See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347155856

“SEW” What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Review of Socioemotional

Wealth and a Way Forward

Article  in  Family Business Review · December 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0894486520961938

CITATIONS READS
60 158

4 authors, including:

Gabrielle Swab Erik Markin

Towson University University of Mississippi
12 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Clay Dibrell
University of Mississippi
94 PUBLICATIONS   4,151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Emerging Market Research View project

Business Education for Everyone View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Clay Dibrell on 18 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Swab, R. G., Sherlock, C., Markin, E., & Dibrell, C. (2020). “SEW” what do we know and
where do we go? A review of socioemotional wealth and a way forward. Family Business
Review, 33(4), 424-445.
‘SEW’ WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHERE DO WE GO?: A REVIEW OF
SOCIOEMOTIONAL WEALTH AND A WAY FORWARD

ABSTRACT

This analysis provides a review of family business literature concerning the application of

socioemotional wealth (SEW) and its extension through the FIBER framework. Specifically, we

answer Brigham and Payne’s (2019) call by assessing the multidimensionality of the SEW

construct, the interrelatedness of the dimensions, and its specificity to family firms. We contribute

to the literature by conducting a systematic review of the SEW literature and examining the

applications of the FIBER dimensions, noting the evolution of specific research themes. Lastly,

using necessary condition analysis, we provide four conceptual inferences regarding the

assumptions of SEW to provide a way forward.

Keywords: Socioemotional wealth, family firms, family control, FIBER dimensions, necessary
condition analysis.

1
 INTRODUCTION

The family business field has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. Scholars

attribute much of this growth to the introduction of socioemotional wealth (SEW) by Gómez-Mejía

and colleagues,1 heralding it as “one of the most important developments during this time period”

(Brigham & Payne, 2019, p. 326). Drawing from prospect and behavioral agency theories

(Wiseman & Gómez-Mejía, 1998), SEW is argued to be a unique factor differentiating family

firms (Holt, Pearson, Payne, & Sharma, 2018), as it describes the pursuit of noneconomic goals

and influences strategic decision-making with respect to the preservation or enhancement of

existing endowments (Berrone, Cruz, & Gómez-Mejía, 2012).

SEW refers to the intentional pursuit of noneconomic objectives, such as control,

transgenerational succession, social capital, emotional connection to the firm, and reputation

(Berrone et al., 2012). Thus, SEW may serve as a point of reference for decision makers (Nason,

Mazzelli, & Carney, 2019; Zellweger & Dehlen, 2012), such that principals of family businesses

may be willing to accept levels of risk that result in economic loss to prevent reducing the SEW

endowment (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). SEW has been applied to a variety of topics, including

social responsibility (Berrone, Cruz, Gómez-Mejía, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010; Van Gils, Dibrell,

Neubaum, & Craig, 2014), corporate governance decisions (Bammens, Voordeckers, & Van Gils,

2011), acquisition behavior (Gómez-Mejía, Patel, & Zellweger, 2018), CEO risk behavior

(Gómez-Mejía, Neacsu, & Martin, 2019), nonfamily employment decisions (Vandekerkhof,

Steijvers, Hendriks, & Voordeckers, 2015), and R&D investments (Gómez-Mejía, Campbell,

Martin, Hoskisson, Makri, & Sirmon, 2014). Support for SEW’s tenets abound with regard to

family business owners’ prioritization of objectives tied to SEW.

1
Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes (2007) is considered the seminal treatise
regarding SEW.

2
 Although SEW continues to permeate the family business literature, scholars have voiced

concerns about its broad application to family business topics (e.g., Chua, Chrisman, & De Massis,

2015; Newbert & Craig, 2017). In a recent editorial on SEW, Brigham and Payne (2019) call for

additional research to address the “lack of clarity on the validity of SEW as a construct” (2019, p.

326). More precisely, these authors propose multiple challenges concerning the application of

SEW including: “is the construct uni- or multi- dimensional?,” “what are the dimensions and how

are they related to the overall construct and to one another?,” and “is the construct family firm

specific?” (2019, p. 327-328). Responding to these three challenges, we examine past SEW

research through a systematic literature review to better understand how the original concept of

SEW (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007) has been captured through the FIBER framework: (F) family

control and influence; (I) identification of family members with the firm; (B) binding social ties;

(E) emotional attachment of family members; and, the (R) renewal of family bonds to the firm

through dynastic succession (Berrone et al., 2012).

Our review suggests not all SEW dimensions are the same, not all dimensions co-exist, and

there may be varying valence associated with each dimension. Therefore, we propose a shift in the

assumptions related to the SEW construct by drawing upon necessary condition analysis (Dul,

2016b). We argue the SEW dimensions vary in terms of necessity and sufficiency, based on the

notion that some dimensions must be present for an outcome (e.g., SEW endowment) to be

achieved, although these dimensions may not be sufficient for achieving the outcome (Dul, 2016a,

2016b). Whereas other dimensions serve as peripheral variables that are sufficient but not

necessary for SEW to exist. Our analysis and subsequent discussion augment the SEW literature

by emphasizing the disparate ability and willingness of the dominant family coalition to preserve

their SEW endowment (De Massis, Kotlar, Chua, & Chrisman, 2014) and leads us to derive four

3
necessary and sufficient conditional inferences in order to provide greater conceptual clarity and

to build out future research directions.

We address Brigham and Payne’s (2019) call through the following research questions: (1)

Is the SEW construct uni- or multi- dimensional? (2) What do we know about the dimensions of

SEW and how are they (a) related to the overall construct, (b) to one another, and are they (c)

substitutable? (3) Is SEW family firm specific? In answering our research questions, we contribute

to the family business domain in the following ways. First, using the FIBER framework, we review

and evaluate the broad SEW literature in family business research. Second, we identify how each

FIBER dimension relates to SEW as a multidimensional construct and also highlight the variance

and interrelatedness of each dimension. Next, based on the results of our review, we examine the

necessity and sufficiency of each dimension and provide four conditional inferences to guide the

application of SEW for future research. Third, we contribute to the SEW literature through our

application of the ability and willingness framework to derive our conditional inferences, to

account for the heterogeneity among family firms.

In the following sections, we begin our study with a brief review of SEW. We describe the

assumptions of the construct and the assumptions of each FIBER dimension. Next, we describe

the methods used for the review and report our findings. Lastly, leveraging extant research to

understand how SEW and its dimensions have been studied, we apply necessary condition analysis

to provide a critique and clarification of SEW assumptions to address our research questions and

provide directions for moving research forward.

LITERATURE REVIEW

SEW and Family Business Research

4
 All firms manage multiple objectives; however, for family-owned firms, the preservation

of nonfinancial goals is thought to be a point of departure from their nonfamily peers (Sharma,

Chrisman, & Chua, 1997; Thomsen & Pedersen, 2000). One perspective highlighting this

differentiation is the family’s motivation to preserve their SEW endowment (Berrone et al., 2012;

Gómez-Mejía, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, & Chua,

2012). As such, this affective endowment of SEW is assumed: 1) present among family business

principals when there is an increasing degree of identity overlap between the family and firm; 2)

sufficient enough to influence decision making; and, 3) utility is derived from both financial wealth

and SEW, but preference is often given to the latter (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al.,

2011).

Scholars have offered a variety of ways in which to conceptualize SEW and its dimensions

(e.g., Debicki, Kellermanns, Chrisman, Pearson, & Spencer, 2016; Jiang, Kellermanns, Munyon,

& Morris, 2018; Zellweger, 2017), but perhaps the most influential conceptualization of SEW

dimensions is Berrone and colleagues’ (2012) multidimensional FIBER construct. With over 1,500

Google Scholar citations, as of July 2020, this paper continues to be one of the most accessed SEW

articles (Brigham & Payne, 2019; Odom, Chang, Chrisman, Sharma, & Steier, 2019). The ‘F’

dimension represents the overall influence that family members exert on the organization. At its

core, this dimension represents a fundamental assumption of SEW whereby the family’s control

and influence serves as the means through which the family can preserve their SEW (Berrone et

al., 2012). The ‘I’ dimension refers to the family members’ identification with the firm (Berrone

et al., 2012) which may often be tied to the family name (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013) or

viewed as an extension of the family with both internal and external stakeholders (Vardaman &

Gondo, 2014). The third dimension, ‘B’, denotes a firm’s ‘binding’ social relationships developed

5
through kinship ties and social capital (Berrone et al., 2012). These ties include relationships not

just within the family, but also various stakeholders, such as employees that are frequently close

or become ‘family-like’ (Hauck, Suess-Reyes, Beck, Prügl, & Frank, 2016). The ‘E’ dimension

refers to the role of emotions in family businesses, which includes the affective needs for

belonging, cohesion, and security (Berrone et al., 2012). The fifth dimension, ‘R’, represents the

renewal of family bonds through transgenerational succession which reflects the family’s desire

to maintain control of the business for multiple generations as well as maintaining the family

legacy (Berrone et al., 2012; Hammond, Pearson, & Holt, 2016). The intentional commitment to

succession has been argued as the essence of family business research (Chrisman, Chua, Pearson,

& Barnett, 2012) and has been used as a criterion in defining family firms (e.g., Chua, Chrisman,

& Sharma, 1999). Together, these five dimensions emphasize the multidimensional nature of SEW

and provide the family business domain with an alternative to the “predominantly applied distal

proxies (e.g., family ownership and/or management)” that are often used to indirectly

conceptualize and measure SEW (Hauck et al., 2016, p. 134).

