A framework for total quality management in family firms and the connection with nonfinancial goals

Amsterdam Business School

A Framework for Total Quality Management in Family Firms

and the connection with nonfinancial goals

Name: Tessa Bakker Student number: 10336605

Thesis supervisor: Prof. Dr. Brendan O’Dwyer Date: 9 October 2015

Word count: 16329 (including abstract and Dutch summary) MSc Accountancy & Control, specialization Control

Statement of Originality

This document is written by student Tessa Bakker who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Abstract

Family firms cover more than 50 percent of all Dutch firms and although financial performance is high, they intend to focus more on nonfinancial goals related to business activity than on financial ones. A management philosophy that is focused on nonfinancial goals is total quality management (TQM), which has not been researched in family firms before. This paper therefore will be the first to examine the existence of TQM in family firms and the way it is connected to the pursuance of nonfinancial goals. This issue is analyzed by first doing a literature review, discussing theories about socioemotional wealth, nonfinancial goals and total quality management. The findings of this review are that there is a bilateral relation between socioemotional wealth and nonfinancial goals, meaning the focus on SEW is surrounded by the focus on nonfinancial goals. Family essence and identity fit are factors that lead to a family firm pursuing nonfinancial goals. After the review, empirical research was conducted by interviewing the owners of six family firms. The findings of this research show the presence of total quality management in family firms, meaning assumptions about quality, people, organizations and the role of senior management are connected. The elements used are customer focus, employee involvement/open organization, supplier focus, strategic planning, creativity/flexibility, quality improvement, pride of workmanship, and leadership. These elements are linked to one another. An interesting finding is that most firms view creativity/flexibility as the most or very important element, although the links show that customer satisfaction is the greatest focus. These eight aspects can function as an implementation framework of total quality management for family firms. Additionally, the findings show that TQM is based on nonfinancial goals. The relation of the elements with nonfinancial goals is that some of these elements are similar to firm-level nonfinancial goals, never to family-centered goals. These elements are customer satisfaction, employee involvement and open organization, pride of workmanship, quality improvement, and leadership.

Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch summary)

Meer dan 50 procent van alle Nederlandse bedrijven zijn familiebedrijven en hoewel hun financiële prestaties hoog zijn, zijn zij geneigd zich meer op niet-financiële doelen te richten dan op financiële doelen. Een managementfilosofie die gericht is op niet-financiële doelen is totaal kwaliteitsmanagement (TQM), wat nog niet eerder in familiebedrijven is onderzocht. Dit paper zal daarom het eerste zijn dat het bestaan van TQM in familiebedrijven onderzoekt. Tevens zal het een verband leggen met het streven naar niet-financiële doelen. Deze kwestie is eerst geanalyseerd door middel van een literatuuronderzoek, waarin theorieën over sociaal-emotioneel vermogen (SEW), niet-financiële doelen en TQM worden besproken. De resultaten van dit onderzoek laten een bilaterale relatie zien tussen SEW en niet-financiële doelen, wat betekent dat de focus op SEW en de focus op niet-financiële doelen elkaar beïnvloeden. Familie-essentie en identiteitspassing zijn factoren die ertoe leiden dat familiebedrijven niet-financiële doelen nastreven. Vervolgens is een empirisch onderzoek uitgevoerd, waarvoor de eigenaren van zes familiebedrijven zijn geïnterviewd. De resultaten van dit onderzoek laten het bestaan van TQM in familiebedrijven zien, hiervoor worden veronderstellingen over kwaliteit, mensen, organisaties en de rol van senior management aan elkaar gekoppeld. De elementen die worden gebruikt zijn klantgerichtheid, betrokkenheid van werknemers/open organisatie, leveranciergerichtheid, strategisch plannen, creativiteit/flexibiliteit, kwaliteitsverbetering, trots van vakmanschap en leiderschap. Deze elementen zijn aan elkaar verbonden. Een interessant bevinding is dat de meeste bedrijven creativiteit/flexibiliteit als belangrijkste of zeer belangrijk element beschouwen, terwijl de verbindingen laten zien dat klanttevredenheid de grootste focus is. Deze acht element kunnen dienen als een uitvoeringskader van TQM voor familiebedrijven. Aanvullend geven de resultaten weer dat TQM gebaseerd is op niet-financiële doelen. Het verband tussen deze elementen met niet-financiële doelen is dat sommige van deze elementen vergelijkbaar zijn met niet-financiële doelen op bedrijfsniveau, niet met doelen die familiegericht zijn. Deze elementen zijn klantgerichtheid, betrokkenheid van werknemers/open organisatie, kwaliteitsverbetering, trots van vakmanschap en leiderschap.

Table of contents

Abstract ... 3

Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch summary) ... 4

1 Introduction ... 7

2 Literature review ... 9

2.1 Family Firm ... 9

2.1.1 Ownership and control ... 9

2.1.2 Family dynamics ... 10

2.2 Socioemotional wealth ... 12

2.3 Nonfinancial goals ... 14

2.4 Relation between SEW and nonfinancial goals ... 15

2.5 Total Quality Management ... 16

3 Research method ... 20 3.1 Research site ... 20 3.2 Data collection ... 21 3.3 Data analysis ... 23 4 Analysis ... 25 4.1 Family involvement ... 25 4.2 Identity ... 29 4.3 Nonfinancial goals ... 31 4.4 Quality ... 34 4.4.1 Leadership ... 34 4.4.2 Customer focus ... 35 4.4.3 Supplier focus ... 37 4.4.4 Quality improvement ... 37

4.4.5 Employee involvement/open organization ... 39 4.4.6 Process control ... 40 4.4.7 Strategic planning ... 40 4.4.8 Creativity/flexibility ... 41 5 Discussion ... 43 6 Conclusion ... 47 References ... 50 Appendices ... 53

1 Introduction

Blood makes you related, loyalty makes you family. This general saying also holds in the business environment. Family firms are associated with loyalty, honesty and trust. According to Casson (1999), the style of the management in family firms is characterized and rewarded by loyalty of service, more than professional competence. Loyalty is found in the four strengths of family firms, which are continuity, decisiveness, community, and connection (Nederlands centrum voor het familiebedrijf). These concepts make why family firms cover more than 50 percent of all Dutch firms and help explain why they are more profitable and survive longer than other listed firms (Nederlands centrum voor het familiebedrijf).

