Legitimation strategies in an emerging field: family firm succession consultancy in Germany

  • 1 Heidelberg University, Institute of Geography, Berliner Straße 48, Heidelberg, Germany
  • 2 Heidelberg University, Institute of Geography, Berliner Straße 48, Heidelberg, Germany
  • 3 Heidelberg University, Institute of Geography, Berliner Straße 48, Heidelberg, Germany
Regina Lenz
  • Corresponding author
  • Heidelberg University, Institute of Geography, Berliner Straße 48, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Claudia Schormüller and Johannes Glückler

Abstract

Finding a successor has become a severe challenge for family firms in Germany. As family firms are disproportionately concentrated in rural economies, succession has also become a considerable threat for peripheral regions and their labor markets. It therefore lies in the interest of regional stakeholders to help support family business continuity. One way to do this is by providing consulting services for family entrepreneurs, especially when searching for a family-external successor. Succession consultancy, however is still in its infancy. Applying the framework of the organizational field that centers on the concept of legitimacy, this paper examines the strategies consultants employ in order to get selected by family entrepreneurs in their succession process, as well as consultants’ strategies to match family firms with external successors. Based on expert interviews with succession consultants in the region of Upper Palatinate in Bavaria, we demonstrate the importance of geography and interpersonal linkages in establishing legitimacy in the early stages of field formation, when heterogeneous groups of actors offer their services without set rules or standards. Our content analysis sheds light on the variety of strategies based on trust, networked, and public reputation in order to gain legitimacy as consultants, depending on whether or not they can draw on existing relationships with family firms. We furthermore identify a discrepancy between these legitimation strategies and the actual ways that consultants use to match family firms with external successors. Here, regardless of their previous contact with family firms, geography plays a major role in constraining both consulting and succession: Family firms more readily accept local consultants, and the consultants also preferred to screen succession candidates through their regional networks due to the higher chances of successful succession when finding external successors from within the same region. Conceptually, our analysis contributes to institutional theory by carving out legitimacy-enhancing mechanisms in emerging organizational fields, and by demonstrating the crucial role of geography and interpersonal linkages for succession as well as field formation processes.

  • Ahrens, J.-P./Calabrò, A./Huybrechts, J./Woywode, M. (2019): The enigma of the family successor – firm performance relationship: A methodological reflection and reconciliation attempt. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (43)3, 437–474.

  • Armbrüster, T. (2006): The Economics and Sociology of Management Consulting. Cambridge.

  • Auschra, C./Schmidt, T./Sydow, J. (2019): Entrepreneurial ecosystems as fields: Integrating meso-level institutional theory. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, (64)2–4, 64–78.

  • Bachmann, R. (2001): Trust, power and control in transorganizational relations. In: Organization Studies, (22)2, 337–365.

  • Barach, J. A./Ganitsky, J. B. (1995): Successful succession in family business. In: Family Business Review, (8)2, 131–155.

  • Barbera, F./Hasso, T. (2013): Do we need to use an accountant? The sales growth and survival benefits to family SMEs. In: Family Business Review, (26)3, 271–292.

  • Basco, R./Bartkevičiūtė, I. (2016): Is there any room for family business into European Union 2020 Strategy? Family business and regional public policy. In: Local Economy, (31)6, 709–732.

  • Battisti, M./Williamson, A. J. (2015): The role of intermediaries in the small business transfer process. In: Small Enterprise Research, (22)1, 32–48.

  • Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik (2018): Regionalisierte Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung für Bayern bis 2037. Demographisches Profil für den Regierungsbezirk Oberpfalz. Fürth.

  • Berger, P. L./Luckmann, T. (1969): Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main.

  • Bethge, I. (2013): Basel III: Die Folgen für den Mittelstand. Berlin.

  • Cesaroni, F. M./Sentuti, A. (2017): Family business succession and external advisors: The relevance of ‘soft’ issues. In: Small Enterprise Research, (24)2, 167–188.

  • Chua, J. H./Chrisman, J. J./Sharma, P. (2003): Succession and nonsuccession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers. In: Family Business Review, (16)2, 89–107.

  • Colyvas, J. A./Powell, W. W. (2006): Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaaries between public and private science. In: Research in Organizational Behavior, (27), 305–353.

  • Coraiola, D. M./Suddaby, R. (2018): Organizational fields as mnemonic communities. In: Glückler, J./Suddaby, R./Lenz, R. (Eds.): Knowledge and Institutions. Cham, 45–68.

  • Cucculelli, M./Micucci, G. (2008): Family succession and firm performance: Evidence from Italian family firms. In: Journal of Corporate Finance, (14)1, 17–31.