Recent SEW Challenges and Calls to Action

SEW motivations incorporate several differentiating priorities for a family firm, including

aspects such as family control of the firm, emotional attachments and preferences, and the

accommodation of relatives in various strategic decisions. Accordingly, issues arise in linking the

cause and effect of SEW when each of these varying and differentiating priorities for firms and

their family members are grouped under “one SEW umbrella” (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2014,

p. 714). Conversely, Martin and Gómez-Mejía (2016) suggest that some of the SEW components

of FIBER may either concurrently be positively and/or negatively related to financial performance,

as opposed to assuming an absolute value of SEW with uniform valence. Extending this logic,

6
family firms may engage through different components of SEW, creating a myriad of results in

relation to financial performance, suggesting the components of the SEW construct are

multidimensional and related, with the ability to be substituted for one another to either lessen or

strengthen the SEW endowment of the family firm to the family.

In addition to explaining the differences between family and nonfamily firms, research has

documented heterogeneity across family firms with regard to behavior and performance (Chua,

Chrisman, Steier, & Rau, 2012). Past work has highlighted sources of family firm heterogeneity,

such as firm characteristics (De Massis, Chirico, Kotler, & Naldi, 2014; Fang, Randolph, Memili,

& Chrisman, 2016), geographic location (Chang, Chrisman, Chua, & Kellermanns, 2008),

transgenerational succession intentions (Memili & Dibrell, 2019; Zellweger et al., 2012a),

generational control (Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Lester, & Cannella, 2007), family involvement in

operations (Stewart & Hitt, 2012), and whether the CEO is family or nonfamily (Lin & Hu, 2007).

In this regard, the tenets of SEW appear to have played an influential role in guiding this stream

of research (Odom et al., 2019). However, because family firm heterogeneity may be associated

with individual goals or some combination of interactive goals (Fang, Kellermanns, & Eddleston,

2019), SEW may be more poised to explain family firm heterogeneity than previously applied.

In addition to the previous issues raised, the recent editorial by Brigham and Payne (2019)

highlights numerous challenges regarding the general nature of the SEW construct. Indeed, the

authors point out a general lack of consensus regarding the construct’s definition, dimensionality,

measurement, and nomological network. Specifically, the authors call for future research to

address the dimensionality of the construct, noting that “conceptualizations of the dimensionality

of SEW may necessarily require different definitions and measurement models” (p. 328). They

also call for greater clarity regarding the dimensions of SEW and their relatedness to the overall

7
construct and each other. Lastly, the authors call for clarity regarding the appropriate level of

analysis and context specificity of SEW.

We respond to these calls by reviewing the large corpus of SEW literature and critically

assessing the details of this extant work with respect to dimensionality and conceptual context. In

summary, as our review of the literature shows, family business scholarship initially centered on

the differences between family businesses and their nonfamily counterparts. As such, specific

dimensions of the SEW concept were sufficient for comparing these theoretically distinct groups.

The SEW literature continues to evolve and is now being applied to the nuances of family

businesses, providing granular distinctions among family firms. Therefore, rough proxies (e.g.,

family ownership or management) are no longer sufficient for capturing these details. Moreover,

prior research has seemingly over-generalized the SEW construct and its multidimensional

characteristics while omitting the additive, compensatory, or disjunctive nature of the dimensions

(Debicki et al., 2016; Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2012; Kemmerer, Walter,

Kellermanns, & Narayanan, 2012). Therefore, we argue that a systematic review is needed to

further illuminate the multidimensionality of SEW and that family firm heterogeneity is better

explained by examining specific dimensions and their interrelatedness.

METHOD

Systematic Review

In order to conduct our systematic literature review of SEW studies in the family business

literature, we followed the guidelines and employed a similar approach provided by Andreini,

Bettinelli, Pedeliento, and Apa (2020) and Thorpe, Holt, Macpherson, and Pittaway (2005). Our

search was restricted to theoretical and empirical articles published only in peer-reviewed journals,

8
as they have a strong impact and are poised to contribute strongly to the family business field (Xi,

Kraus, Filser, & Kellermanns, 2015). All books, book chapters, book reviews, erratum, and

corrigenda were excluded from our search, since these may not be blind, peer reviewed.

To identify relevant articles, we employed a four-step search process. First, adhering to

journal recommendations by Debicki, Matherne, Kellermanns, and Chrisman (2009), we searched

for the following keywords among article titles, keywords, and abstracts: “family firm” OR “family

business” OR “family enterprise” OR “family control*” (Hiebl, 2013; López‐Fernández, Serrano‐

Bedia, & Pérez‐Pérez, 2016; Worek, 2017). Second, we retained all articles citing Gómez-Mejía

et al. (2007), resulting in 329 peer-reviewed articles. Third, two researchers manually reviewed

each article to verify that the content focused on (1) family business and (2) SEW topics. Articles

that did not place SEW as a primary research focus or used SEW as a platform for future research

were excluded since these publications may not make novel SEW contributions (e.g., Verbeke &

Kano, 2012; Zellweger & Sieger, 2012). The remaining articles were categorized and coded based

on the FIBER dimensions (Berrone et al., 2012), which are summarized in Table 1. Fourth, to

assess inter-rater agreement, a subsample of 50 papers were recoded and verified by two additional

researchers. The inter-rater agreement among the coders was 97.5%, which is consistent with other

family business studies (e.g., van Essen, Carney, Gedajlovic, & Heugens, 2015). Disagreements

were discussed until consensus was achieved. This systematic, four-step approach resulted in 136

articles included in our SEW review.

---------------------------------------------------------

Please Insert Table 1 Here

---------------------------------------------------------

9
 RESULTS

A preponderance of the SEW articles were published in three journals: Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice; Family Business Review, and the Journal of Family Business Strategy.

Additionally, we find six articles were published in the Strategic Management Journal, three

articles respectively in the Academy of Management Journal and Organization Science, and one

article each in the Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, and

Journal of Management. Interestingly, there have been five or fewer published articles in

entrepreneurship specific journals: Journal of Small Business Management (n=5), Small Business

Economics (n=5), Journal of Business Venturing (n=3), Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (n=2),

and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (n=1).

As illustrated in Figure 1, we find that after the Gómez-Mejía et al. (2007) article was

published, there was a slow but steady propagation of SEW research throughout the family

business literature. The publication of SEW articles reached a peak in 2014 with 27 articles

published. Although cumulative annual SEW publications are greater post 2014, there is a

diminishing trend line as annual publication levels are decreasing, which could suggest greater

expectations for SEW research by editors and reviewers (e.g., Brigham & Payne, 2019; Newbert

& Craig, 2017).

---------------------------------------------------------

Please Insert Figure 1 Here

---------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1 also illustrates the popularity of each FIBER dimension over the sampling period.

For example, ‘F’ (family control and influence) has been at the forefront of research since SEW’s

10
inception, much of which may be due to the use of agency and behavioral agency perspectives

strongly espoused in the family business literature and as such, we find a strong emphasis on the

‘F’ dimension (n =136) in each study. Similarly, ‘R’ (renewal of family bonds through dynastic

succession) appears to be one of the most stable topics in the SEW stream (n = 80), which may be

because of its complementary nature to the ‘F’ dimension. Highlighted in both Figure 1 and Table

2, the testing of the different dimensions remains unbalanced with a substantial number of studies

examining emotional attachment of family members (n = 83), but a smaller body of work using

the ‘B’ (binding social ties) (n = 41), or ‘I’ (identification of family members) dimensions (n =

54).

Through our analysis of each FIBER dimension, we additionally coded for the level of

analysis of each study in our sample. As Brigham and Payne (2019, p. 328) lament, “researchers

must first determine where the socioemotional endowment resides (e.g., the appropriate level of

analysis) to understand how decisions and/or behaviors may be influenced.” We found that all

studies in our review conceptualized SEW arguments at either the family, group, or firm level of

analysis. Past work suggests that each dimension of SEW resides at the same level of analysis,

thus overlooking potential differences between a firm level dimension (e.g., F) and an individual

level dimension (e.g., E), which may influence the SEW endowment of family firms (Jiang et al.,

2018). Due to the overwhelming presence of the family control and influence (F) dimension in the

sample, our review of the literature strongly suggests that the SEW construct is unique to family

firms. These results indicate that past research has used SEW as a family specific construct and

suggests its application towards nonfamily firms may be limited, as they lack the familial control

(i.e., ability) necessary to preserve an SEW endowment or pursue noneconomic goals.

11
 To connect the SEW literature in our sample period (i.e., pre and post Berrone et al., 2012),

and to illustrate how the FIBER dimensions of SEW are represented, we split the sample into two

time periods. Period 1 represents the sample prior to the publication of Berrone et al. (2012) where

we identified 54 articles. We then incorporated a two-year lag to account for the dispersion of the

FIBER framework across the field, since the initial citation often occurs within 2-years from

publication date (Gupta, 1997). Therefore, in Period 2, we see that a total of 82 articles were

published between 2014 and 2017 (see Table 2). This finding illustrates the growing interest in

SEW, in general, and the potential significance of the FIBER framework on the robustness and

application of SEW throughout the family business literature.

