Menu Expand

„Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship
  4. Vol. 71, Issue 2
  5. pp. 101–121

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Fiedler, S., Hülsbeck, M., Bernhard, F. „Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 71(2), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434501
Fiedler, Sandra; Hülsbeck, Marcel and Bernhard, Fabian "„Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 71.2, 2023, 101-121. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434501
Fiedler, Sandra/Hülsbeck, Marcel/Bernhard, Fabian (2023): „Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 71, iss. 2, 101-121, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434501
Format
Download

„Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können

Fiedler, Sandra | Hülsbeck, Marcel | Bernhard, Fabian

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 71 (2023), Iss. 2 : pp. 101–121

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434501
Language
German
Pages
21

Pricing

Individual
€ 26.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Sandra Fiedler, Technische Universität Chemnitz, Professur Organisation und Internationales Management, wiss. Mitarbeiterin, Reichenhainer Str. 39/41, 09126 Chemnitz, Deutschland.

  • Sandra Fiedler ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der Professur Organisation und Internationales Management der Technischen Universität Chemnitz. Sie ist externe Promovendin an der Universität Witten/Herdecke. Ihre Forschungsinteressen sind die interne Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen, die Unternehmerfamilie und die Nachfolgegeneration sowie Emotionen, Werte und Einstellungen dieser.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Prof. Dr. Marcel Hülsbeck, Hochschule München, Hohenzollernstr. 102, 80796 München, Deutschland

  • Prof. Dr. Marcel Hülsbeck ist Inhaber der bayerischen Spitzenprofessur für Transformation und Innovation in Familienunternehmen und KMU an der Hochschule München. Seine Forschungsgebiete sind Corporate & Family Governance, Unternehmensführung & Organisation, Digitale und Nachhaltigkeitstransfomation, sowie (Corporate) Entrepreneurship.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Prof. Dr. Fabian Bernhard, EDHEC Business School, Family Business Center, Associate Professor, 16–18 rue du 4 Septembre, 75002 Paris, Frankreich