  • Das, T. K./Teng, B. S. (2001): Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. In: Organization Studies, (22)2, 251–283.

  • David, R. J./Sine, W. D./Haveman, H. A. (2013): Seizing opportunity in emerging fields: How institutional entrepreneurs legitimated the professional form of management consulting. In: Organization Science, (24)2, 356–377.

  • De Massis, A./Chua, J. H./Chrisman, J. J. (2008): Factors preventing intra-family succession. In: Family Business Review, (21)2, 183–199.

  • DiMaggio, P. J./Powell, W. W. (1983): The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: American Sociological Review, (48)2, 147–160.

  • Farrell, H. (2018): The shared challenges of institutional theories: Rational choice, historical institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. In: Glückler, J./Suddaby, R./Lenz, R. (Eds.): Knowledge and Institutions. Cham, 23–44.

  • Gioia, D. A./Corley, K. G./Hamilton, A. (2012): Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. In: Organizational Research Methods, (16)1, 15–31.

  • Glückler, J. (2004): Reputationsnetze: Zur Internationalisierung von Unternehmensberatern. Eine relationale Theorie. Bielefeld.

  • Glückler, J. (2005): Making embeddedness work: Social practice institutions in foreign consulting markets. In: Environment and Planning A, (37)10, 1727–1750.

  • Glückler, J. (2006): A relational assessment of international market entry in management consulting. In: Journal of Economic Geography, (6), 369–393.

  • Glückler, J. (2017): Services and innovation. In: Bathelt, H., Cohendet, P./Henn, S./Simon, L. (Eds.): The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation. A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cheltenham, 258–274.

  • Glückler, J./Suddaby, R./Lenz, R. (2018): On the spatiality of institutions and knowledge. In: Glückler, J./Suddaby, R./Lenz, R. (Eds.): Knowledge and Institutions. Cham, 1–19.

  • Glückler, J./Armbrüster, T. (2003): Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: The mechanisms of trust and networked reputation. In: Organization Studies, (24)2, 269–297.

  • Gottschalk, S./Egeln, J./Kinne, J./Hauer, A./Keese, D./Oehme, M. (2017): Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Familienunternehmen. München.

  • Greenwood, R./Suddaby, R./Hinings, C. R. (2002): Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. In: The Academy of Management Journal, (45)1, 58–80.

  • Greenwood, R./Suddaby, R. (2006): Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. In: Academy of Management Journal, (49)1, 27–48.

  • Hargadon, A.B./Douglas, Y. (2001): When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, (46)3, 476–501.

  • Jansson, J. (2014): Temporary events and spaces in the Swedish primary art market. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, (58)4, 202–215.

  • Jung, H. (2015): Überblick über die Formen der Unternehmensnachfolge. In: Wegmann, J./Wiesehahn, A. (Eds.): Unternehmensnachfolge. Praxishandbuch für Familienunternehmen. Wiesbaden, 53–63.

  • Kay, R./Suprinovič, O. (2013): Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland 2014 bis 2018. Bonn.

  • Kay, R./Suprinovič, O./Schlömer-Laufen, N. (2018): Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland 2018–2022. Bonn.

  • Kempert, W./Baum, S. B./Miels, M./Heinzel, C./Sievers, H. (2016): Standards ordnungsgemäßer Nachfolgeberatung. Bonn.

  • King, S. (2003): Organizational performance and conceptual capability: The relationship between organizational performance and successors’ capability in a family-owned firm. In: Family Business Review, (16)3, 173–182.

  • Lange, B./Power, D./Suwala, L. (2014): Geographies of field-configuring events. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, (58)4, 187–201.

  • Lawrence, T. B./Dover, G. (2015): Place and institutional work: Creating housing for the hard-to-house. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, (60)3, 371–410.

  • Maguire, S./Hardy, C./Lawrence, T. B. (2004): Instituional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. In: Academy of Management Journal, (47)5, 657–679.

  • Mandl, I. (2008): Overview of Family Business Relevant Issues. Final report. Vienna.

  • Mayring, P./Fenzl, T. (2019): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur, N./Blasius, J. (Eds.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden, 633–648.

  • Meyer, J. W./Rowan, B. (1977): Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In: American Journal of Sociology, (83)2, 340–363.

  • Mickelson, R. E./Worley, C. (2003): Acquiring a family firm: A case study. In: Family Business Review, (16)4, 251–268.

  • Miller, D./Steier, L./Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003): Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. In: Journal of Business Venturing, (18)4, 513–531.