---------------------------------------------------------

Please Insert Table 2 Here

---------------------------------------------------------

As demonstrated in Table 2, our review reveals that the SEW construct has primarily been

treated, both theoretically and empirically, as a multidimensional construct. In response to

Brigham and Payne’s (2019) second challenge concerning how the SEW dimensions are related

to one another, our results indicate the dimensions are applied simultaneously and are thus additive

in nature. Specifically, we find family control and influence is present for all studies using SEW

arguments and is frequently used in conjunction with other FIBER dimensions. In other words,

dimensions of the SEW construct are frequently combined to generate arguments related to

noneconomic goals and preserving the SEW endowment of the owning family. For instance, we

find that changes in succession influence relationships among other SEW dimensions temporally,

as the emotional attachment to the firm can change over generations (e.g., Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino,

& Buchholtz, 2001; Villalonga & Amit, 2006), influence the control of the firm when evaluating

12
between internal versus external successors (e.g., Minichilli, Nordqvist, Corbetta, & Amore,

2014), or determine whether a firm trusts the family or professional business advisors most (Perry,

Ring, & Broberg, 2015). This finding would suggest that reference points by the family to the

prioritization of the respective FIBER dimensions are dynamic.

Relatedly, our review of the literature suggests that the valence of the SEW dimensions is

mixed. Indeed, extant research has conceptualized SEW as both a positive and a negative influence

on strategic decision making and related outcomes, whereby SEW can serve as both an asset and

a liability for family firms (e.g., Naldi, Cennamo, Corbetta, & Gómez-Mejía, 2013). For example,

Leitterstorf and Rau (2014) contend that SEW negatively influences IPO proceeds, as family firms

underprice their IPO in order to protect the SEW endowment of the family. Whereas specific SEW

dimensions, such as identity, motivate family firms to develop a strong and positive reputation,

indicating a positive valence (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). Additionally, recent work

advocates that different dimensions of SEW may co-exist but result in different or countervailing

influences (Hauck & Prügl, 2015; Martin & Gómez-Mejía, 2016). Particularly, Hauck and Prügl

(2015) find that some SEW dimensions contribute positively to innovation activity, whereas other

SEW dimensions act as a negative influence on the same outcome. Ultimately, the findings

regarding the influence of SEW remain mixed.

DISCUSSION

A Way Forward

Brigham and Payne (2019) call for researchers to further consider the SEW construct.

Following their guidance, we focus on the dimensionality of SEW, particularly whether SEW is

multidimensional and, if so, how the dimensions are related. Our findings indicate SEW is

13
multidimensional and supports the work of other scholars who have modeled SEW as such (e.g.,

Berrone et al., 2012; Debicki et al., 2016; Hauck et al., 2016). Similarly, we see that SEW

dimensions are interrelated and are a part of the fabric which makes family firms unique, as

families place different emphases on noneconomic goals (Chrisman et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et

al., 2007; Martin & Gómez-Mejía, 2016).

In contrast, the relationship between economic and noneconomic goals in family firms is

not overly transparent and may be rather complex (Martin & Gómez-Mejía, 2016). Recent

dialogue surrounding noneconomic goals in family firms assumes each dimension of SEW (e.g.,

F, I, B, E, and R) carries equal importance or uniform weight across family firms. Or rather, when

researching one dimension (e.g., identification with the firm or ‘I’), that the entire SEW construct

is also present, such that each of the dimensions is prevalent when discussing SEW topics. This

lack of specificity presents a concern for SEW research, as the topic is often applied in broad

strokes despite the fact that the construct includes multiple dimensions, all of which have inherent

variability (Brigham & Payne, 2019; Debicki, Van De Graaff Randolph, & Sobczak, 2017). To

achieve this way forward and gain greater specificity regarding SEW research, we propose the use

of necessary condition analysis to reconceptualize the assumptions associated with the FIBER

dimensions and the SEW construct and as such, we propose four conditional inferences.

Integrating Necessary Condition Analysis with SEW Dimensions

We propose that the dimensions of the SEW construct vary in terms of necessity and

sufficiency. As such, following the guidance of necessary condition analysis (Dul, 2016a, 2016b),

we analyze the theoretical assumptions of the SEW construct. Necessary condition analysis allows

researchers to analyze the theoretical assumptions of a construct and determine if a relation

between two variables is consistent (Dul, 2016a, 2016b; Tynan, Credé, & Harms, 2020).

14
Specifically, necessary condition analysis refers to causality statements regarding the logics of

necessary and/or sufficient determinants on various outcomes, making it a useful tool for

untangling the dimensionality of SEW and enabling us to augment our understanding of the

construct (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2016).

Unlike traditional linear data approaches, necessary condition analysis distinguishes

between necessary causes and sufficient causes, whereas the former suggests an additive causality

where several factors produce an increase in outcome (Dul, 2016a). The purpose of necessary

condition analysis is to distinguish what (if any) conditions must be present for an outcome to

happen; however, these conditions are often not sufficient in producing an outcome (Dul, 2016b).

In other words, a necessary condition represents a constraint that must occur in order for a

particular outcome to transpire but the necessary condition is not sufficient to achieve the outcome

(Dul, 2016b; Dul, van der Laan, & Kuik, 2020). This line of reasoning implies that if the necessary

condition is not present, the outcome will fail to exist. For example, an owning family may have

the necessary control in a family firm to pursue noneconomic goals, but it does not mean that they

will pursue noneconomic goals as other influences (i.e., economic goals) may also exist.

Conversely, if an owning family lacks the necessary control, it is guaranteed that they cannot

pursue particular goals, irrespective of other influences. Therefore, following the necessary

condition analysis logic, we propose that family control is a necessary but not a sufficient condition

for pursuing noneconomic goals.

Likewise, a sufficient condition guarantees an outcome will occur as it is integral in

producing the outcome (Dul, 2016b). Although necessary conditions are critical for an outcome,

sufficient conditions are the mechanism that explain the occurrence of the outcome. For instance,

a family firm may wish to engage in strategies aimed at increasing the reputation of the firm (the

15
outcome), which is predicated on the necessary condition of familial control (F), but also relies on

the family’s identity concerns (I) as a necessary condition, thus when ‘F’ and ‘I’ exist

simultaneously these two conditions are jointly sufficient to produce the desired outcome.

Necessary condition analysis and related techniques have broad applicability and are

leveraged across multiple disciplines (e.g., physics [Horodecki, Horodecki, & Horodecki, 2001];

economics [May, 1952]; psychology [Rogers, 1957]; education [Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto,

2017]; and organizational studies [Boon, Den Hartog, & Lepak, 2019; Van der Valk, Sumo, Dul,

& Schroder, 2016]). Indeed, recent work has evaluated whether entrepreneurial gestation activities

are necessary for reaching profits (Arenius, Engel, & Klyver, 2017), whether intelligence is

necessary for creativity (Karwowski, Dul, Gralewski, Jauk, Jankowska, Gajda, Chruszczewski, &

Benedek, 2016), or whether success factors are necessary at different stages of implementation of

lean practices in SME manufacturing (Knol, Slomp, Schouteten, & Lauche, 2018). Therefore, by

employing the necessary condition analysis logic outlined above we evaluate whether all FIBER

dimensions are necessary conditions for SEW to exist in family firms. In doing so, we present four

conditional inferences related to each SEW dimension.

Inferences Regarding Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for SEW in Family Firms.

Chua et al. (1999, p. 25) define family firms as, “a business governed and/or managed with the

intention to share and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by

members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially

sustainable across generations of the family or families.” This definition suggests that in order for

a family firm to exist, ‘F’ (family control) and ‘R’ (renewal of family bonds through succession)

must exist, as they are core assumptions that family firms are concerned with maintaining control

and ownership across multiple generations (Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma, 2003; Chua et al., 1999;

16
Sharma et al., 1997). On the other hand, if these components are absent, then a firm would, by

definition, be considered a nonfamily firm. Our findings support this view as the ‘F’ dimension

was present in all 136 articles in our sample. While the ‘R’ dimension was not explicitly present

in all sampled articles, we argue that the transgenerational intention is implicitly assumed to be

present in family firms but is more difficult to capture or measure than items related to familial

control.

Although family ownership is typically operationalized in definitions of family firms, these

components of involvement are not strong predictors of business intentions (Chua et al., 1999).

Further, family control is likely to vary based on the level or type of ownership held by the family

(Anderson & Reeb, 2003), which suggests that family ownership or family control alone is not

sufficient to explain family firm behavior. While the involvement or governance of family

members is a necessary condition of family firms, it fails to adequately explain the pursuit of

particular goals (i.e., economic vs. noneconomic) or the relative importance of SEW across

families (Debicki et al., 2016; Martin & Gómez-Mejía, 2016).

