|
|
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY BUSINESS |
|
Leadership in the family business in relation to the desirable attributes for the successor: Evidence from Mexico
Said Arath Corrales Villegas a, Sergio Ochoa Jiménez a,*, Carlos Armando Jacobo Hernández a
a Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Mexico
Received 16 August 2018; accepted 12 December 2018
JEL CLASSIFICATION
M14; M2;L1;L2
KEYWORDS
Transgenerational Succession; Family Firm; Company Mortality; Family.
Abstract In order to survive, family businesses must put in place strategies to achieve some continuity; therefore, the designation and legitimation of leadership, as well as the desirable attributes for the successor, emerge as the main strategies to develop. The objective of the present study is to analyze the types of leadership and the chosen desirable attributes for the succession process / successor. In order to achieve it, 144 questionnaires to executives and employees from tourist organizations of service, trade and industry were collected in the northwestern region of Mexico. It was based on a Likert scale type (1 to 5), including sections about leadership (constituted by five dimensions) and the desirable attributes of the successor (constituted by two dimensions). The main findings emphasize the leadership, within the family enterprise before, during and after the succession process, present a constant of importance in the presence of the different types: expert, referential and laissez faire/mission and the administrative attributes during the first four generations. On the other hand, the participatory leadership decreases and the autocratic increases. To enrich the subject of study, it is recommended to include different aspects related to the Latin American context and the generation of inferences with new elements, such as motivational profiles, labor stressors, interactions of Latino families, among others. All of this in order to try to map the family business.
CÓDIGOS JEL
M14; M2;L1;L2
PALABRAS CLAVE
Sucesión Transgeneracional; Firma Familiar; Mortandad de la Empresa; Familia.
El liderazgo en la empresa familiar en relación a los atributos deseables para el sucesor: Evidencia de México
Resumen Las empresas familiares para la supervivencia deben generar estrategias para lograr cierta continuidad, por lo cual la designación y legitimación del liderazgo, así como los atributos deseables para el sucesor surgen como las principales a desarrollar. El objetivo del presente es analizar los tipos de liderazgo y atributos deseables elegidos para el proceso de sucesión. Para dar cuenta de lo anterior, se aplicaron 144 cuestionarios a directivos y empleados de organizaciones turísticas de servicio, comercio e industria de la región noroeste de México, con opción de respuesta en escala de Likert 1 a 5, tanto en la sección de liderazgo (conformado por cinco dimensiones) como en la de atributos deseables del sucesor (conformado por dos dimensiones). Los principales hallazgos destacan que el liderazgo dentro de la empresa familiar antes, durante y posterior al proceso de sucesión, en las primeras cuatro generaciones, presentan una constante de importancia en la presencia de los tipos: experto, referencial y laissez faire/misión, así como de los atributos administrativos, mientras que el liderazgo participativo disminuye y el autocrático aumenta, así como los atributos familiares también lo hacen conformen pasan de una etapa sucesoria a otra. Para enriquecer la temática de estudio se recomienda la inclusión de aspectos que incluyan el contexto latinoamericano y generar inferencias con nuevos elementos como los perfiles motivacionales, estresores laborales, interacciones de las familias latinas, entre otros, para intentar cartografiar la empresa familiar.
Introduction
The family business (FB) is a type of organization that is considered to be of vital importance to the world economy (Cabrera, 1998; Barbeito-Roibal, Guillén, Martínez and Domínguez, 2004; Bawa, 2006; Pietrobelli, Porta and Moori-Koening, 2005; Mahto, Davis and Khanin, 2014), among which the companies in Mexico are the focal point in the present document/ study, mainly those located in the north-west. According to Tagiuri and Davis (1982), and Alcorn (1982), the FB is constituted by two or more members belonging to a family that directly influence the direction of it; in addition, the family members must be involved in both control and operational activities (Belausteguigoitia, 2004), to have the total or majority control, and to consider the permanence of the organization in activities through the following generations of the same family (Vallejo, 2005; Cheng, 2014).
The FB can be presented in any company stratification (De Zuani, 2003). Commonly, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI, 2009) catalogs the FB as a microenterprise due to the limited number of relatives or external workers; nevertheless, INEGI does not have a database and/or directory of the total amount of FB because they lack an instrument that accurately detects these within their census. Even so, an increase in the economy is estimated, which positions the FB as the first jobs generator and source of income of mexican families, providing stability not only to their owners, but also to their employees (Zerón, Quevedo and Mendoza, 2013). This, as a derivative of the total number of companies in the country, where 66% of them are created with a family structure and in the state of Sonora is represented the 86% (Red Pymes CUMEX, 2010).
For its part, the FB is governed by a principle that visualizes emotional richness first and economic interests second (Vazquez, 2016; Barros, Hernan-Gómez and Martín-Cruz, 2017; Duréndez, Ruíz-Palomo, García-Pérez-de-Lema and Diéguez-Soto, 2010; Martínez-Romero and Rojo-Ramírez, 2016). As for its financial structure, Esparza, García, Dúrendez and Guillamón (2010) affirm that it acts as a fundamental pillar of these because it is ruled by its own capital, in which external investors are excluded from the family in order to achieve business independence. According to Quintana (2005), it is limited to regional and/or local markets. Therefore, the FB must generate medium-and long-term strategies to ensure their survival, where through these, the succession process emerges.