  • Prof. Dr. Fabian Bernhard ist Professor für Management und Psychologie und gehört zum Family Business Center der EDHEC Business School in Paris, Lille, Nizza und London. Er ist Forschungsbeauftragter für Familienunternehmen an der Universität Mannheim und für Psychologie an der Universität Frankfurt in Deutschland. In seiner akademischen Arbeit hat er sich auf die emotionale Dynamik in Unternehmen, die Vorbereitung von Führungskräften der nächsten Generation und die psychologische Bindung an das Familienunternehmen spezialisiert.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Avloniti, A., Iatridou, A., Kaloupsis, I., Vozikis, G. S. (2014): Sibling rivalry: implications for the family business succession process, in: International entrepreneurship and management journal, 10, 661–678.  Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Shahar, D., Carmeli, A., Sulganik, E., Weiss, D. (2023): Power and dominant coalitions in family business, in: Academy of management review, 48(3), 530–555.  Google Scholar
  3. Bettinelli, C., Mismetti, M., de Massis, A., Del Bosco, B. (2022): A review of conflict and cohesion in social relationships in family firms, in: Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 46(3), 539–577.  Google Scholar
  4. Bloemen-Bekx, M., Lambrechts, F., Van Gils, A. (2023): An exploration of the role of intuitive forms of planning in the succession process: the explanatory power of effectuation theory, in: Journal of family business management, 13(2), 486–502.  Google Scholar
  5. Brigham, K. H., Serrano, C. C., Kammerlander, N., Kotlar, J. (2022): Accumulating knowledge over time: Introduction to the fourth FBR review issue, in: Family business review, 35(1), 6–14.  Google Scholar
  6. Bowen, M. (1976): Theory in the practice of psychotherapy, in: Guerin, P. J. (Hrsg.): Family therapy: Theory and Practice, New York: Jason Aronson, 42–90.  Google Scholar
  7. Bozer, G., Levin, L., Santora, J. C. (2017): Succession in family business: Multi-source perspectives, in: Journal of small business and enterprise development, 24(4), 753–774.  Google Scholar
  8. Carlock, R. S., Ward, J. L. (2001): Strategic planning for the family business: Parallel planning to unify the family and business, New York: Palgrave.  Google Scholar
  9. Cesaroni, F. M., Sentuti, A. (2016): Accountants’ role in the management of succession: empirical evidence from Italy, in: Journal of family business management, 6(3), 270–290.  Google Scholar
  10. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P. (1999): Defining the family business by behavior, in: Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23 (4), 19–39.  Google Scholar
  11. Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K., Burrows, S., Allen, J. S., Pounds, T. W. (2020): What do we know about business families? Setting the stage for leveraging family science theories, in: Family business review, 33(1), 38–63.  Google Scholar
  12. de Massis, A., Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. (2008): Factors preventing intra-family succession, in: Family business review, 21(2), 183–199.  Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhardt, K. (1989): Building theories from case study research, in: Academy of management review, 14(4), 532–550.  Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari, F. (2019): In the mother’s shadow: exploring power dynamics in family business succession, in: Gender in Management: An international journal, 34(2), 121–139.  Google Scholar
  15. Flick, U. (2017): Qualitative Sozialforschung, 8. Aufl., Reinbek: Rowohlt.  Google Scholar
  16. Forster-Holt, N., DeSanto-Madeya, S., Davis, J. (2023): The mortality of family business leaders: Using a palliative care model to re-imagine letting go, in: Journal of management inquiry, DOI: 10564926231159331.  Google Scholar
  17. Gagné, M., Marwick, C., Brun de Pontet, S., Wrosch, C. (2021): Family business succession: What’s motivation got to do with it?, in: Family business review, 34(2), 154–167.  Google Scholar
  18. Gersick, K. E., Lansberg, I., Davis, J. A. (1990): The impact of family dynamics on structure and process in family foundations, in: Family business review, 3(4), 357–374.  Google Scholar
  19. Gimeno, A., Baulenas, G., Coma-Cross, J. (2010): Familienunternehmen führen, Komplexität managen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Google Scholar
  20. Gioia, D., Corley, K., Hamilton, A. (2013): Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology, in: Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15–31.  Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967): The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research, London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.  Google Scholar
  22. 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, in: Administrative science quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.  Google Scholar
  23. Gupta, V., Levenburg, N. (2010): A thematic analysis of cultural variations in family businesses: The CASE project, in: Family business review, 23(2), 155–169.  Google Scholar
  24. Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L. (1999): A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms, in: Family business review, 12(1), 1–25.  Google Scholar
  25. Hacker, J., Dowling, M. (2012): Succession in family firms: How to improve family satisfaction and family harmony, in: International journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 15(1), 76–99.  Google Scholar
  26. Harrington, B., Strike, V. M. (2018): Between kinship and commerce: Fiduciaries and the institutional logics of family firms, in: Family business review, 31(4), 417–440.  Google Scholar
  27. Jabbari, B., Rouster, A. S. (2022): Family dynamics. StatPearls Publishing, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560487/], abgerufen am 09.11.2023.  Google Scholar
  28. Jaskiewicz, P., Dyer, W. G. (2017): Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research, in: Family business review, 30(2), 111–118.  Google Scholar
  29. Kammerlander, N. (2022): Family business and business family questions in the 21st century: Who develops SEW, how do family members create value, and who belongs to the family?, in: Journal of family business strategy, 13(2), 100470.  Google Scholar
  30. Kammerlander, N., Bertschi-Michel, A. (2023): Family wealth governance and the role of advisors, in: Carney, M., Dielemann, M. (Hrsg.): Handbook of business families, [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110727968-016], abgerufen am 04.01.2024.  Google Scholar
  31. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993): The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news, in: Organizational dynamics, 21(3), 59–71.  Google Scholar
  32. Köllner, T., Simons, F., Kleve, H., Schlippe, A. von, Rüsen, T. A. (2020): Vermögensmanagement in großen Unternehmerfamilien: Zwischen individuellem Anspruch und kollektiver Verantwortung, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 68 (3–4), 191–217.  Google Scholar
  33. Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., Steier, L. P. (2004): Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession, in: Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 28(4), 305–328.  Google Scholar
  34. Li, W., Wang, Y., Cao, L. (2023): Identities of the incumbent and the successor in the family business succession: Review and prospects, in: Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1062829.  Google Scholar