Although financial performance is high, according to Zellweger, Nason, Nordqvist, and Brush (2011), family firms tend to focus more on nonfinancial goals related to business activity than on financial ones. The authors argue that family firms strive for nonfinancial goals because of the fit between family and organizational identity. Berrone, Cruz, and Gomez-Meija, (2012) mention an important concept that helps management to make decisions about nonfinancial goals, namely socioemotional wealth (SEW). They state that nonfinancial goals are an important part of this concept as it considers the positive and negative effects of these goals on the firm. Additionally, the preservation of SEW an incentive for pursuing nonfinancial goals (Zellweger et al, 2011). SEW is thus surrounded by nonfinancial goals.

A management philosophy that is focused on nonfinancial goals is total quality management (TQM). This concept helps firms creating a culture, including trust, participation, and a zeal for continuous improvement, that contributes to the firm’s success and existence (Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000). The four strengths of family firms are reflected in the definition of TQM, which makes it a possible reason for the success. However, the concept TQM has not been researched in family business before. This paper therefore will be the first to examine the existence of TQM in family firms and the way it is used to pursue nonfinancial goals.

The research question that will be answered in this paper is: How is TQM implemented in family firms and how does it affect the pursuance of nonfinancial goals?

This main question can be divided into four sub-questions, which are:

 What is the relation between socioemotional wealth and nonfinancial goals?  What aspects of total quality management are used in family firms?

 What does an implementation framework of total quality management for family firms look like?

The answer to the research question will be supported by a literature review and empirical research.

This paper contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First of all, it will give a clear outline of how socioemotional wealth is connected with nonfinancial goals and TQM. Second, TQM has not been researched in family firms before. This paper shows that the concept is being used by family firms, including the elements of TQM these firms find important and how these are implemented in the workings of the firm. It further demonstrates how TQM is connected to the nonfinancial goals pursued.

The findings of this paper show a bilateral relation between socioemotional wealth and nonfinancial goals, meaning the focus on SEW is surrounded by the focus on nonfinancial goals. Family involvement and family essence together with a high identity fit should lead to the firm striving for nonfinancial goals. These goals lead to the preservation of SEW. In turn, a focus on the preservation of SEW lead to striving for nonfinancial goals that provide SEW. Also, the concept of total quality management is used in family firms, meaning assumptions about quality, people, organizations and the role of senior management are connected. The elements of TQM used in family firms are customer focus, employee involvement/open organization, supplier focus, strategic planning, creativity/flexibility, quality improvement, pride of workmanship, and leadership. These elements are linked to one another. Most firms find creativity/flexibility the most or a very important element, although the links show that customer satisfaction is the greatest focus. These eight aspects can function as an implementation framework of total quality management for family firms. Additionally, the focus on customers and continuous improvement and the similarities with employee involvement and external relationships confirm that TQM is based on nonfinancial goals. The relation of the elements with nonfinancial goals is that some of these elements are similar to firm-level nonfinancial goals. Not all goals are directly related to an element and not all elements are directly related to a nonfinancial goal.

This paper is structured as follows. In section 2, the terms family firm, socioemotional wealth, nonfinancial goal, and total quality management will be further explained. The research method including case description will be described in section 3. Section 4 consists of the analysis of the interviews. The discussion of the findings in combination with the theory is given in section 5. Finally, section 6 provides a short summary and a conclusion, in which the research question will be answered.

2 Literature review

This section first covers an explanation about the characteristics of a family firm. Then, socioemotional wealth is discussed and will be used as the main theory in the case study. After that, nonfinancial goals and total quality management are elaborated and will be linked to socioemotional wealth.

2.1 Family Firm

Family firms have a family dimension, can be of any size and can be listed or unlisted (European Family Businesses). Accordingly, Chrisman, Chua, Pearson, and Barnett (2012) state that a single definition for the family firm is unrealistic, considering the developments in the field. Instead they focus on the implications of family involvement and essence within these firms and the adoption of family-centered goals. They explain that family essence is what differentiates the behavior of family firms from nonfamily firms and that involvement is necessary for existence of essence. As no specific definition of family firms can be given, this paragraph is divided into several elements that together give a good representation of what is meant by a family firm.

2.1.1 Ownership and control

A family firm is one that is owned and controlled by a family, indicating that family control is more important than family ownership and that there is no control without ownership (Casson, 1999). The firm is governed and/or managed by one or a few families with the aim to shape and pursue the firm’s vision that should be sustained by multiple generations (Chua, Chrisman, and Bergiel, 2009). The family or families control is expressed by of a share of risk capital that is large enough to allow them to make decisions about strategic management (Gubitta and Gianecchini, 2002).

‘Large enough’ is described by European Family Businesses, through the following criteria. First of all, the majority of decision-making rights should be in hands of the natural person or persons who found the firm or acquired the share capital, or in the hands of their parents, spouses, children or grandchildren. These rights can be direct or indirect. Also, formal control of the firm requires at least one family member. For listed firms, the founder or acquirer of the share capital or their families should hold 25% of these rights, derived from their capital.

Although this definition about the ownership and control of family firms is relatively strict, Chrisman et al (2012) state that no firm is exactly the same, indicating that the fit between family and firm is likely to be affected by many factors. Corbetta and Salvato (2004) use the three groups mentioned by Salvato (2002) that are classified according to ownership and control, amount of nonfamily shareholders and managers and number of generations. The first one is the founder-centered family firm, where ownership lies with one family member, the founder. The second is called the sibling or cousin consortium, where the family fully owns and manages the firm, but where ownership is divided. The last group, open family firm, divides ownership and control partially with non-family shareholders and professional managers.

2.1.2 Family dynamics

A family firm can be viewed unique due to its strong family dynamics, which increases trust in the family, but decreases hiring non-family members (Casson, 1999). Family dynamics, such as nonfinancial goals and stewardship, are part of a family and influence business dynamics, indicating a link between the family and the firm, which might represent a competitive advantage (Cabrera-Suarez, De La Cruz Déniz-Déniz, and Martín-Santana, 2014).

The dynasty and employment of family members leads to current generations encouraging next generations to accept the responsibilities of a steward for the firm (Casson, 1999). Being a steward means, according to Davis, Allen, and Hayes (2010) making decisions, handling assets and trying to strengthen the business to eventually pass it on to future generations. They state that family and nonfamily members benefit from this way of doing business, because the motivation comes from success rather than from their personal goals at the expense of others, which is called being an agent. The authors explain that stewardship behavior is distinctive for family employees and agency behavior is significantly less compared to non-family members.