Similarly, Chrisman and Holt (2016) argue that although economic and noneconomic goals

are both utilities that family firms seek to attain, the differences lie in the family’s ability and

willingness to pursue such strategies. Ability refers to the discretion of the ownership to make

strategic decisions (De Massis et al., 2014b), where the family control and influence dimension

reflects this ability. Indeed, it is through family involvement in management or ownership that the

family has power and influence (i.e. the ability) to pursue noneconomic goals that may be related

to preserving the SEW endowment of the family. Similarly, the willingness component represents

the owning family’s attitudes or motivations that guide the direction of decision making (Chrisman

et al., 2012; De Massis et al., 2014b). Taken together, the ownership structure (i.e., family control)

17
positions the firm to have the ability to pursue noneconomic goals, though it does not imply that

the owning family is willing to do so (Chrisman et al., 2012). In other words, “the ability of the

dominant family coalition to pursue such wealth-producing outcomes through the discretion that

comes from ownership control, or the capability of the firm to marshal the resources needed to

achieve the desired results” (Chrisman & Holt, 2016, p. 281). For example, Berrone et al. (2010)

discuss the desire for family firms to be make environmentally sound decisions, as this behavior

is one way in which families can protect their SEW endowment. In order for the firm to make such

decisions, it requires that the family have unconstrained control over other shareholders (La Porta,

Lopez-de-Silanes, & Shleifer, 1999).

Likewise, past research may have placed an undue emphasis on the desirability of family

firms to maintain their control using SEW literature and risk aversion arguments. We agree that

family firms are concerned with the continued control over the firm, and we posit that this alone

is not sufficient to induce SEW arguments. The noneconomic goal of preserving family control is

a relevant concern, but it alone does not constitute SEW. We argue that all families seek to

maintain control and influence over their businesses because without it the family firm ceases to

exist. So, while family control is fundamental to the family firm (Chua et al., 1999) and gives

family owners the ability to pursue noneconomic goals related to preserving SEW (La Porta et al.,

1999), the family control dimension alone does not indicate that family firms exhibit the

willingness to pursue such goals (Chrisman & Holt, 2016; Chrisman et al., 2012). As such, we

propose the family control and influence, or ‘F’, dimension is a necessary but not sufficient

condition for SEW to exist in family firms.

Similarly, transgenerational aspirations, or renewal of family bonds through succession

(Berrone et al., 2012), are commonly included in the definition of family firms (Chua et al., 1999).

18
Such a notion suggests that family firms are managed in ways that support a transgenerational

outlook. As Zellweger et al. (2012a) highlight, the intention for transgenerational control is critical

in determining the salience of particular noneconomic goals. Together, the renewal of family bonds

through succession (R) and family control and influence (F) are complementary explanations for

firm behavior, as the former exists to preserve the latter and the latter cannot endure without the

former (Zellweger et al., 2012a). Further, as Chrisman et al. (2012) explain, it is through the

interaction of transgenerational control and family commitment that ultimately impacts the goals

the family pursues, suggesting that noneconomic goals are a reflection of the values, intentions,

and attitudes of the owning family. “For family-owned firms, preserving the family’s

socioemotional wealth, which is inextricably tied to the organization, represents a key goal in and

of itself. In turn, achieving this goal requires continued family control of the firm.” (Gómez-Mejía

et al., 2007, p. 108). Therefore, we propose that the renewal of family bonds is a necessary but not

sufficient condition for SEW to exist in family firms. As such, both family control and renewal of

family bonds dimensions are necessary for SEW to exist. Our first two inferences are summarized

as follows:

1) Family control and influence is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition

for SEW to exist in family firms.

2) Renewal of family bonds through dynastic succession is a necessary condition but not

a sufficient condition for SEW to exist in family firms.

Gómez-Mejía et al. (2007) hypothesize that in contrast to nonfamily firms, family firms

are more concerned with maintaining control of the firm. This initial hypothesis was fundamental

in establishing the core differences between family and nonfamily firms by introducing new

19
perspectives on risk aversion and strategic decision making. Thus, we agree, that when compared

to nonfamily firms, family control is a relevant concern and succession is the means through

which the owning family can sustain their control for multiple generations. However, as family

business and SEW literatures have progressed since 2007, the focus has shifted toward

arguments concerning heterogeneity across family firms, since there is a large variance of the

goals and aspirations among families (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Dibrell & Memili, 2019). So,

while the ‘F’ and ‘R’ dimensions provide the early groundwork for researchers to examine

differences between family and nonfamily firms, the field has since shifted to examine other

criteria on which family firms differ.

The identity (I), binding ties (B), and emotional attachment (E) dimensions are often used

to describe both internal and external motivations related to noneconomic goals. Our review

illustrates that these three dimensions of SEW can exist independently of one another (e.g., Debicki

et al., 2016) but also complement each other to explain SEW and the strategic decision making of

family firms (e.g., Berrone et al., 2010; Boers, Ljungkvist, Brunninge, & Nordqvist, 2017). For

instance, Berrone et al. (2012) suggest the emotional attachment and identification of family

members are likely to vary with changes in ownership. This suggests that the emotional and other

dimensions are dependent on ‘F’ and further, that control is an integral or necessary component

because it enables family members to influence strategic decisions, whether they are financial or

nonfinancial in nature. Consequently, as the ‘F’ and ‘R’ dimensions together are necessary but not

sufficient to suggest that SEW exists within a family firm, we posit that the inclusion of at least

one of the other three dimensions (I, B, or E) in the SEW construct is necessary for the presence

of SEW.

20
 Although these three dimensions (i.e., I, B, and E) are widely utilized to explain topics

related to emotion (Bee & Neubaum, 2014), social ties within communities (Zellweger,

Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Memili, 2012), firm identity (Akhter, Sieger, & Chirico, 2016), and

nonfamily employee relations (Pittino, Visintin, Lenger, & Sternad, 2016), these topics and

theories are not exclusive to family firms. For instance, theories regarding identity and social ties

have been leveraged across organizational research in a variety of contexts (e.g., Dokko, Kane, &

Tortoriello, 2014). Unlike other areas of management research, the family firm context provides a

unique opportunity to expound on the emotions, identity, and social ties literatures due to the

overlap of the family and the firm as the values of the dominant coalition (e.g., the family) are

extended to the firm (Rau, Schneider-Siebke, & Günther, 2019).

As such, the ‘I’ (identity), ‘B’ (binding ties), and ‘E’ (emotional attachment) dimensions

play a crucial role in the family firm and SEW. Our research indicates that these dimensions are

pertinent to SEW but must be coupled with the ‘F’ (family control) and ‘R’ (renewal of family

bonds) dimensions. More precisely, we argue that the presence of at least one dimension (I, B, or

E) is a necessary condition for the presence of SEW in family firms. In other words, although these

three elements can co-exist in many ways, not all three dimensions (I, B, and E) need to be present

simultaneously for SEW to exist. The premise of our argument is the presence of ‘F’ and ‘R’, and

at least one of the other dimensions are necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for SEW to exist

(cf. Podsakoff et al., 2016). Our arguments are summarized in the inferences below:

3) Identification, binding social ties, or emotional attachment (or some combination of

the three) among family members is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for

SEW to exist in family firms.

21
 4) Collectively, family control and influence and renewal of family bonds through

dynastic succession in conjunction with either identification, binding social ties, or

emotional attachment (or some combination of the latter three) are necessary and

jointly sufficient conditions for SEW to exist in family firms.

Further, we contend the crux of family firm heterogeneity likely lies in the ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’

dimensions, as each represents a potentially necessary condition of SEW but may exist together

(i.e., additive and substitutable) or independently of one another. Indeed, we suggest that the

heterogeneity of family firms is likely to emerge from differences among these dimensions (Chua,

et al., 2012; Nason et al., 2019) as a multitude of contingencies or unexplored antecedents may

influence the noneconomic motives of family owners. For example, family control and concerns

for family succession manifest in every family firm. Nonetheless, the ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ dimensions

are not expected to be uniform for all family members and thus allow for discernable differences

to emerge across family firms. In this sense, when combined with both ‘F’ and ‘R’, an additive

model would suggest that if one of the dimensions (i.e., I, B, or E) is zero, the overall SEW

endowment would be reduced, but this effect can be offset by a greater presence in the other two

dimensions. In effect, a family firm with a low level of emotional attachment (E), for instance,

may be offset by higher levels of binding social ties (B). Relatedly, given that ‘I’, ‘B’, or ‘E’ is a

necessary condition for SEW in family firms, if all three dimensions are missing then SEW fails

to exist, thus signaling a lack of willingness for family members to preserve their SEW

endowment.

A Summary of the Integration of Conditional Analysis for SEW within Family Firms.

Taken together, our four conditional inferences and accompanying arguments support the

22
multidimensional perspective of the SEW construct, as illustrated in Figure 2. Extending De

Massis and colleagues (2014b)’s logic to the multidimensionality of SEW question of Brigham

and Payne (2019), we argue the family control and influence (F) dimension combined with the

renewal of family bonds (R) provide the dominant coalition the ability to pursue goals related to

preserving the SEW endowment (i.e., ability of the family firm). While these two dimensions are

directly related to SEW due to their necessary nature, as indicated by the solid line in our model

(see Figure 2), they do not indicate whether the dominant coalition will behave in this particular

nature (i.e., necessary but not sufficient for SEW). Similarly, the ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ dimensions are

necessary but not sufficient conditions of SEW and represent the willingness of the dominant

coalition to pursue SEW. Although all three dimensions may simultaneously exist in some family

firms, at least one dimension must be present to capture the willingness of the dominant coalition.

Therefore, as we propose in our inferences, both ability (represented by F and R) and willingness

(I, B, or E) are required to qualify as SEW.