This process should contemplate the next family generation as the owner of the organization through the mentioned phase; it will ensure this objective (Arenas and Rico, 2014). This stage can be addressed ex ante, during or ex post (Basco and Calabrò, 2016); the first form is conformed by the inquiry of the contemplation and nomination of the successors, the planning, and the process preparation before it happens; the second one consists in a longitudinal way at the same time that it happens; and the last form, once it finished.
The succession process can mean/ determine the success or failure of the FB since it affects the business and the family. It can be determined by the result of an interest conflict; changes related with the organization, norms and business ideologies; confrontation of emotional problems; leadership conflicts with their respective legitimacy; and juxtaposition of the property-family subsystems.
Finally, the FB has a mortality rate so high that approximately only 10% successfully arrive to the third generation (KPMG, 2010). This, could be the origin of this figure is in structural changes, environment, size, age, turn, position of the owner and its respective influence on the potential successors, resistance when delegating power, nepotism, influence of the family, and its little adaptability for new leaders, as well as the leadership exerted within it (Araya, 2013).
Within the wide variety of studies about the FB (Brenes, Madrigal and Molina-Navarro, 2006; Brenes, Madrigal and Requena, 2011; Miller, Steier and Le Breton-Miller, 2003), it was not possible to detect investigations about the succession process a priori, as well as the types of leadership used in establishments that last more than the second generation for their comparison, considering that this stage is the responsible for the family prolongation in the organization. Likewise, there is also no knowledge of the preference and the viability of a leadership typology in the FB with experience in the succession process; therefore, the research about this topic provides valuable information. To add value, it must be done through an analysis about how opposite systems (family-business) converge in balance for the wellbeing of the organization. Similarly, documenting the obtained results provides a tool that can be used by different organizations. This study focuses on deepening it utilizing the following research question: what are the family and/or professional attributes to choose a successor according to the type of leadership in family businesses?
Family business
The definition of FB differs from one author to another; however, a compilation of the main characteristics for its identification can be made: two or more members of a family that influence both in the decision making and the operational activities, having the total or the majority control of the organization and the need for a second generation (Tagiuri and Davis, 1982; Belausteguigoitia, 2004; Dyer and Dyer, 2009; Pounder, 2015; Seaman, 2015; Burch, Batchelor, Burch and Heller, 2015)
This leads to the creation of a concept that will be used in the present research: every organization, owned by two or more individuals belonging to a family, either by blood or political ties, as well as those who are involved in the decision making and the operational activities, and contemplating the next family generation as the owner, through a succession process.
An eventual and inevitable problem of the FB is succession. The managers must confront the juxtaposition conflicts of the family-enterprise subsystems, emotional problems and legitimacy of the leadership (Barroso, 2013). If the aforementioned links are not achieved, it will damage the post-succession stage, in which the successor seeks to meet expectations. Among the main triggers/ causes of this situation is the difficult relationship between the predecessor and successor, and feelings of indispensability by members of the family (Filser, Kraus and Märk, 2013).
Finally, Boyd, Royer, Pei and Zhang (2015) assure that the succession process is a transfer of knowledge that will be understood as an intangible asset and considered as a competitive advantage to other organizations. It is transferred from one generation to another, where the greatest power is executed by the highest-ranking member within the company, and decides whether to share it or execute it. If the manager decides to share it, he or she can do it with a lower-ranking member to prolong his/her work on behalf of his/her family.
Succession process
Authors such as Osborn, Jauch, Martin and Glueck (1981), consider the process as a stage that happens when the executive director of an organization is replaced. Toffler (1981) states that it is a role-performance method, in which a new element is qualified depending on the expectations that he/she inherits from the previous one. However, Kohler and Strauss (1983) present it as a very important consideration: the examination of the possible successors and organization in which it is intended to participate; an erroneous election could happen when not carrying out what is stated by the authors.
For Avloniti, Iatridou, Kaloupsis and Vozikis (2014), the succession process represents the greatest challenge for the family-structured businesses, where a member’s leadership is given to a lower-hierarchy employee and he or she must move up and take control of the company itself. For its part, an internal succession would represent the importance given to the continuity of projects and behaviors, since the following one in charge would be an already active member of the company, promoting loyalty and commitment by the organization; when the succession proceeds with an external person, it means opening up to new perspectives, fresh ideas and decisive actions that may or may not benefit the company (Lauterbach, Vu and Weisberg, 1999).
Basco and Calabrò (2016) study the FB, but from an ex-ante perspective of the succession process, which is related to the desirable attributes of the owner to his/her potential successor. Later, they exposed the complexity of the successor´s nomination, whether or not he/she is a member of the family. Considering the complexity of the company, the nomination is determined by the owner´s orientation to the future of the company; and his/her viability with the people involved, maintaining a balance between the successor and the collaborators that will interact at this stage.