The most mentioned dynamics mentioned in the field, which are both closely related stewardship (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004), are trust and altruism. Trust is separated by Corbetta and Salvato (2004) into relational trust and calculative trust, where relational trust is more informal and based on affection and faith, and calculative trust is more formal and focused on control. The latter one is connected to agency relationships. It would then be logical that trust in family firm is of the relational kind. According to Davis et al (2010), trust in a family firm can be seen as the willingness of the employees to be vulnerable to the leaders of the firm,

which is related to faith in one another. The authors belief trust is high in family firms, although family employees trust the leaders more than non-family employees. Trust between family and non-family managers can also be built by a long-lasting working relationship, where both parties have proved to be reliable (Wessel, Decker, Lange, and Hack, 2014).

The second dynamic mentioned is altruism, which is defined by Corbetta and Salvato (2004) as being unselfish and devoted to others without expecting the same in return, which they state is connected with stewardship and the relationship between parent and child. In contrast, when altruism is viewed from an agency perspective, every employee would act like they own the firm because they feel like being a part of the family, leading to agency problems (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004). Similarly, Chrisman et al (2012) describe altruism as the link between the welfare of the parents with their child. They further state that it is the outcome of pursuing nonfinancial goals that are not related to profit maximization.

A summary of characteristics of family firms is given in table 1. There is no single way of defining a family firm, therefore these firms are described according to the elements ownership and control, family dynamics, and nonfinancial goals. The family owns and controls the firm with large enough capital to be allowed to make management decisions. Family dynamics that are part of the family are stewardship, trust, altruism and nonfinancial goals. Section 2.3 covers the importance of nonfinancial goals in family firms.

Table 1: characteristics of a family firm

Characteristic Explanation

Family essence (including family involvement)

Willingness of particularistic influence of the family in the firm’s behavior. Ownership and control The firm is owned and managed by the family. The direct family should have the

direct or indirect majority of decision-making rights and at least one member should have formal control. For listed firms, the founder or acquirer of the share capital or their families should hold 25% of these rights.

Founder-centered firm: ownership with one family member, the founder. Sibling or cousin consortium: family fully owns and manages the firm, but ownership is divided.

Open family firm: ownership and control shared partially with non-family shareholders and professional managers.

Family dynamics:

 Stewardship Making decisions, handling assets and trying to strengthen the business to eventually pass it on to future generations. Related to trust, altruism and nonfinancial goals.

 Trust  Altruism

 Nonfinancial goals

Relational trust (informal, based on affection and faith) trough willingness of the employees to be vulnerable to the leaders of the firm or long-lasting working relationships.

Being unselfish and devoted to others without expecting the same in return, and the relationship between parent and child.

(Family centered) Goals that are not related to profit maximization.

2.2 Socioemotional wealth

Family firms create value by pursuing financial and nonfinancial outcomes (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014). Moreover, it appears that family firms are more likely to pursue nonfinancial goals than nonfamily firms (Zellweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, and Chua, 2012). These nonfinancial outcomes are related to family socioemotional wealth (SEW), which is a model that build on prior family firm theories (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014). Moreover, Berrone et al (2012) state that SEW is what separates family firms from other organizational forms and view SEW as an overarching theme in which to group all existing theories and evidence related to family firms. They even argue that SEW could become a dominant perspective in the field as it is widely used in family business literature, it could be used for any risk preference, and it considers nonfinancial aspects and their positive and negative consequences. From this perspective, it is clear that nonfinancial goals are an important part of SEW, which is the starting point for explaining their relation.

The relevance of nonfinancial goals and identity fit between family and firm are the two most important factors in the socioemotional wealth literature, according to Zellweger et al (2011). More specifically, SEW associates the nonfinancial aspects with family’s emotional needs, such as identity (Kellermanns, Eddleston, and Zellweger, 2012). A matching conception of SEW is given by Cabrera-Suarez et al (2014). According to them, it is about the firm’s destiny and relates to certain behaviors that are common for family firms, such as altruism and stewardship, as it gives family members a strong incentive to act for the long-run interest of the company and its stakeholders. Again, one can see that nonfinancial goals are an integrated part of SEW. Moreover, SEW connects these goals with family needs.

An organized set of dimensions of SEW is proposed by Berrone et al (2012). The five dimensions are family control and influence, identification of family members with the firm, binding social ties, emotional attachment of family members, and renewal of family bonds to the firm through dynastic succession (FIBER). The first dimension, family control and influence, covers the control over strategic decisions of family owners with the goal to preserve

SEW. The identification dimension addresses the unique identity with the firm, which has an internal influence towards for instance employees and quality of products and services, and makes the family members sensitive about their external image. Family identification and quality of products and services are thus related. This, in addition to basing the identification itself on the quality of family influence on the firm (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014), poses a link between managing the firm and managing quality. Thirdly, social ties comprises of reciprocal bonds and the feeling of belonging to the family both internal and external and with the community at large. The importance given to people is essential in managing and improving quality. The fourth dimension, emotional attachment, deals with the role of emotional factors resulting from daily events in family business context, meaning both decision making processes as well as the family’s psychological appropriation of the firm. Finally, renewal of family bonds indicates the family’s view of the firm as a long-term investment with transgenerational sustainability.

The dimensions are used by other researchers in the field, such as Cabrera-Suarez et al (2014). They describe the five dimensions as the family’s control over the firm, maintenance of prestige and image of the firm, preservation of the family unity and security of jobs and lifestyles of its members, and transgenerational control of the firm. There is however also critique on the proposal. Kellermanns et al (2012) state that the dimensions may appear as an inspiration for family firms, which causes SEW to be seen as a prosocial and positive stimulus, but as a main frame of reference, it can be seen as the reason why family members sometimes place their own interests and needs above other stakeholders. They further explain that heirs may feel pressure regarding family control and identification with the firm, the first two dimensions of FIBER, which causes negative valence.

Berrone et al (2012) suggest in their proposal that family firms value the preservation of SEW and that gains or losses in this SEW are considered the main frame of reference that is used in strategy and policy issues. With high levels of SEW, the firm should behave in universally beneficial ways, for example with regard to the environment (Kellermanns et al, 2012). Preservation of SEW is established, among other things, by family climate when this is used to increase the fit between family and firm, which in turn helps set SEW goals in the decision making process (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014).

