
start palang nindot siya. So
members of the owning family
mao na.
owning family
as role models
Okay, that ends our
interview. Thank you very
CE1-16 Researcher
much for sharing your time
and insights with me.
 70

Appendix I

Qualitative Data Structure

Data Subthemes Main Themes

“It is an international hotel…so naa gyud sila’y specific Industry culture

standard nga mu-follow gyud mi…”
Multifaceted
Departmental subcultures factors
“Different man ang scope sa among work…so… different
affecting
ang views sa each department.” Departmental subcultures organizational
Significant changes in
culture
organizational
“Pag-resign sa super senior, medyo na-usab… Mao na membership
ang culture karon sa office lahi na kaayo.” Departmental subcultures
Leadership
“Kung unsa ang management, mao man sad gud na ilang
ma-tudlo sa mga tawo…”
Business serves the
family’s interest
“All for the good of the family…that’s the bottom
line…Business should serve the interest of the family.” Intentions of
Prudent use of money the owning
family
“Being prudent sa pag-control sa money…mao na among
ipasunod sa staff nga conscious sila sa among expense...” Open communication

“Open mi with each other…about business. So akong Business should not be

employees sad, ganahan sad mi na open sad sila namo.” run like a family

“Business should be run like a business. There has to be a Business holds the family Perspective of
formal structure especially when the family grows.” together the owning
family

“As a family, close mi pero in a sense na murag ang

Business brings the
business ra mao’y mag glue together namo…”
family closer

“Business is not the only reason the family is together…a

tool to be this close.” Inconsistencies between
what is espoused and
what is practiced
“We have policies to follow…then someone will just cut
in with, “I don’t like this, you do this”…conflict…”
Exposure of employees Behaviors of
to the owning family the owning
“It starts with the family…from there, ning gamut-gamut climate family
siya to the people… napasunod nila sa mga empleyado”

Employees perceiving
“Because of the way he sees us…inspired him to have a family members as role
closer relationship with his own brothers and sisters…” models