---------------------------------------------------------

Please Insert Figure 2 Here

---------------------------------------------------------

Overall, our inferences add additional nuance to the SEW construct by emphasizing the

variance and the interrelatedness of each dimension. The results of our systematic review as well

as the inferences and accompanying discussion also reveal the multidimensionality of the SEW

construct. We argue the SEW construct is applicable to family business research because, as we

have discussed, the dimensions of the construct are inherently intertwined and may interact in

unique ways to form SEW and ultimately influence strategic decision making. Further, the model

depicted in Figure 2 also allows for heterogeneity arguments, as families or individual family

23
members may differ on their willingness to pursue SEW related objectives, thus leading to varying

levels of SEW importance (Debicki et al., 2016). Lastly, our discussion concerning the necessity

and sufficiency of each dimension contributes to the SEW literature by explicitly considering the

differences that lie within the construct and suggest that future research should consider these

inferences when employing SEW arguments.

Future Research in the Family Business Domain

Addressing Brigham and Payne’s Calls to Action. Throughout our review and discussion,

we tackle the challenges addressed by Brigham and Payne (2019) and partially answer their call

for additional clarification of the SEW construct. Specifically, by applying necessary condition

analysis, we answer the following research questions: (1) Is the SEW construct uni- or multi-

dimensional? (2) What do we know about the dimensions of SEW and how are they (a) related to

the overall construct, (b) to one another, and are they (c) substitutable? (3) Is SEW family firm

specific? In order for SEW literature to expand beyond its current state, we propose that researchers

apply our inferences regarding necessary and sufficient conditions of the SEW dimensions. In the

following sections, we provide avenues for future research based on the calls to action provided

by Brigham and Payne (2019).

Is the Construct Uni- or Multi-dimensional? First, Brigham and Payne (2019, p. 327) ask,

“is the construct uni- or multi- dimensional” and based on our use of necessary condition analysis

and our systematic review, we believe the SEW construct is multidimensional, and as such,

researchers need to be intentional in which dimensions they are studying. Future research needs to

be explicit on which dimensions they are referring to when referencing SEW. We propose that

rather than just simply stating “noneconomic goals” or “SEW”, family business scholars should

be more specific about whether it is, for example, an identity concern or an emotional concern,

24
rather than a vague statement regarding noneconomic topics. As we show through our critique and

way forward, not all dimensions are the same, not all dimensions co-exist, and there may be

varying valence associated with each dimension. Identifying these nuances is integral in the growth

of family business literature and particularly the SEW construct. We mirror Berrone et al.’s call

that “the SEW literature must reach beyond this oversimplification and explain the factors behind

the varying sources and degrees of SEW” (2012, p. 270). We caution against the use of archival

data or secondary proxies as alternatives for measuring all SEW dimensions as these may fail to

capture the nuances directly associated with families’ SEW endowment (e.g., emotions, identity,

and binding social ties) (Debicki et al., 2016). Indeed, the ownership and management control of

family firms can be easily captured by secondary data sources; however, other dimensions of SEW

require more defined measurement. Furthermore, as noted by Berrone et al. (2012, p. 268) “the

use of ownership as a proxy of SEW requires the strong assumption that variables have an

isomorphic behavioral and emotional counterpart”. Although we appreciate the challenges with

obtaining primary data, relying on secondary data sources and firm characteristics (e.g. firm age)

as proxies for all SEW dimensions could provide an incomplete assessment of SEW.

Moreover, based on our review of the literature and use of necessary condition analysis,

we suggest the construct is multidimensional and that the observed indicators (e.g., family control,

emotional attachment, transgenerational aspirations, etc.) form the latent variable (i.e., SEW).

Although the measurement nature of the SEW construct has yet to be concretely defined in family

business literature (Brigham & Payne, 2019; Chua et al., 2015; Hasenzagl, Hatak, & Frank, 2018),

our inferences lead us to propose that SEW may be formed by its dimensions, making a formative

measurement model more appropriate. Future research could test our assumptions and compare

25
our model’s empirical fit to other measurement conceptualizations of SEW (e.g., Hauck et al.,

2016) to reconcile misspecification issues related to the construct.

In addition, the assumption that noneconomic and economic goals are mutually exclusive

may warrant further scrutiny. Past literature has assumed that economic considerations and SEW

concerns are inversely related or that the preservation of SEW entails negative financial

implications (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Nevertheless, it may be the case that pursuing financial

goals simultaneously increase the SEW endowment of the family (Martin & Gómez-Mejía, 2016)

or that the unique family centered goals may have wide-ranging impact on a variety of outcomes,

both financial and nonfinancial in nature (Debicki et al., 2017; Holt, Pearson, Carr, & Barnett,

2017). Such considerations suggest that the multidimensionality of SEW is rather complex and

requires additional empirical examination to fully surmise the interrelatedness of each dimension

as well as how each dimension relates to the financial motives of family firms.

What Are the SEW Dimensions and How Are They Related to the Overall Construct and

to One Another? Second, Brigham and Payne (2019) ask for clarification of the dimensions and

their interrelatedness. Our use of necessary condition analysis suggests that the dimensions of

SEW are related, but each has a unique relation to the overall construct (i.e., some are necessary

while others are not). Further, our review of past SEW literature indicates that the SEW dimensions

have an additive/substitutable component and therefore future work should focus on how multiple

dimensions interact. Specifically, it appears that the dimensions of SEW may have countervailing

influences on one another, since “SEW is intangible and psychological, its influence on firm

behavior is largely a function of its importance to family members in terms of its preservation and

acquisition” (Debicki et al., 2016, p. 47). As such, the importance of different aspects of SEW may

vary widely across owning families. Or further, the relative importance of one SEW dimension

26
may outweigh other SEW concerns within a family. Consider for instance the incompatible

dimensions related to corporate political activity, whereby a family may value political

connections with local officials (i.e., binding social ties), but this may clash with the reputational

concerns (i.e., identity) related to preserving the SEW endowment of the family (Combs, Gentry,

Lux, Jaskiewicz, & Crook, 2020).

Additionally, we urge researchers to consider the family firm heterogeneity that lies in the

‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ dimensions and examine the differences that exist across family firms. Given that

literature streams related to ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ exist in the broader management literature, we call for

additional research to leverage more micro topics as this may aid in building more depth in research

areas related to identity, binding social ties, and emotional attachment within SEW. By blending

more micro topics with the ‘F’ and ‘R’ dimensions, future work may lead to additional insights

into the micro foundations of family firms (De Massis & Foss, 2018; Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017).

For example, though the ‘E’ dimension of FIBER is broadly described as emotional attachment,

there are a variety of theoretical underpinnings that could inform such a broad dimension (e.g.,

harmony, family essence, positive and negative valence, affective ties, emotional support, etc.).

Our analyses show extant research in the emotional attachment dimension relies heavily on agency

theory but utilizing theories such as attribution theory or positive and negative affect may provide

deeper insight in business families, as it pertains to their emotions. Researchers have proposed

emotional constructs specific to family business, such as emotional capital (Sharma, 2004) and

emotional returns and costs (Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008). Behavioral economics may provide

additional insights on how emotion affects rational decision-making involving desires, beliefs,

information and action (Elster, 2009) in creating irrational decision-making both at the firm and

individual business family member levels of analysis. Emotions affect both the family and the

27
firm, and as such, we propose the following research opportunities pertaining to emotions. Which

emotions positively or negatively influence SEW formation? How does the emotional attachment

underlying SEW differ between generations and family firms? How can alternative perspectives

of emotions in decision-making (Elster, 2009) (e.g., inter-relationships among emotions, desires,

beliefs, information and action) influence family dynamics and the dynamic value of SEW

endowments?

Is the SEW Construct Family Firm Specific? What is the Appropriate Level of Analysis?

Next, Brigham and Payne (2019) call for research to address the level of analysis of SEW and

whether the construct is family firm specific. Through our use of necessary condition analysis, we

show that due to the ‘F’ and ‘R’ dimensions being necessary conditions which are unique to family

firms, SEW is a family specific construct. We suggest that future research could continue to

explore the family specificity of the construct by examining changes in the SEW endowments over

the lifecycle of family firms. For instance, Chua and colleagues (2015), discuss the ebbs and flows

of resource endowments and link SEW to prospect theory. As such, SEW is considered an affective

resource endowment which accrues to the business family through the family business. The

tracking of these resource endowments in the form of inflows and outflows would be of great

interest, the extent these resource endowments change over time and generations, as well as the

motivations to maintain or exploit the SEW endowment. Nason et al. (2019) argue that SEW is

dynamic and is constantly changing as the reference points for SEW alter over time, based on the

family dynamics and form of the family business (e.g., small family firms, long-lived family

firms). In each instance, the inclusion of external and internal stakeholders will change the

reference point for the business family and their motivation to increase or decrease their SEW

endowment. Both articles propose ways in which SEW can influence goals, governance, and

28
resources. Further, these authors highlight the need for empirical studies to capture these resource

flows and reference point changes. Therefore, we encourage the inclusion of qualitative studies

over time which can adequately address the utility placed upon the SEW endowment and whether

or not this utility changes, as is proposed. Further, it would be beneficial to measure the FIBER

constructs, or other related SEW constructs, over a longitudinal period of time to assess the extent

to which a SEW endowment can be captured over time. For instance, Hammond et al. (2016)

conceptually considered the role of generational legacy orientations (biological, material, and

social) on strategic decision-making. As such, how are the changing reference points, and ebbs

and flows of SEW resources, such as legacy, affected over time and in relation to these different

orientations?