Continually, the authors concluded that the owner will choose a successor to the extent that within the organization family members work, as well as their desirable attributes, how prepared to business or family factors, i.e. the elements that are considered of great importance to take into account the succession moment. Family attributes are those that are related to giving importance to the birth, age, kinship or gender of the successor; while the administrative attributes focus on the financial and marketing skills, as well as the work experience and the professional career of the successor (Basco and Calabrò, 2016).
The main contribution from Basco and Calabrò (2016) is to have carried out a study of a problem before it happens. They investigated about the elements that an owner takes into account for the nomination of possible successors; however, depending on the family influence the leader has and the values he or she possesses, whether business or family, it will determine whether the leader will elect a successor belonging to his or her strain or an outsider in order to prevail the integrity of the organization.
On the other hand, according to INEGI (2009), it is estimated that there are 5.1 million of family businesses in Mexico, and each year other 400,000 micro and small enterprises are incorporated with this structure, and about 90% of the companies that are in the Mexican Stock Exchange (BMV) belong to family groups that have control of these. KPMG (2010) establishes that family businesses, in the same way they originate, they die; this evidenced by its high mortality rate of 70% in its transfer from first to second generation, and only 10% surviving a third.
Leadership
According to Sánchez-Reyes and Barraza-Barraza (2015), the conceptualization of the leader goes back to the year 1300; in addition, leadership is utilized for political and control purposes, which in the environment they have to be developed, will be with the objective of an individual can bend the will of others for the achievement of various purposes. The authors add that leadership includes the interpersonal processes of influence, the relationship between a leader and followers, the cultural environment, the context of the situation, and the achievement of objectives (Sánches-Reyes and Barraza-Barraza, 2015). Ramírez (2013) adds that it is generated in every human activity; for others, the use of certain influences or motivators to manipulate or control the conduct of those around them for the fulfillment of their goals (Lai, Hsu and Li, 2018).
Likewise, leadership has been applied through two streams: the one that was previously mentioned; and the other one, is related to those that assume it as a tool for a good administration, considering it as a guide to carry out the mission and vision of an organization (Liphadzi, Aigbavboa and Thwala, 2017). The authors mention that a leader is one who delimits the way to follow for the remainder, affirmation that is considered correct, however, they focus on interpreting it as a positive element always oriented towards the common good of the group and/or organism in the long term in that has to be used by some kind of stimulus (Liphadzi, Aigbavboa and Thwala, 2017; Răduncan and Răduncan, 2014; Ramírez, 2013).
Based on the statement above, two assumptions can be interpreted: a) any good administration has a leader in the organization; and b) not every leader uses his or her skills for good administrative management. Currently, leadership has been approached as those skills that guide a group or organization to meet their goals; considering this, companies are looking for people with the qualities of a leader, resulting in a slight distortion of the concept. Gómez (2008) affirms this by mentioning it as the activity that has the capacity to lead the organization to achieve objectives with a proactive behavior that produces creative energies; it transforms the concept to something purely positive, leaving aside the conceptual focus that other authors handled.
Similarly, it should be determined whether the leader intends to apply his/her power to achieve organizational objectives or only personal motives that encourage him/her to mold or to the indiscriminated control of actions, both individually or in conjunction with the members of the organization. According to Sánchez-Reyes and Barraza-Barraza (2015), leadership presents certain characteristics, and is broken down into different types of applying power within a certain group.
According to the authors, the types of leadership they present are: a) authoritarian, where the leader has the control in terms of the interaction with his/her subordinates; b) democratic, the one in which the opinion of the collaborators about the improvement of the organization is considered; c) “laissez faire”, this is where the leader provides freedom to his/her collaborators through limited participation; d) transformational, which seeks to involve the worker within issues that result directly in the achievement of long-term objectives of the organization; e) distributed, similar to the democratic in the exhortation of the organization by the participation of its collaborators in the decision making process and the work together (Sánchez-Reyes and Barraza-Barraza, 2015).
The foregoing coincides with Sorenson’s classification (2000), which mentions the following types: Participatory, Autocratic, Laissez-faire/mission, Referential and Expert, where the latter is represented by the inspiration that emanates from the current leader on his/her subordinates, in a context of great dedication and extensive knowledge about the role played and scope.
The participatory leadership is the one that happened around the decision making of those who form the organization, taking into account the opinion of the collaborators in order to enrich the company. This type of leadership is very important in the FB since it creates an environment of trust when the opinion of each member is taken into consideration; hence, it increases the satisfaction and acceptance in the elections of the leader. The autocratic leadership is the complete opposite of the previous one because the decisions are made without taking anyone into account the consultation of nobody, characterized by a focused and rigid structure and performance; this situation distorts the resolution of the different problems of the family and/or company members, diminishing the commitment and the satisfaction (Sorenson, 2000).