  • 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. In: Journal of Management Studies, (51)7, 1153–1179.

  • Molly, V./Laveren, E./Deloof, M. (2010): Family business succession and its impact on financial structure and performance. In: Family Business Review, (23)2, 131–147.

  • Mumford, M. D./Marks, M./Connelly, M. S./Zaccaro, S. J./Reiter-Palmon, R. (2000): Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. In: The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 87–114.

  • Murmann, J. (2018): Facts & Figues zum Beratermarkt 2018. Bonn.

  • Murmann, J. (2019): Facts & Figues zum Beratermarkt 2019. Bonn.

  • Murray, B. (2003): The succession transition process: A longitudinal perspective. In: Family Business Review, (16)1, 17–33.

  • Naldi, L./Chirico, F./Kellermanns, F. W./Campopiano, G. (2015): All in the family? An exploratory study of family member advisors and firm performance. In: Family Business Review, (28)3, 227–242.

  • Oliver, C. (1991): Strategic Responses to institutional processes. In: Academy of Management Review, (16)1, 145–179.

  • Preminger, B./Drori, G. S. (2016): How institutions get materialized in space: “Spatialized logics” along Jerusalem’s western wall. In: Gehman, J./Lounsbury, M./Greenwood, R. (Eds.): How Institutions Matter. Bingley, 101–136.

  • Rädiker, S./Kuckartz, U. (2019): Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA. Wiesbaden.

  • Reay, T./Pearson, A. W./Dyer, W. G. (2013): Advising family enterprise: Examining the role of family firm advisors. In: Family Business Review, (26)3, 209–214.

  • Reddrop, A./Mapunda, G. (2015): Family businesses: Seekers of advice. In: Journal of Family Business Management, (5)1, 90–115.

  • Royer, S./Simons, R./Boyd, B./Rafferty, A. (2008): Promoting family: A contingency model of family business succession. In: Family Business Review, (21)1, 15–30.

  • Salvato, C./Corbetta, G. (2013): Transitional leadership of advisors as a facilitator of successors’ leadership construction. In: Family Business Review, (26)3, 235–255.

  • Scholes, L./Westhead, P./Burrows, A. (2008): Family firm succession: The management buy‐out and buy‐in routes. In: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, (15)1, 8–30.

  • Sharma, P./Chrisman, J. J./Chua, J. H. (2003): Succession planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results. In: Family Business Review, (16)1, 1–15.

  • Sharma, P./Irving, P. G. (2005): Four Bases of Family Business Successor Commitment: Antecedents and Consequences. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (29)1, 13–33.

  • Steier, L. P./Miller, D. (2010): Pre- and post-succession governance philosophies in entrepreneurial family firms. In: Journal of Family Business Strategy, (1)3, 145–154.

  • Strang, D./Sine, W. D. (2002): Interorganizational institutions. In: Baum, J. A. C. (Eds.): The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford, 467–519.

  • Strike, V. M. (2012): Advising the family firm: Reviewing the past to build the future. In: Family Business Review, (20)10, 1–22.

  • Sturdy, A. (1997): The consultancy process: An insecure business? In: Journal of Management Studies, (34)3, 389–413.

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995): Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. In: Academy of Management Review, (20)3, 571–610.

  • Suddaby, R./Bitektine, A./Haack, P. (2016): Legitimacy. In: Academy of Management Annals, (11)1, 451–478.

  • Sund, L.-G./Melin, L./Haag, K. (2015): Intergenerational ownership succession: Shifting the focus from outcome measurements to preparatory requirements. In: Journal of Family Business Strategy, (6)3, 166–177.

  • Wallau, F./Boerger, S. (2019): Erhebung und Analyse zur Unternehmensnachfolge in Bayern. Munich.

  • Walsh, G. (2011): Family business succession: Managing the all-important family component. Ottawa.

  • Zhu, D. H./Shen, W. (2016): Why do some outside successions fare better than others? The role of outside CEOs’ prior experience with board diversity. In: Strategic Management Journal, (37)3, 2695–2708.

  • Zietsma, C/Groenewegen, P./Logue, D. M./Hinings, C. R. (2017): Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. In: Academy of Management Annals, (11)1, 391–450.

  • Zietsma, C/Lawrence, T.B. (2010): Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, (55)2, 189–221.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

The primary focus of the German Journal for Economic Geography (ZFW) is on theory-led empirical research about spatial economic structures and regional dynamics. ZFW, which is the only scientific journal on Economic Geography in German speaking countries, addresses scientists and students as well as decision makers in private firms and economic promotion agencies.

Search