Additionally, building on the calls from Brigham and Payne (2019), we suggest future work

consider the levels of analysis within SEW research. Particularly, the dimensions may operate at

different levels of analysis. For instance, the ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ dimensions may exist at individual,

clan (group/family), or firm level, whereas the ‘F’ and ‘R’ dimensions may exist exclusively at the

firm level. We urge future research to consider the level of analysis when discussing SEW, as there

may be misalignment among the dimensions. Additional research should be considered on an

individual’s SEW endowment compared to the SEW endowment for the collective business

family. If there is a misalignment of endowments at the individual and family group level, is this

a positive or negative for the family firm? Similarly, how are these SEW motivations affected by

different generational perspectives?

Opportunities and Barriers to Applying Necessary Conditional Analyses. Necessary

condition analysis supplements traditional data analyses by identifying conditions necessary to

allow an outcome to exist, whereas traditional data focuses on single sufficient conditions that can

29
increase an outcome (Dul, 2016a). For example, traditional data may indicate that family control

is positively related to a family’s SEW endowment, but necessary condition analysis allows us to

identify the degree of necessary conditions relative to a level of an outcome. Therefore, future

research could empirically test our necessary condition statements by examining varying degrees

of family control and transgenerational aspirations that may produce varying levels of SEW. Given

that outcomes in necessary condition analysis are constrained by necessary condition(s), future

studies may wish to apply statistical significance tests on the necessary conditions (e.g., Dul et al.,

2020) outlined in our discussion to explore the extent of the constraint family control and renewal

of family bonds pose on SEW.

Relatedly, as noted, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) can also be

leveraged to identify necessary conditions and sufficient conditions as it considers a variety of

configurations that aid in producing an outcome (Dul, 2016a). This methodological approach could

identify additional peripheral variables, not included in the FIBER framework, that may not be

necessary but are sufficient for SEW to exist in family firms. To complement our analysis, we

encourage future scholars to use fsQCA to test for additional sufficient conditions when studying

the dimensionality of SEW (Dul, 2016a). Although this technique is being used by family business

scholars (e.g., Kosmidou & Ahuja, 2019; Pittino, Visintin, & Lauto, 2018; Pittino, Visintin, &

Lauto, 2020), we recommend further exploration of this analysis to better understand the SEW

assumptions. Through the employment of fsQCA, we anticipate scholars will be able to further

extend the assumptions associated with SEW and the applicability of SEW to contribute to other

theories (e.g., stewardship, transaction cost economics) in family business. For instance, the

examination of qualitative interviews by fsQCA could reveal how family business managers, who

are also family members, balance the potentially paradoxical tensions between being a steward

30
responsible for protecting and growing the family firm for future generations versus engaging in

altruistic behaviors which may economically and socially penalize the firm. How do these

paradoxical tensions affect identity, binding ties, and emotional attachment, as well as the factors

which make up of stewardship (e.g., intrinsic motivation, organizational identification, use of

personal forms of power, collectivism, involvement orientation, and low power distance) (Davis,

Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997; Neubaum, Thomas, Dibrell, & Craig, 2017). This type of

research would provide additional insights related to the dimensionality of SEW, as well as to

stewardship theory.

Practical Considerations

Our review suggests that the dimensions of SEW are additive in nature, whereby different

elements (e.g., reputation, social activities, sense of belonging) may be combined to strengthen the

SEW endowment. Family firms should be mindful of strong SEW endowments as this can alter

the risk profile and decision making of family owners. In addition, family firms should be aware

that changes in succession can influence relationships among other SEW dimensions temporally

and should therefore be cognizant of the succession process and its impact on the SEW

endowment. Further, our results indicate that the valance of SEW dimensions remains mixed,

therefore, noneconomic, and economic goals are not always trade-offs but rather can often

complement one another. As such, family owners and family firm stakeholders should be aware

that decisions related to economic goals can also reinforce noneconomic goals, and vice versa.

Additionally, our research may help to inform family firm managers regarding mechanisms

for maintaining, acquiring, or otherwise managing the SEW endowment. For example, periodic

assessments of the ‘I’, ‘B’, and ‘E’ dimensions among family members could signal potential

issues regarding succession and viability of the family firm. Family gatherings designed to build

31
emotional attachment to the firm, enable younger members to identify with the family firm (e.g.,

social legacy; cf. Hammond, et al., 2016) while strengthening social ties may be useful for

maintaining or acquiring greater levels of SEW, thus buttressing the likelihood of familial renewal

and continuity. On the other hand, understanding which dimensions are least important to current

family members may help forecast the long-term survivability of the firm, perhaps enabling

incumbent managers the opportunity to optimize the timing of an exit strategy.

Limitations

Our approach and analysis are not without limitations. First, we recognize our systematic

literature review is potentially biased based on the criteria used in our search. While we follow

previous search guidelines (e.g., Andreini et al., 2020; Thorpe et al., 2005), our review may be

limited by the years, journals, and keywords operationalized. Additionally, other literature streams

(i.e., family science or organizational behavior) may inform our knowledge on the SEW

endowment in family firms and future research should expand the topical areas to broaden the

scope of SEW. Further, we submit that impactful work is not exclusive to peer-reviewed journals

and future work may wish to expand our search to include books and book chapters (e.g., Memili

& Dibrell, 2019). Additionally, our coding and classification of SEW studies is not without

subjective bias, although our interrater agreement was 97.5%, we are cognizant that there are a

variety of ways to classify past work and may be limited by the subjectivity of our personal biases.

We encourage scholars to further evaluate and refine these aspects of this study.

Our analysis may also be limited by the use of the theoretical FIBER dimensions, as this

framework is not an exhaustive view of the SEW construct. Our review and subsequent conditional

inferences focus on the broad details of the FIBER dimensions and therefore may overlook more

in-depth variance related to the construct. Relatedly, although our choice of the FIBER framework

32
builds off relevant previous research, we understand there are a variety of other ways to examine

the dimensions of SEW. We suggest that additional studies consider other conceptualizations of

SEW, such as the SEWi scale by Debicki et al. (2016) - family prominence, continuity, and

enrichment, or the SEW categories provided by Jiang et al. (2018) - social, motivational, cognitive,

affective, and behavioral. For instance, the SEWi scale shares a variety of overlap with the FIBER

dimensions but also has discernable differences. The SEWi ‘Family Prominence’ factor captures

aspects of Berrone et al.’s (2012) ‘B’ and ‘I’ dimensions, however, the ‘Family Enrichment’ factor

represents the needs and well-being of family members, which is not captured in the Berrone et al.

(2012) conceptualization. These differences in SEW dimensions may produce other relevant

research related to the SEW endowment as well as noneconomic goals of family firms and we

propose that future research consider these alternatives in future research.

Additionally, our four conditional inferences derived using necessary condition analysis

(Dul, 2016b) have limitations related to the causal complexities of SEW in family firms. Necessary

condition analysis specifies what conditions (e.g., family control) are required for an outcome (e.g.,

SEW), but it cannot specify all determinants of sufficiency related to the outcome. There may be

an infinite amount of conditions for SEW to exist in family firms, but necessary condition analysis

is not suited to identify all configurations (Dul, Vis, & Goertz, 2018). Given the prevalence of the

FIBER framework in family business research, we chose to limit our analysis to the items captured

in the original FIBER conceptualization (see Table 1), and we are cognizant that other

configurations may exist outside our framework. Future research may wish to identify other

possible relationships in conjunction with the necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e., family

control and renewal of family bonds) we identify in our review.

33
 Lastly, the research questions of our review are largely derived from the recent editorial by

Brigham and Payne (2019), but we do not answer all of their calls to action. The scope of our

review precluded us from answering the question “is the construct dispositional or behavioral?”

(Brigham & Payne, 2019, p. 327). Extant work has expressed that SEW encompasses both

dispositional elements as well as behavioral elements, and it remains unclear which is the more

appropriate conceptualization. Therefore, we suggest that future research consider this research

question as it is fundamental to the construct development and may provide even greater clarity

on SEW theorizations.

Conclusion

Our systematic literature review examines the SEW construct and provides an in-depth

analysis of its influence throughout family business research in our attempt to partially answer the

call for additional clarification associated with SEW (e.g., Brigham & Payne, 2019). Employing

the FIBER dimensions of the SEW construct (Berrone et al., 2012), we directly assess the

multidimensionality, as well as how the individual dimensions of SEW are related to the overall

construct. Through our review, we find evidence for the additive nature of SEW while also

highlighting the heterogeneity across family firms. Additionally, we explore, based on past

scholarship, how each FIBER dimension relates to SEW as a higher order construct, which led us

to our four conditional inferences. We show that SEW exists within family firms that possess

control and influence (F), as well as renewal through dynastic succession (R), as these dimensions

must be present to be classified as a family firm; however, these conditions are not sufficient for

SEW. Indeed, we argue that at least one of the elements related to identification of family members

with the firm (I), binding social ties (B), and/or emotional attachment (E) of family members is

also necessary for SEW to exist, in the presence of (F) and (R). Taken together, these three

34
necessary conditions are jointly sufficient to qualify as SEW. We anticipate our conditional

inferences will provide more definitional clarity for the SEW construct and foster more robust

research.