Sorenson’s third dimension (2000) is Laissez-faire/mission, which provides freedom in the decisions ‘choice and showing that it is possible to obtain a high level of productivity from the collaborators.’ Expert and referential leadership generate a sense of commitment and satisfaction in the employees, derived from the experience and the skill that is obtained from the practice. The mission leadership is significantly linked to the employee commitment and to a low level of organization, efficiency and productivity in the family business; it is only based on the sense of business mission for motivation, being able to not function with members of the family itself.
Finally, the author concludes that the participatory leadership contributes to the success of the family business, as a result of the constant information exchange in the interaction between the leader and his/her collaborators. In addition, referential and/or expert leadership are also related to the obtained results and the staff satisfaction, both elements benefit the family business and promote a constant updating of the company, providing tools that end in greater loyalty and a broad sense of belonging of the personnel (Sorenson, 2000).
Methodology
The selected population in this research are micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) of Ciudad Obregón, located in the north-western region of Mexico and are within the tourism sector as services, trade and industry. According to the National Statistical Directory of Economic Units of INEGI (DENUE, 2017), there exists 405 organizations in the indicated areas. A response from 112 companies and 144 informants (see Table 1) was obtained, including owners, managers and operatives. Hernández-Sampieri, Fernandez and Baptista (2014) noted that when the sample is constituted of one hundred or more elements, the distribution tends to normalize and allows to carry out an analysis in the variables; therefore, by not having comcretized the desired census, the number of replies is accepted by exceeding the minimum established by the author. Ciudad Obregón was considered for its importance, since it is the second one most representative within the state of Sonora, Mexico and the principal of the southern region of the entity (Sonora Turismo, 2015; Oficina de Convenciones y Visitantes Ciudad Obregón, 2015).
|
Table 1: Establishments in the locality |
||
|
Stage |
First filter |
|
|
Census |
405 |
|
|
Companies |
112 |
|
|
Informants |
144 |
|
|
Total Companies |
112 |
|
|
Total Informants |
144 |
|
Note: Source: Own elaboration from the results provided by INEGI DENUE 2017.
The instrument is a construct, resulting from the theoretical review, which supports the operationalization of variables (see Table 2), as well as the integration of the research instrument, which is conformed by 13 free-response demographic items and 24 Likert scale type items including the leadership variables (Sorenson, 2000) and the dimensions of: i) representative leadership with five items; ii) participatory with four; iii) expert with two; iv) autocratic with two; and v) laissez faire/mission with two; and the variable of Succession (Basco and Calabrò, 2009) with two dimensions: i) family attributes, established with five affirmations and ii) competitive administrative attributes, included in 4 assumptions.
The questionnaire was asked in person and in a personal way to management and operational positions, as well as members or non-members of the family owning the companies during the field work visits that were carried out during the first three months of 2018. Next, the information was processed using a database created in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software in its 23rd version.
|
Table 2: Operationalization of the variables |
|||
|
Variable |
Dimension |
Item |
Contributing author |
|
Leadership |
Expert Leadership |
3. He/she has a wide knowledge of his/her profession. 14. He/she is an expert in his/her profession. |
Sorenson, R. L. (2000). The contribution of leadership style and practices to family and business success. Family Business Review, 13(3), 183-200. |
|
Laissez-Faire/Mission leadership |
9. Allows employees to work alone. 15. He/She conveys the meaning of the mission to the employees. |
||
|
Referential Leadership |
1. He/she is always fair with the employees. 4. Inspires loyalty. 7. He/she shows a great vision when working. 10. He/she is a role model for his/her employees. 13. He/she makes employees feel proud to work with them. |
||
|
Participatory Leadership |
2. He/she encourages employees to participate in important decisions. 5. He/she is aware of how employees think and feel. 8. He/she encourages employees to analyze when they disagree with a decision. 11. He/she helps employees with their personal problems. |
||
|
Autocratic Leadership |
6. Sometimes he/she manipulates the employees. 12. He/she is very dominant. |
||
|
Succession |
Established family attributes. |
16. Birth order of the successor. 17. Age of the successor. 18. Successor’s kinship. 19. Successor´s gender. 20. Share the company’s membership between predecessor and successor. |
Basco, R. & Calabrò, A. (2016). “Whom do I want to be the next CEO?” Desirable successor attributes in family firms |
|
Administrative competitive attributes. |
21. Financial experience and skills. 22. Marketing experience and skills. 23. Work experience in another company. 24. Career and performance of the successor. |
||
Note: Own elaboration from the literature.
Results
The collected demographic information provides sufficient data for the characterization of the company and the interviewee. The companies that decided to cooperate with the study are located in an age range between 1 and 90 years, but it highlights the large percentage that is in its first 30 years with 79.5%, while the remaining is distributed between 31 and 90. Likewise, as it progresses in the established period, less are the number of companies that continue in their fields, only 57 from the second generation, ten from the third and two from the fourth; hence, it confirms the statements of some authors that only 10% of the companies arrive to the third generation (KPMG, 2010; Araya, 2012); this in relation to the mortality of the family business.