However, the goal to preserve SEW can have negative consequences. The firm might only focus on the environment when it protects their own reputation, it might prefer family control even when it will increase business risk and it can lead to entrenchment (Zellweger et al, 2012).

In summary, socioemotional wealth can be seen as a theory that covers all theories and evidence related to family firms. The family in connection with the firm as well as the focus on nonfinancial goals are important factors. FIBER can be used to describe SEW from five dimensions, but is can also have negative consequences. Preserving SEW can have universally beneficial ways, however, it can also lead to family-selfishness.

2.3 Nonfinancial goals

Nonfinancial goals are described by Zellweger et al (2011) as those without a direct tangible monetary value and can be separated into family centered goals and firm-level ones. Making this difference in family firms reflects the family’s influence in and control over the decision making process, indicating that especially the family centered goals are important to these firms (Chrisman et al, 2012). Firm level goals are for instance employee involvements, external relationships and social performance (Zellweger et al, 2011). Family level goals can be harmony, social status and family and firm identity linkage (Chrisman et al, 2012).

Striving for nonfinancial goals is often an effect of factors related to family involvement in the firm and therefore a foundation in family firm literature (Zellweger et al, 2011). It might even be what separates family firms from nonfamily ones (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014). Although family involvement increases the adoption of family centered goals, family essence is partly responsible for this relation (Chrisman et al, 2012). By this is meant the willingness of the family to influence the firm’s behavior in a particularistic manner.

Focusing on nonfinancial goals favors stewardship relationships, which leads to the maximization of potential performance (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004). In contrast, focusing on financial goals favors agency relationships, leading to the minimization of costs (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004). As stewardship is one of the characteristics of a family firm, the focus on nonfinancial goals is not more than logical.

Preservation of socioemotional wealth and particularistic family centered goals are great incentives for controlling families to pursue nonfinancial goals, according to Zellweger et al (2011). They explain this by the degree of fit these families have between family and organizational identity, as this puts the satisfaction of nonfamily stakeholders at risk. A great fit thus stimulates the families’ concern for corporate reputation, which results in pursuing nonfinancial goals that aim to satisfy stakeholders. Cabrera-Suarez et al (2014) put it differently. They state that it is the fit itself that influences the importance given to non-financial goals, where a higher degree of family involvement indicates greater importance.

Once again, a link between SEW and nonfinancial goals is presented. However, now nonfinancial goals serve as an incentive for the preservation of SEW. Putting this together with the fact that nonfinancial goals are part of SEW and that SEW connects nonfinancial goals with family needs, the relation between the two could be described as follows: striving for nonfinancial goals leads to the preservation of SEW, which connects these goals with family needs.

2.4 Relation between SEW and nonfinancial goals

In the paragraphs about socioemotional wealth and nonfinancial goals it became clear that a relation exists between the two. This paragraph is aimed to elaborate this relation in order to answer the first sub-question: What is the relation between socioemotional wealth and nonfinancial goals?

The relation found so far is that striving for nonfinancial goals leads to the preservation of SEW, which connects these goals with family needs. Accordingly, family firms strive for nonfinancial goals that provide SEW when achieved (Zellweger et al, 2012). However, striving for preservation of SEW leads to striving for nonfinancial goals (Zellweger et al, 2011). Especially when SEW is preserved for family members, these firms are likely to adopt family-centered nonfinancial goals (Chrisman et al, 2012). This would mean firms have an incentive to preserve SEW before striving for nonfinancial goals.

Relevance of nonfinancial goals, identify fit and long-run interest of the company and its stakeholders are the most important reasons to strive for SEW. Additionally, family involvement, in combination with family essence, is the main reason for family firms to strive for nonfinancial goals and the importance given to nonfinancial goals is positively related to the level of identity fit. This means, the circle starts with family involvement, which all family firms have. Then, the family should want to influence the behavior of the firm for their own good, which means, at least some, goals will be family-centered. In this case, together with a high identify fit, the firm will strive for nonfinancial goals, which in turn leads to the preservation of SEW. After, nonfinancial goals that, when achieved, provide SEW are strived for. SEW connects nonfinancial goals with identity, which could be the reason for the positive relation between these goals and identity fit. Figure 1 shows these relations.

Figure 1: relation between nonfinancial goals and socioemotional wealth

2.5 Total Quality Management

The combination of managing quality and the firm, mentioned in the SEW paragraph, is the core of total quality management (TQM). The concept is mostly explained according to the definitions from the founders and gurus of the concept, namely Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Feigenbaum, and Crosby. For instance Hackman and Wageman (1995), who describe TQM as a strategy for achieving normative outcomes and argue that four connected assumptions about quality, people, organizations and the role of senior management are the basis for this strategy. They state that producing quality is essential for survival of the organization and that employees will improve quality when they are provided with the right tools and training. Further they assert that an organization should be a system of interdependent parts and that senior management is responsible for and should be committed to total quality. More modern research describes the concept as a management philosophy that helps focus on customer and quality practices (Ooi, Lin, The, and Chong, 2012) and a holistic management approach to

manage quality and continuous improvement (Talib, Rahman, and Qureshi, 2013), in which the combination is clearly visible.

Also Boaden (1997) takes into account the definitions of the gurus to explain the concept, but she also uses the perspectives from individuals and institutions. What she concludes is that there is no universal definition of TQM possible, meaning it is subjective. Due to changing objectives and initiatives, the elements change in importance and relevance, she mentions. Consistent with this view, Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) mention that there is no specific definition or implementation framework for quality and TQM and that the ones from TQM gurus can be used interchangeable. The frameworks of Deming and Crosby consist of fourteen elements and the trilogy of Juran consists of nine items (Powell, 1995). As these can all be used, only the framework of Deming is shown in table 1.

Assuming there is one clear implementation strategy of TQM, one should follow these eight standard steps in order for it to be successful: necessary management behavior, a strategy for TQM implementation, organization for TQM, communication for TQM, training and education, employee involvement, process management and systems, and quality technologies (Porter and Parker, 1993). This could be seen as a combination of various principles, practices and techniques, which is universal and practical across firms, industries and countries (Ooi et al, 2012). According to Talib et al (2013), implementing TQM aims to help organizations improve their financial and operating performance and their customer and employee satisfaction. They further argue that a framework for implementation that focuses on customer needs and firm goals, including family centered nonfinancial goals, is required. Such a framework that meets the mission and objectives of the organization is best when it is a combination of a basic TQM framework and other suggested frameworks (Mehta, Verma, and Seth, 2014).