35
 REFERENCES

Akhter, N., Sieger, P., & Chirico, F. (2016). If we can't have it, then no one should: Shutting
down versus selling in family business portfolios. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 10(4), 371-394.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding‐family ownership and firm performance:
evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301-1328.
Andreini, D., Bettinelli, C., Pedeliento, G., & Apa, R. (2020). How do consumers see firms’
family nature? A review of the literature. Family Business Review, 33(1), 18-37.
Arenius, P., Engel, Y., & Klyver, K. (2017). No particular action needed? A necessary condition
analysis of gestation activities and firm emergence. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, 8, 87-92.
Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately
held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business
Review, 21(2), 139-149.
Bammens, Y., Voordeckers, W., & Van Gils, A. (2011). Boards of directors in family
businesses: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 13(2), 134-152.
Bee, C., & Neubaum, D. O. (2014). The role of cognitive appraisal and emotions of family
members in the family business system. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 323-
333.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms:
Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family
Business Review, 25(3), 258-279.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional
wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms
pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82-113.
Boers, B., Ljungkvist, T., Brunninge, O., & Nordqvist, M. (2017). Going private: A
socioemotional wealth perspective on why family controlled companies decide to leave
the stock-exchange. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(2), 74-86.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Lepak, D. P. (2019). A systematic review of human resource
management systems and their measurement. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2498-2537.
Brigham, K. H., & Payne, G. T. (2019). Socioemotional Wealth (SEW): Questions on Construct
Validity. Family Business Review, 32(4), 326-329.
Chang, E. P. C., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2008). Regional Economy
as a Determinant of the Prevalence of Family Firms in the United States: A Preliminary
Report. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 559–573.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family
influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267-293.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2003). Current trends and future directions in family
business management studies: Toward a theory of the family firm. Coleman white paper
series, 4(1), 1-63.
Chrisman, J.J., & Holt, D.T. (2016), "Beyond socioemotional wealth: taking another step toward
a theory of the family firm", Management Research, 14(3), 279-287.

36
Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily
firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(4), 976-997.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & De Massis, A. (2015). A closer look at socioemotional wealth: Its
flows, stocks, and prospects for moving forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
39(2), 173-182.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family
firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103-1113.
Combs, J. G., Gentry, R. J., Lux, S., Jaskiewicz, P., & Crook, T. R. (2020). Corporate Political
Activity and Sensitivity to Social Attacks: The Case of Family-Managed Firms. Family
Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519899578.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of
management. Academy of Management review, 22(1), 20-47.
Dibrell, C., & Memili, E. (2019). A brief history and a look to the future of family business
heterogeneity: An introduction. In The Palgrave Handbook Of Heterogeneity Among
Family Firms (pp. 1-15). Palgrave Macmillan, New York..
De Massis, A., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Advancing Family Business Research: The Promise of
Microfoundations. Family Business Review, 31(4), 386–396.
De Massis, A., Chirico, F., Kotlar, J., & Naldi, L. (2014a). The temporal evolution of
proactiveness in family firms: The horizontal S-curve hypothesis. Family Business
Review, 27(1), 35-50.
De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014b). Ability and willingness as
sufficiency conditions for family‐oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory
and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 344-364.
Debicki, B. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., Pearson, A. W., & Spencer, B. A. (2016).
Development of a socioemotional wealth importance (SEWi) scale for family firm
research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(1), 47-57.
Debicki, B. J., Matherne III, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Family
business research in the new millennium: An overview of the who, the where, the what,
and the why. Family Business Review, 22(2), 151-166.
Debicki, B. J., Van de Graaff Randolph, R., & Sobczak, M. (2017). Socioemotional Wealth and
Family Firm Performance: A Stakeholder Approach. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 29(1), 81-111.
Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-
family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories.
Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337-360.
Dokko, G., Kane, A. A., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). One of us or one of my friends: How social
identity and tie strength shape the creative generativity of boundary-spanning ties.
Organization Studies, 35(5), 703-726.
Dul, J. (2016a). Identifying single necessary conditions with NCA and fsQCA. Journal of
Business Research, 69(4), 1516-1523.
Dul, J. (2016b). Necessary condition analysis (NCA) logic and methodology of “necessary but
not sufficient” causality. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 10-52.

37
Dul, J., van der Laan, E., & Kuik, R. (2020). A statistical significance test for Necessary
Condition Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 385-395.
Dul, J., Vis, B., & Goertz, G. (2018). Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) does exactly what it
should do when applied properly: a reply to a comment on NCA. Sociological Methods &
Research, 0049124118799383.
Elster, J. (2009). Interpretation and Rational Choice. Rationality and Society, 21(1), 5–33.
Fang H.., Kellermanns F.W., & Eddleston K.A. (2019) Empirical Modeling in Testing for
Family Firm Heterogeneity. In: Memili E., Dibrell C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of
heterogeneity among family firms (pp. 69-85). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Fang, H. “Chevy,” Randolph, R. V. D. G., Memili, E., & Chrisman, J. J. (2016). Does Size
Matter? The Moderating Effects of Firm Size on the Employment of Nonfamily
Managers in Privately Held Family SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(5),
1017–1039.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G.
(2014). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D
investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
38(6), 1351–1374.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties:
Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals,
5(1), 653-707.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J.
(2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence
from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106-137.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Neacsu, I., & Martin, G. (2019). CEO risk-taking and socioemotional
wealth: The behavioral agency model, family control, and CEO option wealth. Journal of
Management, 45(4), 1713-1738.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Patel, P. C., & Zellweger, T. M. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma:
Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of
Management, 44(4), 1369-1397.
Gupta, U. G. (1997). Using citation analysis to explore the intellectual base, knowledge
dissemination, and research impact of Interfaces (1970–1992). Interfaces, 27(2), 85-101.
Hammond, N. L., Pearson, A. W., & Holt, D. T. (2016). The quagmire of legacy in family firms:
Definition and implications of family and family firm legacy orientations.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(6), 1209-1231.
Hasenzagl, R., Hatak, I., & Frank, H. (2018). Problematizing socioemotional wealth in family
firms: a systems-theoretical reframing. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(1-
2), 199-223.
Hauck, J., & Prügl, R. (2015). Innovation activities during intra-family leadership succession in
family firms: An empirical study from a socioemotional wealth perspective. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 6(2), 104-118.
Hauck, J., Suess-Reyes, J., Beck, S., Prügl, R., & Frank, H. (2016). Measuring socioemotional
wealth in family-owned and-managed firms: A validation and short form of the FIBER
Scale. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 133-148.

38
Hiebl, M. R. (2013). Risk aversion in family firms: what do we really know? The Journal of Risk
Finance, 14(1), 49-70.
Holt, D. T., Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Barnett, T. (2017). Family Firm(s) Outcomes Model:
Structuring Financial and Nonfinancial Outcomes Across the Family and Firm. Family
Business Review, 30(2), 182–202.
Holt, D. T., Pearson, A. W., Payne, G. T., & Sharma, P. (2018). Family business research as a
boundary spanning platform. Family Business Review, 31(1), 14-31.
Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., & Horodecki, R. (2001). Separability of n-particle mixed states:
necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps. Physics Letters A, 283(1-2),
1-7.
Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2017). Addressing the Elephant in the Room: Disentangling
Family Heterogeneity to Advance Family Business Research. Family Business
Review, 30(2), 111–118.
Jiang, D. S., Kellermanns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., & Morris, M. L. (2018). More than meets the
eye: A review and future directions for the social psychology of socioemotional wealth.
Family Business Review, 31(1), 125-157.
Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D. M., Gajda, A., Chruszczewski,
M.H., & Benedek, M. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary
condition analysis. Intelligence, 57, 105-117.
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. (2012). Article commentary:
Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark
side. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1175-1182.
Kemmerer, B., Walter, J., Kellermanns, F. W., & Narayanan, V. K. (2012). A judgment-analysis
perspective on entrepreneurs' resource evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 65(8),
1102-1108.
Knol, W. H., Slomp, J., Schouteten, R. L., & Lauche, K. (2018). Implementing lean practices in
manufacturing SMEs: testing ‘critical success factors’ using Necessary Condition
Analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 56(11), 3955-3973.
Kosmidou, V., & Ahuja, M. K. (2019). A configurational approach to family firm innovation.
Family Business Review, 32(2), 154-173.
La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the
world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471-517.
Leitterstorf, M. P., & Rau, S. B. (2014). Socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing of family
firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 751-760.
Lin, S. H., & Hu, S. Y. (2007). A family member or professional management? The choice of a
CEO and its impact on performance. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 15(6), 1348-1362.
López‐Fernández, M. C., Serrano‐Bedia, A. M., & Pérez‐Pérez, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship and
family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small
Business Management, 54(2), 622-639.
Martin, G., & Gómez-Mejía, L.R. (2016), "The relationship between socioemotional and
financial wealth: Re-visiting family firm decision making", Management Research,
14(3), 215-233.
May, K. O. (1952). A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority
decision. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 680-684.