In relation to the size and line of the business of the organizations (see Table 3), a majority is shown in those that are conformed from 11 to 50 employees and are considered small enterprises in industry and services sector with a percentage of 31.3%; followed by the small ones in commerce (25.9%) and micro (23.2%); the median ones in commerce, services and industry only represent 17.9%. Finally, the large companies represent 1.8% and belong to the commerce and service sector, in other words, approximately 80% of the organizations consulted are catalogued as SMEs.
|
Table 3: Size and Line of the business |
|||
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
Micro |
26 |
23.2 |
|
|
Small (Commerce) |
29 |
25.9 |
|
|
Small (Industry and Services) |
35 |
31.3 |
|
|
Medium (Commerce) |
13 |
11.6 |
|
|
Medium (Services) |
4 |
3.6 |
|
|
Medium (Industry) |
3 |
2.7 |
|
|
Large (Commerce and Services) |
2 |
1.8 |
|
|
Total |
112 |
100.0 |
|
In respect to the participants, 61.1% are men with the age most frequently presented being between 18 and 45 years, but with a majority of 36.1% between 26 and 35 years old; a higher education level of 62.6% and a secondary level of 30.1%; 52.8% of the participants are married (see Table 4). With regard to the preference of leadership among the organizations, there is a leaning to the perception of the types: expert, referential, mission and participative, where the maximum was 5 and the minimum was 1, with an average of p=4.52, p=4.22, p=4.14 and p=4.03, respectively; while autocratic had an average of p=2.48 (see Figure 3).
When analyzing the information with those that have not undergone the succession process, we find that: expert p=4.54, referential p=4.24, laissez faire/mission p=4.11 and participatory p=4.03; on the other hand, a very minor importance is given to autocratic p = 2.42
|
Table 4: Particular characteristics of the participant |
|||
|
Genre |
|||
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
Man |
88 |
61.1 |
|
|
Woman |
56 |
38.9 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Age |
|||
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
17 years old or less |
1 |
0.7 |
|
|
18-25 years old |
31 |
21.5 |
|
|
26-35 years old |
52 |
36.1 |
|
|
36-45 years old |
35 |
24.3 |
|
|
46 years old or more |
25 |
17.4 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Education |
|||
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
Elementary |
1 |
0.7 |
|
|
Middle School |
9 |
6.1 |
|
|
High School |
44 |
30.6 |
|
|
Bachelor´s degree |
81 |
56.3 |
|
|
Postgraduate degree |
8 |
5.6 |
|
|
Other |
1 |
0.7 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Marital Status |
|||
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
Married |
76 |
47.2 |
|
|
Single |
68 |
52.8 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
Note: Own elaboration.
In regards to the companies that are in the second generation, the predominant types are: expert p=4.44, referential p=4.18, laissez faire/mission p=4.10 and participatory p=4.07 and autocratic p=2.48. The third generation presents: expert p=4.75, referential p=4.27, laissez faire/mission p=4.45, participatory p=3.93 and autocratic p=2.65. Finally, the fourth generation exposes the following: expert p=5.00, referential p=4.30, laissez faire/mission p=4.75, participatory p=3.51 and autocratic p=3.75 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Leadership preference among generations of the family business.
Considering the contemplation of the succession process, the desirable attributes are formed by the family attributes with a mean of p=3.03, and the administrative ones with p=4.18, where, again, the maximum was 5 and the minimum 1; however, when disaggregated by generation, the first one presents the family attributes with p=3.08 and the administrative with p=4.23; in the second generation, they are presented as p=2.88 and p=4.13, respectively; the third one exposes the family values in p=3.33 and the administrative values p=4.12. Finally, in the fourth generation, family attributes are established in p=3.87 and administrative in p=4.03 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Preference of administrative and family attributes to contemplate the process of succession by generation in the family business.
Finally, each type of leadership is analyzed separately; in other words, the sample is stratified by the type of leadership/ the type of leadership stratifies the sample. The obtained results in the family attributes section are the following: referential p=2.94, participatory p=2.85, expert p=3.06, autocratic p=3.34 and laissez faire/ mission p=3.19. On the other hand, the results in the administrative attributes section are: p=4.20, p=4.17, p=4.20, p=3.89 and p=4.32, respectively to the typologies mentioned above (see Figure 3). Therefore, it is reflected predominance of the administrative attributes over the family ones; however, the latter do not disappear from the organization, they are only perceived to a lesser extent than the administrative.
Figure 3. Preference of the desirable attributes in each type of leadership.
Discussion
The companies were inclined towards the types of leadership: expert, referential and participatory; these, as these were the most viable for the FB and are mentioned by Sorenson (2000). The author mentions that the laissez faire/mission typology and the administrative attributes are non-viable for these organizations; however, contrary to what the author establishes, the type of leadership and the attributes in mention are found positive and viable for the family businesses, which could indicate reference to the administrative attributes that are focused in the fulfillment of goals and objectives; hence, the typology laissez faire/mission obtained viability.