Several frameworks, including principles and techniques, are shown in table 1. The framework from Powell (1995) considers elements that are used by the gurus. He states that these twelve features should always at least be included in a framework for TQM. Boaden (1997) first examined many frameworks from gurus and other researcher in the area and subsequently develops a framework that consists of nine elements in total, which she says reflect the motivation and rationale for implementing practices. She makes a difference between principles and practices and argues that practices are the implementation actions that derive from the principles. The framework of Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) is developed by analyzing TQM elements that are commonly used in studies and countries. The elements they found were similar to the ones found in related studies and were tested under the

MBNQA-criteria, which is shown in table 2. This Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework is used as the basis model of TQM for many researchers (Ooi et al, 2012).

The great importance of focusing on customers and continuous improvement indicates that the concept is based on nonfinancial goals. Also the frameworks in table 2 show many similarities with the nonfinancial goals in family firms, such as employee involvements and external relationships. Considering this with the commitment of senior management and employees to quality, one could state that TQM is an organizational focus on nonfinancial goals to improve quality. However, the relationship between these goals and SEW indicated that a focus on nonfinancial goals was to improve SEW. It would then be possible that there is a certain connection between TQM and SEW. For example, organizational focus in a family firm could be strong by a high level of identity fit the family has with the firm.

In summary, the definition of TQM is subjective and could be explained as a management approach that combines managing quality and the firm. Successful implementation requires taking eight standard steps and focusing on customer needs and firm goals. An implementation framework is best when it is a combination of suggested frameworks.

Table 2: TQM frameworks

Powell (1995) Commitment leadership; Adoption and communication of TQM; Closer

customer relationships; Closer supplier relationships; Benchmarking; Increased training; Open organization; Employee empowerment; Zero-defects mentality; Flexible manufacturing; Process improvement measurement

Boaden (1997) Principles: Customer focus; Commitment to quality improvement; Involvement to quality improvement; Process focusing; Continuous improvement; Practices: Training and education; Teamwork; Appropriate tools and techniques; Goal setting

Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) Top management commitment and leadership; Customer focus; Information and analysis; Training; Supplier management; Strategic planning; Employee involvement; Human resource management; Process management; Teamwork; Product and service design; Process control; Benchmarking; Continuous improvement; Employee empowerment; Quality assurance; Social responsibility; Employee satisfaction

MBNQA framework Leadership; Strategic planning; Customer focus; Information analysis; People management; Process management

Deming Constancy of purpose; Adopt the philosophy; Don’t rely on mass inspection; Don’t award business on price; Constant improvement; Training; Leadership; Drive out fear; Break down barriers; Eliminate slogans and exhortations;

Eliminate quotas; Pride of workmanship; Education and retraining; Plan of action

3 Research method

This section gives an explanation about the case firm and discusses how data is collected, analyzed and interpreted. The choice for and description of the firm is covered in the research site. The part about collection of data discusses why interviewing is chosen, with whom the interviews were conducted and the questions asked to these interviewees. Analyzation and interpretation includes the coding process of interview data captured.

3.1 Research site

The research question is focused on finding the way total quality management in implemented in family firms, which is why the interviews will be conducted with managers from family firms. This firm should be chosen very carefully. Three factors mentioned by Irvine and Gaffikin (2006) influence this choice. First of all, the firm should offer relevant data, be flexible about the research topic and think radically. For the data to be relevant, the firms selected should meet the ownership-and-control criteria of a family firm mentioned by European Family Businesses, as these cover the definition of a family firm. The second influence is the research area. In this research, the firms where interviews were conducted have their headquarters in Northern Holland, the Netherlands, to make it possible for the researcher to do the interview face to face. Conducting the interviews personally makes them more flexible, interactive and generative and gives the researcher the opportunity to include the interviewee’s language to understand his or her meaning (Legard, Keegan, and Ward, 2003). Thirdly, the choice of firm is influenced by the possibility of gaining access. The best way to gain access is to be ethical, wise, and flexible.

Within the period between February and July 2016, the research was conducted with interviewing six managers, who were also owner of the firm. Of the six firms, one operates as consulting service firm, one as day care, one as transporting service firm, one in foods and beverages, one in finance, and one as supply and rent company. All of the firms are small sized, as the number of people working in the firm ranged from two to 17. Access to these interviewees were granted through personal relationships with people that are connected with family firms or via previous interviews.

3.2 Data collection

A widely used method to collect data for qualitative research, according to Legard et al (2003), is in-depth interviewing. They state that people’s point of view and the power of language to explain meaning are very important. In literature about TQM, especially structured interviews are used to capture critical elements (Porter and Parker, 1993).

The interviewees were initially contacted by telephone or via email and were provided with the themes of this study and a brief explanation of why the research is interesting. The interviewees were asked permission to record the interview in the email and phone conversation and at the beginning of the interview. Also, at initial contact the interviewees were assured the confidentiality of the interviews conducted.

The advantage of recording is capturing the exact formulation and way of speaking of the interviewee (Legard et al, 2003). During the interviews, notes were made to write down observations about the interviewee, such as hand gestures or emotions, and outside the direct context of the interview. This could help understand specific issues from the perspective of the interviewee. These field notes were, with the permission of the interviewee, taken by a third person. This prevents the interviewee from thinking they should speak more slowly or pause if the researcher takes notes or that they said enough when she is not (Legard et al, 2003).

The interviews and notes are conducted in the native language of the interviewees, being Dutch, and were translated to English after the analysis had been done as accurately as possible. At the end of each interview, the interviewer summarized the interview in her own words. This summary was then confirmed or corrected by the interviewee, which allowed the interviewer to gain a good and true understanding of the research themes within that firm.

The interviews were structured by asking several types of questions proposed by Legard et al (2003). Ground mapping questions were used to introduce the subject, which allowed the interviewees to present elements that are most relevant to him or her, with minimum probing from the researcher. After these questions, the interviewee is guided towards more narrow questions about the topics, which are called the dimension mapping questions. The last type are perspective-widening questions, which are intended to make the interviewee look at the topic from a different and more wide perspective than their first response. These perspectives were, where appropriate, focused more on the direction about subjects the researcher wants to understand.

The analysis of the interview should reveal specific family dynamics, elements of total quality management present in the case firm, and which nonfinancial goals are used and how.