39
Memili, E., & Dibrell, C. (Eds.). (2019). The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity Among
Family Firms. Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, D., & Le Breton–Miller, I. (2014). Deconstructing socioemotional wealth.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4), 713-720.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (2007). Are family firms
really superior performers?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5), 829-858.
Minichilli, A., Nordqvist, M., Corbetta, G., & Amore, M. D. (2014). CEO succession
mechanisms, organizational context, and performance: A socio‐emotional wealth
perspective on family‐controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 51(7), 1153-
1179.
Naldi, L., Cennamo, C., Corbetta, G., & Gómez-Mejía, L.R. (2013). Preserving socioemotional
wealth in family firms: Asset or liability? The moderating role of business
context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1341-1360.
Nason, R. S., Mazzelli, A., & Carney, M. (2019). The ties that unbind: Socialization and
business-owning family reference point shift. Academy of Management Review, 44(4),
846-870.
Neubaum, D. O., Thomas, C. H., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. B. (2017). Stewardship climate scale:
An assessment of reliability and validity. Family Business Review, 30(1), 37-60.
Newbert, S., & Craig, J. B. (2017). Moving beyond socioemotional wealth: Toward a normative
theory of decision making in family business. Family Business Review, 30(4), 339-346.
Odom, D. L., Chang, E. P., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., & Steier, L. (2019). The most influential
family business articles from 2006 to 2013 using five theoretical perspectives. In: Memili
E., Dibrell C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of heterogeneity among family firms (pp. 41-
67). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Perry, J. T., Ring, J. K., & Broberg, J. C. (2015). Which type of advisors do family businesses
trust most? An exploratory application of socioemotional selectivity theory. Family
Business Review, 28(3), 211-226.
Pittino, D., Visintin, F., & Lauto, G. (2018). Fly away from the nest? A configurational analysis
of family embeddedness and individual attributes in the entrepreneurial entry decision by
next-generation members. Family Business Review, 31(3), 271-294.
Pittino, D., Visintin, F., & Lauto, G. (2020). The fsQCA method in family business research.
In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Family Business. Edward Elgar
Publishing: 304-320.
Pittino, D., Visintin, F., Lenger, T., & Sternad, D. (2016). Are high performance work practices
really necessary in family SMEs? An analysis of the impact on employee retention.
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(2), 75-89.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating
better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences.
Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159-203.
Rau, S. B., Schneider-Siebke, V., & Günther, C. (2019). Family Firm Values Explaining Family
Firm Heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 32(2), 195–215.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., Dino, R. N., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2001). Agency relationships
in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99-116.

40
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and
directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1-36.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management of the family business:
Past research and future challenges. Family Business Review, 10(1), 1-35.
Stewart, A., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily
business? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Family Business Review, 25(1),
58-86.
Thomsen, S., & Pedersen, T. (2000). Ownership structure and economic performance in the
largest European companies. Strategic Management Journal, 21(6), 689-705.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and
medium‐sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(4), 257-281.
Tynan, M. C., Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2020). Are individual characteristics and behaviors
necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions for academic success?: A demonstration of Dul's
(2016) necessary condition analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 77, 101815.
Van der Valk, W., Sumo, R., Dul, J., & Schroeder, R. G. (2016). When are contracts and trust
necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition
analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(4), 266-277.
Van Gils, A., Dibrell, C., Neubaum, D.O., & Craig, J.B. (2014) ‘Social issues in the family
enterprise’, Family Business Review, 27(3), 193–205.
van Essen, M., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. P. (2015). How does family control
influence firm strategy and performance? A meta‐analysis of US publicly listed
firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(1), 3-24.
Vandekerkhof, P., Steijvers, T., Hendriks, W., & Voordeckers, W. (2015). The effect of
organizational characteristics on the appointment of nonfamily managers in private
family firms: The moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Family Business Review,
28(2), 104-122.
Vardaman, J. M., & Gondo, M. B. (2014). Socioemotional wealth conflict in family firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1317-1322.
Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2012). The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm:
Family–based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 36(6), 1183-1205.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect
firm value?. Journal of financial Economics, 80(2), 385-417.
Wiseman, R. M., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk
taking. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133-153.
Worek, M. (2017). Mergers and acquisitions in family businesses: current literature and future
insights. Journal of Family Business Management, 7(2), 177-206.
Xi, J. M., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Mapping the field of family
business research: past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 11(1), 113-132.
Zellweger, T.M. (2017). Managing the family business: Theory and practice. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Zellweger, T. M., & Dehlen, T. (2012). Value is in the eye of the owner: Affect infusion and
socioemotional wealth among family firm owners. Family Business Review, 25(3), 280-
297.

41
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012a). Family control
and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for
transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851-868.
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012b). Building a
family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 3(4), 239-250.
Zellweger, T.M, & Sieger, P. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms.
Small Business Economics, 38(1), 67-84.

42
 Table 1. FIBER Dimension Conceptualizations and Uses

Primary Theories and

Dimension Conceptualizations (Based on Berrone et al., 2012) Example Uses
Frameworks used

▪The majority of the shares in my family business are owned by family members
agency; behavioral agency; identity; ▪Has influence and discretion of the family on the firm’s strategic decision making (Blanco-
▪Family members exert control over the company's strategic decisions
Family institutional; planned behavior; Mazagatos et al., 2016; Feldman et al., 2016; Patel & Cooper, 2014)
▪Most executive positions are occupied by family members
(F) Control resource-based view; social capital; ▪Consequences of control, such as fewer professional managers at the top (Cruz et al., 2010),
▪Nonfamily managers and directors are named by family members
& Influence social exchange; social identity; decreased technology advancements (Chua et al., 2015), or less innovation (Gómez-Mejía et
▪The board of directors is mainly composed of family members
stewardship; upper echelon al., 2014)
▪Preservation of family control and independence are important goals for the family business

▪Family members have a strong sense of belonging to the business

▪Influences internal processes such as the quality of service and products provided (Carrigan
▪Family members feel that the business's success is their own success
agency, identity; organizational & Buckley, 2008; Teal et al., 2003) and employee attitudes (Berrone et al., 2012)
▪Family business has a great deal of personal meaning for family members
(I) Identity identity; social identity; ▪Stronger identification with the firm is thought to increase family member sensitivity to their
▪Being a member of the family business helps define who we are
stakeholder; stewardship projected external image (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011), which leads to greater concern for
▪Family members are proud to tell other that we are part of the family business
ensuring a positive image and reputation (Sharma & Manikutty, 2005)
▪Customers often associate the family name with the family business's products and services

▪Very active in promoting social activities in the community ▪Regardless of their motivation behind their community involvement (e.g., altruism, enjoyment,
agency; embeddedness; resource-
▪Nonfamily employees are treated as part of the family recognition) (Schulze et al., 2003), these ties are often extended to a variety of constituents
Binding of based view; social capital;
(B) ▪Contractual relationships are mainly based on trust and norms of reciprocity (Miller et al., 2009)
Social Ties stakeholder; stewardship; upper
▪Building strong relationships with other institutions (gov't, professional associations, etc.) ▪Can have positive outcomes, such as family commitment leading to a positive experience with
echelon
▪Contracts with suppliers are based on enduring long-term relationships debt suppliers (Koropp et al., 2013)

▪Emotions and sentiments affect decision making

▪Blurs the boundaries between family and business as economic downturns, illness, divorce,
▪Protecting the welfare of family members is important
affect; agency; behavioral; resource- succession conflict, death, and failure can greatly impact decision-making processes and the
Emotional ▪Strong emotional bonds between family members
(E) based view; social identity; setting of future goals (Dunn, 1999; Gersick et al., 1997; Shepherd et al., 2009)
Attachment ▪Affective considerations are often as important as economic considerations
stakeholder; stewardship ▪Family members’ satisfaction with the firm is the most appropriate performance measure
▪Strong emotional ties help maintain positive self-concept
(Mahto et al, 2010)
▪Family members feel warmth for each other

▪Continuing family legacy and tradition ▪Explain topics surrounding transgenerational control intentions and succession alternatives
Renewal of
▪Long-term investment focus agency; long-term orientation; social (Björnberg & Nicholson, 2012; Strike et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012)
(R) Family
▪Unlikely to consider selling the business identity; stakeholder; stewardship ▪Intra-family succession opportunities creates both positive and negative influences on
Bonds
▪Successful transfer to the next generation is an important goal for family members innovation activities (Hauck & Prügl, 2015)

43
Table 2. FIBER Classification of SEW Peer-Reviewed Articles (2008-2017)2

Year F I B E R
Period 1
2008-2013 54 21 19 35 31
% of SEW
Dimensions
Studied
2008-2013 100.00 38.89 35.19 64.81 57.41
Period 2
2014-2017 82 33 22 48 49
% of SEW
Dimensions
Studied
2014-2017 100.00 40.24 26.83 58.54 59.76
Cumulative
2008-2017 136 54 41 83 80
% of SEW
Dimensions
Studied
2008-2017 100.00 39.71 30.15 61.03 58.82

2
The coding of each category is not mutually exclusive, meaning that one article may be coded for multiple
dimensions.

44
Figure 1. Yearly Number of Published SEW Articles by Topic

45
 Figure 2. Four Conditional Inferences Related to SEW

46

View publication stats