As for the election of leadership, Soto (2015) mentions that in Latin American countries, specifically in Venezuela, the main motivating factors for achieving goals is the desire for power, filiation and achievement. On the other hand, according to Escandon-Barbosa and Hurtado-Ayala (2016), in Colombia, they are motivated by democratic liberal typologies, that is, in those that the freedom to carry out activities and the contemplation of the opinion of the family business members during the decision making are allowed; thus, it results in the generation of a viable environment for the organization development. It could contrast that the types of leadership found maintain a mixture between those considered of value to the organizations, leaving aside the autocratic character, which can be considered as a generator of conflicts between subordinates.
In the family business, the patriarchal nepotism is forcefully presented. It generates distrust in the successors, uncertainty to the members of the organization and a high degree of distrust; nevertheless, these emphasize the importance of giving interest in the group leadership, which is similar to the participatory; this, in order to encourage control, participation, integration and problem solving (Cisneros, Ramírez and Herández, 2011).
On the other hand, the typologies with the greatest presence (referential, participative and laissez faire/mission) interact with the desirable administrative attributes for the successor, but still consider the family attributes. Consequently, the dilemma of the act of the companies with a family nature is dictated since one used to think that they were oriented to the attributes of a family; however, not only is it different, but there exists a near equilibrium of the given importance to both elements, administrative and family, for the contemplation of the future successor.
In addition, Aira (2016) establishes that family businesses are entities that take advantage of the extrapolated emotional situations of the family itself, along with loyalty and commitment. Even so, there has been an increase in the training of future generations in these types of organizations, which includes academic studies, experience and skills that should be developed in order to acquire the domain of the company itself. Therefore, this inclination towards the administrative attributes over family is considered not only to contribute directly to the modernization of the company, but can even determine the balance between the family-company subsystems and avoid/ prevent the juxtapositions of these.
Finally, with regard to leadership, the increase in the perception of the leadership types among the different generations, as well as their overall analysis, alludes to a gradual variation in the perception of the leadership of the expert. From first to second generation, there is a decrease of 2.2%, but an increase from the second to the third of 6.9%, and from the third to fourth of 5.2%. As for the referential, its variation is the best of the typologies since from the first to the second generation decreases 1.4%, it increases in its transition to the third of 2.1%, and to the fourth of 0.7%. Laissez faire or mission leadership presents a negative variation of 0.25% in the first succession, but an increase in the cousins’ generation of 8.5%, and 6.74% in the grandchildren generation.
In a particular way, the participatory leadership does not reflect a positive increase after each succession process because from the first to second generation it presents an increase of 0.99%; however, in the next succession stage, it reflects a decrease of 3.44%, and in its last analyzed stage, there is another decrease of 10.5%; this supports what Sorenson (2000) mentions about the great importance of this typology because it is the indicated one to increase satisfaction and acceptance, when consulting the opinions of each member within the organizational processes. However, the opposite effect is presented in the autocratic leadership, where it formulates a significant increase as it progresses generations, i.e., from first to second generation, it causes an increase of 2.4%; but towards the third one it is 6.85%; and, finally, in the succession to the fourth generation, there is an abrupt increase of 41.50%. Therefore, the rise in the mortality rate could be due to the decreased participation and the increased autocratic characteristics.
The desirable attributes for the successor’s contemplation happens in a similar way to the types of leadership previously presented, because in the first generation there is an observed inclination for administrative attributes; but, as it progresses generationally, there is a decline in the mean of inclination for these and a rise in those focused on the family. In its first successor transition there is a perceived decrease of 2.4% and 6.5% in the administrative and family attributes, respectively; however, the situation changes dramatically when the latter increases to 15.6%, while the former continues to almost 0.3% and maintains the trend in the last transition. The family attributes increase by 19.51% and the administrative ones decrease by 2.19%, compared to their previous generation respectively.
Conclusions
The preference of the types of leadership and the desirable attributes for the election of the successor determines that organizations are presumably guided by characteristics that are caused by the fulfillment of business goals and objectives; it may be due to a preference relationship by the leadership types (expert, referential, participatory, laissez faire/mission) and the administrative attributes. Nevertheless, the family attributes resulted in a considerable average, but less than the administrative attributes; therefore, the balance of these does not consist of an equal weighting in preference of the types of leadership and the desirable attributes of the future owner.
Next, everything seems to point out that as technology and accessibility to information advances, a trend is generated in the transformation of family businesses; this is because, in their survival, there is an application of new techniques that prolong the longevity of the business, as well as the well-being of its members. Consequently, in a general way, the obtained results are not presented since they are considered to be focused on the maximization, both direct and indirect, of the activities within the company; they emphasize their attention in the generation of motivation and satisfaction of the subordinates. This tendency contributes to the modernization of the company, as well as to act as mediator in the equilibrium of the family-business subsystems; avoiding the juxtapositions of these is complicated and counterproductive for the welfare of the organization.
The foregoing reflects a position about the succession of the family business and its mortality. The significant increase of the expert, referent and laissez faire/mission typologies indicate a growth in the prestige of the business and/or current owner, as well as the potential motivation by the simple merit of collaborating in the organization; however, with the rise of autocracy and the decrease of the participatory, a balance is required among the mentioned types initially. The nepotism presented in an autocrat owner and his/her little or no collective participation, can characterize this type of FB and its respective complexity exposed in this document.