Therefore, half of the questions included in the interview were specific. The elements about TQM found in the firm asked are shown in table 3 and were constructed by analyzing the suggested frameworks and group them according to their subject. The grouping procedure is shown in appendix 1. Asking standardized and specific questions increases completeness and comparability between answers (Patton, 2002).

However, asking questions during the interview that are very specific and standardized may give too little flexibility and constrains the interviewee from giving relevant answers, according to Patton (2002). That is why another type of interview suggested by this author is used in this research, namely the interview guide approach. This allows the researcher to decide the sequence and wording of the questions in the course of the interview. The advantage of this approach is the increase in comprehensive, because the researcher can immediately respond to potential gaps in data and the interview style is conversational and situational. On the other hand, important topics may be forgotten or be covered incomplete. Additionally, comparability between respondents decreases, because different wording of questions can lead to different answers from different perspectives.

There are four main themes used in the guide of this research. The first one is family involvement, which includes the number of family members that work within the firm, perspective of future generations taking over the firm and the way non-family members feel the presence of the family within the firm. Identification of family members with the firm is the second theme and covers the relation between the family and the firm. Third, the importance of nonfinancial goals and implementation of them are covered in the theme nonfinancial goals. The focus on quality is the fourth theme in this research.

The questions asked during the interview are focused on knowledge and on opinions and values, two types mentioned by Patton (2002). He describes knowledge questions as those aimed at factual information from the interviewee. Answers to opinion and value questions should give an understanding of people’s ideas about an experience or issue and can relate to goals and intentions. The specifications of topics and issues covered during the interview are shown in appendix 2.

During the interviews, notions of the researcher about the SEW theory were either confirmed or challenged. This is an important matter discussed by Irvine and Gaffikin (2006). They state that theory should not be treated as a fact, but should be seen as an interpretation or explanation.

The interviewees are coded by the number M, which stands for manager, and are given a number according to the order of interviewing them. Using codes will keep the identity of the interviewees anonymous.

Table 3: TQM elements in interview Leadership

Customer focus Supplier focus

(quality) Improvement

Employee involvement/open organization Process control

Strategic planning

3.3 Data analysis

Data analysis starts when the researcher begins with collection data and further covers the organization and interpretation of data, as stated by Irvine and Gaffikin (2006). They suggest that the study is better understood and shaped when analysis is done at the same time as developing theory and collecting data. Further, they mention that data should be filed, stored and sorted after the interviews have been done. This process started with writing down the audio recordings in a Word document and saving the notes taken during the interview in another document. Later, these documents are read again while listening to the audio record (O’Dwyer, 2004). The captured data was sorted and classified according to their subject, namely family identity, total quality management and nonfinancial goals, and later were being related to on another to eventually find similarities and differences between theory and practice.

The steps taken in this sorting approach were the three steps of coding used by Goia, Corley and Hamilton (2012). They derived these steps from Strauss and Corbin (1998) and added their own findings. In this process, the coding started with observing, e.g. reading and listening to, the data and connecting them with the research objective. This open coding allows to identify themes within each interview and subject based on intuition and to give each theme an open code (O’Dwyer, 2004). The total number of themes after observing all interviews could be over 100 and getting lost is an important part in this stage. However, to avoid losing the big picture, the themes and corresponding codes were noted in a separate word document

(O’Dwyer, 2004). The next step was to reexamine what is done and find similarities and differences between the themes. This enabled grouping the themes to about one fifth of the total to make them more structured. In this stage, the relation to theory was kept in mind. After this stage, the themes were reduced to a few aggregate dimensions that help explain relations between each other and with the objective.

After this coding, the dimensions should be interpreted. The two main stages of this process discussed by O’Dwyer (2004) are preparing a detailed description of the key findings including the primary themes and themes not falling under these codes, and using this to prepare a more focused description of the findings including elements of the analysis process. The final stage of analyzing is described by Irvine and Gaffikin (2006) as the reflexive relationship between the interpretations in the case study and theory that might explain the objective. At the end, but also during the whole process, of data analysis, elements of the SEW theory became visible. Notions about the theory in combination with the data were then combined to make the researcher understand wat is going on in the case firm (Irvine and Gaffikin, 2006).

4 Analysis

In the following section, a descriptive analysis of the data gathered from interviews will be presented. The findings of this research are separately discussed around the four main themes of this study and include notions of the SEW theory that was explained in section 2 of this paper. Direct quotes from interviewees are used to improve the trustworthiness of the analysis (O’Dwyer, 2004).

4.1 Family involvement

The first theme discussed is family involvement, which is a necessary part of a family firm. All of the six firm included in this research were owned and controlled by the family. Four of the firms are in hands of the founder and were managed by themselves. These are so-called founder-centered family firms (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004). One of these firms would certainly be taken over by their children. Two are in the hands of the second generation and managed by one or more children of the founder. These firms are sibling consortia (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004). In none of the firms, any other person than a direct family member has decision-making rights, which means none of the firms in this study is an open family firm (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004).

Within the firms, between two and six family members were involved, being the founders and their children and grandchildren. In none of the firms, other family members than direct family, such as siblings and children, were not involved.

Four of the interviewees wanted their children to take over the firm in the future, one was the child taking over and one was dismantling. All four were not too enthusiastic, because they did not want to pressurize their children. This is confirmed by the following quote from an interviewee of a founder-centered firm:

(M5) I do hope my children will continue the business, but it remains a free choice. I will not force one of my children to do my work.

The child taking over the firm mentioned he did not feel pressure at all. This is not contradicting the view of encouraging stewardship to future generations (Casson, 1999), however, it is not fully agreeing either. Therefore, it is also not completely corresponding with the theory that stewardship behavior is distinctive for family employees (Davis et al, 2010). Instead of the

family’s view of the firm as a long-term investment with transgenerational sustainability, as opposed by renewal of family bonds of FIBER (Berrone et al, 2012), the owner of these firms were operating as long as business went well and they enjoyed their work.

In the firms that were taken over or will be taken over by children of the founders, these children grew into the firm by working their way from employee to manager and gradually obtained full control over the firm. In two of these firms, the second generation had customized or will customize the firm. Interviewee 6 stated that his child was going to take over the firm and would, of course, customize it. After asking if that notion of was or wasn’t a definite thing, as a reaction on his ‘of course’, he responded:

(M6) No, but that is something you always do. One likes to do this, the other likes that. You always do the things you like. You shouldn’t be working against your will. I here that more often, but then you should take another job.