  35. Lockamy, A., Carson, C. M., Lohrke, F. T. (2016): An evaluation of key determinants preventing intra-family business succession, in: Journal of family business management, 6(1), [https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2015-0002], abgerufen am 04.01.2024.  Google Scholar
  36. Long, R. G., Chrisman, J. J. (2014): Management succession in family business, in: Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of family business, Los Angeles: Sage, 249–268.  Google Scholar
  37. Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W., Vaughn, M. (2008): Family orientation: individual‐level influences on family firm outcomes, in: Family business review, 21(2), 127–138.  Google Scholar
  38. Mahto, R. V., Cavazos, D. E., Calabrò, A., Vanevenhoven, J. P. (2021): CEO succession game in family firms: Owners vs. advisors, in: Journal of small business management, https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1934851.  Google Scholar
  39. McMullen, J. S., Warnick, B. J. (2015): To nurture or groom? The parent-founder succession dilemma, in: Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 39(6), 1379–1412.  Google Scholar
  40. Michael-Tsabari, N., Weiss, D. (2015): Communication traps: Applying game theory to succession in family firms, in: Family business review, 28(1), 26–40.  Google Scholar
  41. Michel, A., Kammerlander, N. (2015): Trusted advisors in a family business’s succession-planning process – An agency perspective, in: Journal of family business strategy, 6(1), 45–57.  Google Scholar
  42. Miller, D., Steier, L., Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003): Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in a family business, in: Journal of business venturing, 18(4), 513–531.  Google Scholar
  43. Moncrief-Stuart, S. L., Paul, J., Craig, J. (2006): Working with families in business: a content validity study of the Aspen Family Business Inventory, in: Poutziouris, P. Z., Smyrnios, K. X., Klein, S. B. (Hrsg.): Handbook of research on family business, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 215–236.  Google Scholar
  44. Nordqvist, M., Hall, A., Melin, L. (2009): Qualitative research on family businesses: The relevance and usefulness of the interpretive approach, in: Journal of management and organization, 15, 294–308.  Google Scholar
  45. Przyborski, A., Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014): Qualitative Sozialforschung, 4. Aufl., München: De Gruyter.  Google Scholar
  46. Reay, T., Zhang, Z. (2014): Qualitative methods in family business research, in: Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P. (Hrsg.): The Sage handbook of family business, Los Angeles: Sage, 573–593.  Google Scholar
  47. Richards, M., Kammerlander, N., Zellweger, T. (2019): Listening to the heart or the head? Exploring the “willingness versus ability” succession dilemma, in: Family business review, 32(4), 330–353.  Google Scholar
  48. Ritchie, L. D., Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990): Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships, in: Communication research, 17(4), 523–544.  Google Scholar
  49. Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., Kraus, S. (2022): Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions, in: Journal of family business strategy, 13(3), 100–422.  Google Scholar
  50. Rüsen, T., Schlippe, A. von, Groth, T. (2019): Mentale Modelle von Familienunternehmen, WIFU-Stiftung, [https://www.wifu.de/bibliothek/mentale-modelle-von-familienunternehmen/#], abgerufen am 13.12.2023.  Google Scholar
  51. Schlippe, A. von (2009): Zwischen Ökonomie und Psychologie: Konflikte in Familienunternehmen, in: Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 12(1), 17–21.  Google Scholar
  52. Schlippe, A. von (2016): [https://www.dwds.de/wb/Familienunternehmen], Originalquelle: Welt am Sonntag vom 27.11.2016, abgerufen am 28.06.2023.  Google Scholar
  53. Schlippe, A. von, Groth, T. (2019): Unternehmen, Familie, Unternehmerfamilie: Systemtheoretische Perspektiven zur Erweiterung des Drei-Kreis-Denkens, in: Kleve, H., Köllner, T. (Hrsg.): Soziologie der Unternehmerfamilie: Grundlagen, Entwicklungslinien, Perspektiven, Heidelberg: Springer, 267–277.  Google Scholar
  54. Shanine, K. K., Madison, K., Combs, J. G., Eddleston, K. A. (2023): Parenting the successor: It starts at home and leaves an enduring impact on the family business, in: Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 47(4), 1093–1131.  Google Scholar
  55. Sharma, P. (2004): An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future, in: Family business review, 17(1), 1–36.  Google Scholar
  56. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. (2003): Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process in family firms, in: Journal of business Venturing, 18(5), 667–687.  Google Scholar
  57. Shepherd, D. A. (2003): Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed, in: Academy of management review, 28(2), 318–328.  Google Scholar
  58. Stevens, C. E., Kidwell, R. E., Sprague, R. (2015): Bound by laws, or by values? A multi-level and cross-national approach to understanding the protection of minority owners in family firms, in: Corporate Governance: An international review, 23(3), 203–215.  Google Scholar
  59. Suddaby, R. (2006): From the editors: What grounded theory is not, in: Academy of management journal, 49, 633–642.  Google Scholar
  60. Suddaby, R., Ng, W., Vershinina, N., Markman, G., Cadbury, M. (2023): Sacralization and the intergenerational transmission of values in Cadbury, in: Family business review, 36(3), 296–314.  Google Scholar
  61. Urban, B., Nonkwelo, R. P. (2022): Intra-family dynamics and succession planning in family businesses in South Africa: The daughter as a potential successor, in: Journal of family business management, 12(2), 266–279.  Google Scholar
  62. Yezza, H., Chabaud, D. (2023): Beyond entrepreneurial failure: Framing failure in the context of family business succession, in: Canadian journal of administrative sciences, [https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1735], abgerufen am 04.01.2024.  Google Scholar

Abstract

This study is based on family systems theory and examines the failure of succession in family businesses with focus on the entrepreneurial family. So far, predecessors and successors have often been studied, but a holistic view of family dynamics, such as roles and hidden motives, is lacking. Interviews with advisors were analyzed with the Gioa method and a process model was developed. We show how factors of the entrepreneurial family in combination with factors of the connection of the entrepreneurial family to the business can lead to the failure of succession. Specific possibilites for further research are discussed.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Sandra Fiedler / Marcel Hülsbeck / Fabian Bernhard: „Wir wollten doch nur das Beste“ – Wie Familiendynamiken zum Scheitern der Unternehmensnachfolge führen können 101
Zusammenfassung 101
Abstract 102
I. Einleitung 102
II. Theoretischer Hintergrund 103
1. Familienunternehmen und Unternehmerfamilien 103
2. Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen 105
III. Methodik 107
1. Forschungsdesign 107
2. Datensammlung 107
3. Datenauswertung 109
IV. Ergebnisse 112
1. Faktoren der Unternehmerfamilie 112
2. Faktoren der Verbindung von Unternehmerfamilie und Unternehmen 114
V. Diskussion 115
Literatur 118

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.