In addition, this is the result of an issue little addressed at the moment, so it provides tools for future studies. In this way, it helps not only to contemplate the leadership and attributes used and desired, but also to integrate them with other perspectives and/or variables of research, in order to contribute to the category of what Pfeffer (2000) describes as the “sandbox”, which is focused on integrating the different components, with the purpose of characterizing an organization like the FB.
It is considered pertinent the continuation of this type of studies, with the possible incorporation of an analysis of the organizational culture, motivational profiles and/or stressors that contemplate the importance and multi-cultural nature of countries such as Mexico. Likewise, the need for reflection on the leadership typologies since the social context of the leadership emergence is what will dictate the necessary typologies within the organizations that form a certain community and/or region, which at the end, they integrate a nation.
References
Aira, M. R. (2016). La sucesión exitosa en las empresas familiares. Orbis. Revista Científica Ciencias Humanidades, 11(33), 82-104.
Alcorn, P. (1982). Success and survival in the family-owned business. New York, N. Y. Ed. McGraw-Hill.
Araya, A. (2012). El proceso de sucesión en la empresa familiar y su impacto en la organización. Tec Empresarial, 6(2), 29-39.
Arenas, H. A. y Rico, D. (2014). La empresa familiar, el protocolo y la sucesión familiar. Estudios Gerenciales, 30(132), 252-258.
Avloniti, A., Iatridou, A., Kaloupsis, I., & Vozikis, G. S. (2014). Sibling rivalry: implications for the family business succession process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 661-678. doi: 10.1007/s11365-013-0271-6
Barbeito-Roibal, S., Guillén, E., Martínez, M. y Domínguez, G. (2004). Visión europea del proceso de sucesión en la empresa familiar. Boletín económico de ICE, Información Comercial Española, (2822), 27-38.
Barros, I., Hernangómez, J., & Martin-Cruz, N. (2017). Familiness and socioemotional wealth in Spanish family firms: An empirical examination. European Journal of Family Business, 7(1), 14-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfb.2017.06.004
Barroso, A. (2013). La importancia de la gestión del conocimiento en el espíritu emprendedor de las empresas familiares (Tesis doctoral). Universidad de Extremadura, España.
Basco, R., & Calabrò, A. (2016). “Whom do I want to be the next CEO?” Desirable successor attributes in family firms. Journal of Business Economics, 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s11573-016-0828-2
Bawa, N. (2006). Family-Owned business in South Africa: Local Entrerpresi responses by South African Indian family-owned business. Urban Forum, 17(2), 167-198.
Belausteguigoitia, I. (2004). Empresas Familiares: su dinámica, equilibrio y consolidación. México: Ed. Mc Graw Hill.
Boyd, B., Royer, S., Pei, R., & Zhang, X. (2015). Knowledge transfer in family business successions. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(1), 17-37. doi: 10.1108/jfbm-05-2014-0009
Brenes, E., Madrigal, K., & E. Molina-Navarro, G. (2006). Family business structure and succession: Critical topics in Latin American experience (Vol. 59).
Burch, G. F., Batchelor, J. H., Burch, J. J., & Heller, N. A. (2015). Rethinking family business education. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(2), 277-293. doi: doi:10.1108/JFBM-02-2015-0007
Cabrera, M. K. (1998). Factores determinantes del éxito o fracaso del proceso de sucesión en la empresa familiar (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria). Recuperada de http://acceda.ulpgc.es/handle/10553/2250
Cheng, Q. (2014). Family firm research – A review. China Journal of Accounting Research, 7(3), 149-163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2014.03.002
De Zuani, R. (2003). Introducción a la administración de organizaciones (2a ed.). Salta, Argentina: Maktub.
Dyer, W., & Dyer, W. (2009). Putting the family into family business research. Family Business Review, 22(3), 216-219.
Duréndez, A., Ruíz-Palomo, D., García-Pérez-de-Lema, D., & Diéguez-Soto, J. (2016). Management control systems and performance in small and medium family firms. European Journal of Family Business, 6(1), 10-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfb.2016.05.001
Escandon-Barbosa, D. M. y Hurtado-Ayala, A. (2016). Influencia de los estilos de liderazgo en el desempeño de las empresas exportadoras colombianas. Estudios gerenciales 32(139), 1-19.
Esparza, A., García, J., Duréndez, G. y Guillamón, A. (2010). Diferencias de gestión financiera entre empresas familiares y no familiares del sector turístico mexicano. Actualidad Contable Faces, 13(20), 29-48.
Filser, M., Kraus, S., & Märk, S. (2013). Psychological aspects of succession in family business management. Management Research Review, 36(3), 256-277. doi: 10.1108/01409171311306409
Gómez, R. A. (2008). El liderazgo empresarial para la innovación tecnológica en las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas. Pensamiento & Gestión, (4), 157-194.
Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C. & Baptista, M. del P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ta. ed.). México. Mc-Graw-Hill.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (2009). Micro, pequeña y gran empresa. Estratificación de los establecimientos. Censos económicos, 17, 27.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (2018). Directorio Estadístico Nacional de Unidades Económicas (DENUE). Recuperado de: http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/app/mapa/denue/
Kohler, T., & Strauss, G. (1983). Executive succession: Literature review and research issues. Administration in mental health, 11(1), 11-22. doi: 10.1007/bf00843168
KPMG (2013). Empresas familiares en México: El desafío de crecer, madurar y permanecer. Recuperado de: http://www.kpmg.com/MX/es/PublishingImages/E-mails-externos/2013/CONFERENCIA_DE_PRENSA/EMPRESAS_FAMILIARES/Empresas%20familiares_130913.pdf
Lai, C.-Y., Hsu, J. S.-C., & Li, Y. (2018). Leadership, regulatory focus and information systems development project team performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 566-582. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.11.001
Lauterbach, B., Vu, J., & Weisberg, J. (1999). Internal vs. External Successions and Their Effect on Firm Performance. Human Relations, 52(12), 1485-1504. doi: 10.1023/a:1016980918820
Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C. O. y Thwala, W. D. (2017). A Theoretical Perspective on the Difference Between Leadership and Management. Procedia Engineering, 196, 478-482.
Mahto, R., Davis, P. & Khanin, D. (2014). Continuation Commitment: Family’s Commitment to Continue the Family Business. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(2), 278-289.
Martínez-Romero, M. J., & Rojo-Ramírez, A. A. (2016). SEW: Looking for a definition and controversial issues. European Journal of Family Business, 6(1), 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfb.2015.09.001
Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003). Lost in time: intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 513-531. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00058-2
Oficina de Convenciones y Visitantes Ciudad Obregón (2016). Bienvenido a la ciudad que lo tiene todo. Recuperado de: http://www.ocvobregon.com/news/
Osborn, R. N., Jauch, L. R., Martin, T. N., & Glueck, W. F. (1981). The Event of CEO Succession, Performance, and Environmental Conditions. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 183-191. doi: 10.2307/255833
Pfeffer, J. (2000). Nuevos rumbos en la Teoría de la Organización. Problemas y posibilidades. Distrito Federal, México: Oxford University Press.
Pietrobelli, C., Porta, F y Moori-Koening, V. (2005). Pequeñas y medianas empresas en América. Perspectivas, 3(2), 96-172.
Pounder, P. (2015). Family business insights: an overview of the literature. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(1), 116-127. doi: doi:10.1108/JFBM-10-2014-0023
Pyromalis, V. D. & Vozikis, G. S. (2009). Mapping the successful succession procession in family firms: evidence from Greece. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 439-460. Doi: 10.1007/s11365-009-0118-3.
Quintana, J. (2005). La innovación en las empresas familiares. CLM. Economía, 7, 103-130.
Răduncan, R. y Răduncan, R. (2014). Leadership and Management. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 808-812.
Ramírez, G. A. (2013). Liderazgo organizacional. Un desafío permanente. Niversidad & Empresa, 15(25), 4-11.
Red Pymes CUMEX (2010). Un estudio comparativo del perfil financiero y administrativo de las pequeñas empresas en México: entidades del Estado de México, Hidalgo, Puebla, Sonora y Tamaulipas. Resultados finales. Revista del Centro de Investigación Universidad La Salle, 9(33), 5-30.
Sánchez-Reyes, J. y Barraza-Barraza, L. (2015). Percepciones sobre liderazgo. Ra Ximhai, 11(4), 161-170.
Seaman, C. (2015). Creating space for the business family: Networks, social capital & family businesses in rural development. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(2), 182-191. doi: doi:10.1108/JFBM-08-2015-0032
Sonora Turismo (2015). Ciudad Obregón. Recuperado de: http://sonoraturismo.gob.mx/ciudades-2/cd-obregon/
Sorenson, R. L. (2000). The Contribution of Leadership Style and Practices to Family and Business Success. Family Business Review, 13(3), 183-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2000.00183.x
Soto, E. A. (2015). Liderazgo en la empresa privada venezolana del siglo XXI. Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura, XXI, 107-127.
Tagiuri, R. & Davis, J. (1982). Bivalent attributes of the family business. Family business review, 2(9), 199-208.
Toffler, B. L. (1981). Occupational Role Development: The Changing Determinants of Outcomes for the Individual. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 396-418. doi: 10.2307/2392514
Vallejo, M. C. (2005). Cuando definir es una necesidad. Una propuesta integradora y operativa del concepto de empresa familiar. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la empresa, 11(3), 151-171.
Vazquez, P. (2016). Family Business Ethics: At the Crossroads of Business Ethics and Family Business. Jorunal of Business Ethics, 1-19.
Zerón, M., Quevedo, J. y Mendoza, G. (2013). Pequeñas empresas familiares y su integración a la cadena de suministros. Observatorio de la Economía Latinoamericana, 177, 2-3.