This customization caused them to feel less pressure and more attached and connected to the firm, which means customization increases the identity fit.

Part of family involvement is how non-family members, such as employees, supplier, customers and the outside world, feel the presence of the family within the firm. The reciprocal bond and the external and internal feeling of belonging to the family, called binding social ties (Berrone et al, 2012), were not directly found in any of the interviews. One of the interviewees even stated:

(M1) I do not always say they are family. People often don’t know she is my granddaughter. I am not telling that and, at that moment, that’s not relevant. She is just good at her job. I first let people meet, because otherwise I have the idea I put pressure on people. Then I don’t think that’s fair.

Because the presence of family members is not known, non-family members cannot feel the bond either. What could be an interesting finding is that in the five firms that had employees, all of the owners spoke to their employees during their jobs about how they could function better and two of them explicitly mentioned they did not have performance reviews with their employees. This does not include staff consultations. This finding could be caused by the presence of a family.

Family essence is an important part of family involvement and means the family wants to influence to firm in a particularistic manner (Chrisman et al, 2012). Although this was not specifically asked, in one of the interviews in became clear that the family, either sometimes or always, makes decisions that are in their best interest, even if it is over the interest of others in the firm. The quote below confirms the clearance of this observation.

(M1) I decide everything myself and I want to decide it myself. I do discuss things and I am open for everything, but in the end, I decide everything myself. I have in mind how I want it, how I see it and I what I want to do with it. As senior I give approval.

In other firms, essence was not at all visible or not noted this obvious. In the firm where essence was somewhat visible, the interviewee mentioned two contradicting notions:

(M4) (…) and training them well. They do that the way we want them to. At the first interview you mostly already notice if it’s going to work with them.

(M4) I can think I know how something works, maybe they then have their doubts and then they come up with things I actually agree with. I have no trouble admitting that. If it’s better for the company, then that does not affect my honor. Totally not. Also because my dad and his girlfriend are not like that.

The latter notion is more in conformance with the view of the other interviewees about decision making. In conclusion, in five of the six firms there was no clear presence of family essence, which contradicts the notion of Chrisman et al (2012) that family essence is what differentiates family firms from non-family firms. This could either mean that this notion is incorrect or that it is correct, but the firms interviewed do not involve enough family for essence to occur.

Family involvement can have a positive effect on knowledge between personnel.

(M1) They are all younger, so they often know other stuff than I do. I can use that knowledge, but I can also teach them things.

It is not explicitly said, but this teaching can cause the family to feel more close to their relatives and the firm and increase their focus on nonfinancial goals. This is something that can be further elaborated in future research.

Trust in the firms was not explicitly mentioned, however, the open organization that every firm had can be an indication of relational trust. One of the interviewees mentioned she had a good experience with leaving the firm for a vacation and coming back to the same firm she left and that next time she would leave for a while, she would not worry anymore. This worrying is connected to the attachment, which will be further discussed in section 4.2 identity fit. The following quote is a combination of trust and altruism.

(M2) You immediately know if someone sympathizes or likes his job. That’s important, being motivated in your work. If not, than people just say that. That might be harsh, but then you know where you stand. But they know you too. They know you can ask something. He who does good, will meet good.

Employees trust the founders enough to say it when they are unhappy. However, the part about not expecting something in return (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004), which is called altruism, is contradicted, as he and/or his employees do expect something in return for their good. Also in the other firms, altruism in relation to stewardship was not directly found. The fact that all firms wanted to make a profit, being their main focus or not, strengthens that altruism is viewed here in an agency perspective, which leads to agency problems (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004).

The presence of relational trust is related to the presence of stewardship, but altruism in the interviewed firms can be viewed from an agency perspective. The conclusion here is that stewardship is present, but agency is or can also be present.

Table 4 shows for each firm which of the characteristics of a family firm mentioned in table 1 are present. This shows the degree to which the firms in this research are a good representative of a family firm as described in family firm literature. The lack of a characteristic does not immediately imply that the firm is less of a family firm, because a single definition of a family firm is unrealistic (Chrisman et al, 2012).

In summary, from the firms interviewed, four are founder-centered firms and two are sibling consortia. The founders wanted to have their children take over the firm, but did not put any pressure on them to do so. In three firms, the children grew into the firm and in two of those the children customized the activities of the firm to make it more of their own, increasing identity fit. The firms that had employees did not have performance reviews, which could be caused by presence of a family. Family essence was found in only one of the firms. The open organization that was present in every firm could lead to relational trust, but also to altruism from an agency perspective. This means that, next to stewardship, agency can be present.

Table 4: presence of family firm characteristics

Characteristics Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Firm 5 Firm 6

Family essence X - - - - -

Ownership & control Type X Founder-centered X Sibling consortia X Founder-centered X Sibling consortia X Founder-centered X Founder-centered Stewardship X X X X X X Trust X X X X X X Altruism - - - - Nonfinancial goals X X X X X X 4.2 Identity

The second theme is identification of family members with the firm. Subthemes cover the relation between the manager, also called identity fit, and the firm and connection between personal goals and the goals of the firm. The fit between manager and firm is one of the most important factors in the SEW theory (Zellweger et al, 2011) and is therefore a core element of the analysis.

The identity fit is the highest when the manager is one with the firm. All of the interviewees said to very much related to the firm. One interviewee said she was the firm and the firm was she. The child taking over the firm said the attachment to the firm was the reason why he wanted to take over. This connection was found in every firm.

(M2) If you’re owner, you’re always attached. That’s not going to let go. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day you’re available. Only if I can’t go to the firm, if I’m out of the country, then I can let go.

But after this notion he mentioned calling to the firm every other day and checking mail. Four of the six firms literally mentioned they could not let go of the firm even on vacation.

Feeling attached to the firm was awarded by customers in one of the firms. It is appreciated by customers and that increases the relation you have with them. The connection to customers will be further elaborated in section 4.4.2 customer focus.

The identity fit could be explained by feelings. The feeling of attachment is the greatest, but also feeling of pride, appreciation and satisfaction in the duties they perform are mentioned

often. These four aspects are related to one another and come together in the identification dimension of FIBER, which states that identification makes the family members sensitive about their external image (Berrone et al, 2012).

(M2) You’re doing something and you try to make the best of it. You want people to be enthusiastic, you want to emanate your firm to the outside world. We’re proud of what we have. You need to work hard for it, that is obvious, but then you get something in return.

In the firm of interviewee M1, however, family members were not identified as being part of the family. This makes them less sensitive about their external image. In the other five firms, the family was known, making them more sensitive to the outside world.

Five of the six firms were service firms and one was half service and have production. The service was mostly provided by the owners themselves, which could increase the identity fit. Pride of workmanship is a TQM element mentioned by Deming. Although this was not one of the elements that were specifically asked during the interviews, there was a strong feeling of pride in the services they performed in all of the six firms. The connection between the owner and the firm was increased due to the work they performed.

(M3) When you achieve something and the customer says you did a good job, than that is of course nice to hear. Regular appreciation is always great, because then you have the feeling you’re doing a good job.

The connection between personal goals and firm goals serves as a measure of the connection between identification and quality of family influence of the firm (Cabrera-Suarez et al, 2014). Only one of the interviewee had a notion about her personal goals within the firm:

(M1) The firm is a medium to bring my personal goals into the world.

The other interviewees either did not know what their personal goals were or said that their goals were already achieved in their stage in life. Interestingly, they all mentioned that you should do something you like, which could be seen as a personal goal. That is why the second generations customized the firm when taking over. Another personal goal is that the five firms that were not dismantling all had the wish that the firm would continue in the hands of their children. To conclude, at least some of, the personal goals of the owners are firm goals, which

means the connection between identification and quality of family influence is high. Therefore, family essence should be present in all of the firms.

In summary, all of the interviewees said they felt a high connection with the firm. The feelings of attachment, pride of workmanship, appreciation and satisfaction are of importance in identity fit. Only in one firm the owner felt her personal goals were the firm goals, but after analyzing it came forward that also in the other firms, personal goals were seen in firm goals. This would mean every firm has a high identity fit and a presence of family essence.

4.3 Nonfinancial goals

Third, the importance of nonfinancial goals and implementation of them are covered in the theme nonfinancial goals. None of the firm explicitly stated that nonfinancial goals were of great importance. However, they did not focus on profit only, leaving room for a focus on nonfinancial goals. These goals can be separated between family-centered and firm goals. Family level goals can be harmony, social status and family and firm identity linkage (Chrisman et al, 2012). The two family-centered goals are mentioned above, namely doing what you like and the wish that the firm is taken over by the children of the owners. These are also the personal goals. The goal of harmony between owners was found in several firms:

(M3) Everything we do is in cooperation, we just discuss that. That is a collaboration you have.

(M6) The three of us have leadership (the two owners and the child). Or when two out of three agree, then we do it too. That is the playing rule.

Firm level goals can be employee involvements, external relationships and social performance (Zellweger et al, 2011). Employee involvement, which is also one of the quality elements, was mentioned by all of the interviewees that had employees working in the firm. This includes working together with them, listening to their ideas, and acting in accordance. The following quotes show the importance of employee involvement in two firms.

(M5) There is always a critical look on products. But we are not the only ones looking. We do that in consultation with the employees. When they see something that they think is nice for the children, they are allowed to order that.

(M4) Every several months, we have meetings with the whole team to put new ideas out in the open. They are the ones on the work floor, they see what is wrong, what could be better and where demand for exists. In the meetings, the whole team can react to the new ideas, then you shouldn’t have to tell everyone individually. They can also say that it is not handy if we do something a particular way. I can think something should go like that, but they don’t agree and come up with stuff of which I think they do make a good point. Then I admit that, I have no trouble at all admitting that. If it is better for the company, I don’t feel affected in my honor. Not at all.

External relationships are mainly the relationships with customers and suppliers, two TQM elements that were specifically asked for during the interview. A more extensive analyzes will be given in the sections 4.4.2 customer focus and 4.4.3 supplier focus. Other relationships, such as with competing firms, were of some importance. In two of the firms, the relationship was used to point out their firm played it fair, while competition did not. In another firm, the relationship was used as an advantage, by thinking if you keep the competition friendly and fair, they would do your firm no harm either.

Goals that are related to society were mentioned by all of the firms. These goals ranged from sponsoring the sports club of their child to supporting small, local businesses. None of the firms performed these goals with the aim to make a profit or benefit for their own firm. If they did, they say it as positive side effect.

Two of the firms made investments in machines. Both firms did not invest to make a profit, but to improve the quality of the activities they perform. One of the interviewees stated:

(M6) We always want to finish the work neatly. That is important. You want to earn money, so you can buy new machines which you need to be quicker next time.

This firm’s goal of investments was to avoid paying taxes. He further mentioned that not all money should be invested, because the family deserved a little extra money. The other only made investments when it was necessary for the company, he did not want to take a great risk. Having everything under control is very difficult with all the risks from an investment. This is agreeing with the notion that investment decisions by the family are made more cautiously and conservatively (Wessel et al, 2014). Especially the first mentioned reason is in accordance, as

the family has more interest in pursuing family centered goals than achieving high financial investment outcomes (Wessel et al, 2014).

Investing in people was mentioned more often. Training employees was done in every firm that had employees. This part is related to the TQM element employee involvement and will therefore be further analyzed in part 4.4.5 employee involvement/open organization. The goal of training employees was to let employees do their job the way you want them to. The following quote shows the importance of good employees in one of the firms:

(M6) The people that work here are sought. On a certain moment they came on my path, they wanted to work for me and I had work for them. Mostly I am busy a long time to search for someone. That will not happen overnight. You should have patience, no job interviews. Better to have less work then.

In all of the firms, the fit between manager and firm is high. This should stimulate the concern for corporate reputation and subsequently the settlement and achievement of goals to satisfy stakeholders (Zellweger et al, 2011). Satisfaction of employees was of importance in all of the firms that had employees, which is related to the settlement of goals. The focus on customer satisfaction is related to settlement and achievement of goals. Working together with the customer to achieve a certain goal was an important factor in every firm. Goals that were related to society are related to achievement, as setting these goals do not yet help society. Achieving societal goals were only increasing the identity fit in one firm, although the concern was present in more than one.

To summarize, the nonfinancial goals found so far focus on harmony, society, employees, customers, making investments, and external relationships/competition. Other nonfinancial goals that were strived for focused on fairness, the future, quality, appearance of products, and going with trends. These incentives are related to the dimensions of FIBER, which means they are in accordance with the theory of Zellweger et al (2011), that preservation of socioemotional wealth and particularistic family centered goals are great incentives for controlling families to pursue nonfinancial goals.