Succession process among africa owned business general 1

is
International et al.: Business Journal
Tatoglu Small Succession Planning in Turkey
Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications

b
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)

j
http://isb.sagepub.com
[DOI:10.1177/0266242607086572]
Vol 26(2): 155–180

Succession Planning in Family-owned
Businesses
Evidence from Turkey

E K R E M TATO G L U
Bahcesehir University,Turkey

VEYSEL KULA
Afyon Kocatepe University,Turkey

K E I T H W. G L A I S T E R
University of Sheffield, UK

A key issue for many family-owned businesses (FOBs) is intergenerational
management succession. This article investigates the dynamics of the succession
process for FOBs that have already taken the succession decision and have selected
their successors. The primary goal of the study is to delineate the factors behind
the succession process by investigating selection, training and entry mode of
successors as well as the involvement of family members and stakeholders in the
succession process. Data from the predecessors of 408 FOBs in Turkey reveals a
number of insightful findings regarding major characteristics of the FOB succession
process including the views of predecessors on the succession process, successor
selection criteria and the post-succession period. This is the first systematic study
to deal with the succession process in Turkish FOBs, which previously has been
informed only by anecdotal evidence.

KEYWORDS: family-owned business; predecessor; succession planning;
successor; Turkey

Introduction
The family-owned business (FOB) literature is dominated by discussions of problems
and pitfalls, such as access to capital and managerial talent, and effective governance.
One problem that forms the core of the family business literature is intergenerational
management succession. Succession planning in the family-owned business is defined
as ‘the explicit process by which the management control is transferred from one

155

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at BTCA Univ de Barcelona on August 20, 2010

International Small Business Journal 26(2)
family member to another’ (Sharma et al., 2000: 233). Succession planning appears
to be where most family business failures occur (Handler and Kram, 1988).
Successful succession can provide a family-owned business with a competitive
edge over a non-family-owned business by enabling the continued use of accumu-
lated idiosyncratic knowledge of family members (Bjuggren and Sund, 2001). The
inside knowledge possessed by family members, coupled with their loyalty and trust,
endows them with specific competencies and know-how required to run the busi-
ness effectively and helps them to create the resources and capabilities required to
generate a competitive advantage (Ram and Jones, 2002). In professionally managed
firms, boards of directors often make succession decisions by utilizing a professional
recruitment consultancy service. In such firms, the successor is selected from a pool
of candidates on the basis of perceived competency. In contrast, in FOBs there will
be few people in either the business or the family with any experience of when and
how succession should be dealt with, as this issue is a rare event for the family firm
occurring only once for each generation (Fox et al., 1996). Consequently, one of the
most pressing problems for the FOB is planning to pass control of the business to
the next generation (Kuratko et al., 1993), with succession a problematic and neg-
lected issue in many family businesses (Bachkaniwala et al., 2001). Moreover, as the
number of potential successors is limited largely to the number of family members,
succession in FOBs carries a greater risk of failure.
It is generally accepted that only 3 out of 10 firms survive to the second generation,
with only 15% persisting to the third generation (Davis and Harveston, 1998; Kets
de Vries, 1993; Ward, 1987). This raises interesting research questions related to the
dynamics of successful successions. Evidently it may be difficult for owners to
relinquish the prestige and power associated with being the head of the FOB.
Nonetheless, owners should be prepared to adopt a proactive approach towards
succession. This is in order to transfer managerial and technical knowledge, to
sustain the confidence of stakeholders in the business and to remove the power
conflicts within the family.
In their study on FOBs in Lebanon, Fahed-Sreih and Djoundourian (2006) re-
ported that in less than 40% of cases a successor has been chosen. Similarly, in his
study on FOBs in the UK, Westhead (2003) found that only 41% of the incumbent
owner-managers have a successor in mind. The findings of the study indicated a
significant positive association between the incumbent owner-managers having a
successor in mind and companies with long-serving CEOs. According to Westhead
(2003), this evidence suggests that CEOs in family firms are not universally rigid, nor
reluctant to contemplate retirement, which infers that CEOs in many family firms
are aware of their personal life cycle dynamics, and to protect the store of personal
and family wealth, actively seek ways to ensure smooth successions.
Succession planning, as Francis (1993: 49) asserts, is a dynamic process requiring
the current ownership to plan the company’s future and then to implement the re-
sulting plan. It is also a complex process involving the interaction of several factors
operating at the personal, relational and organizational levels. These factors include
the personal and career development of the successor, succession planning and
control activities.
Drawing on a relatively large dataset of FOBs in Turkey, this article investigates the
dynamics of the succession process for FOBs that have already taken the succession

156


Tatoglu et al.: Succession Planning in Turkey
decision and have selected their successors. The dominant non-governmental
business structure in Turkey is the family-owned firm (Gunduz and Tatoglu, 2003).
Even the large holding companies are family owned, in which important positions
are occupied by family members. This is confirmed by a recent survey on the owner-
ship data of companies traded on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, which reveals that
family groups directly or indirectly own more than 75% of all companies and
maintain the majority control (Yurtoglu, 2000).
Managers in a traditional Turkish business are perceived essentially as exten-
sions of the founder owner and they emphasize an autocratic style of leadership
(Marcoulides et al., 1998). The typical organizational structure is noted for its high
degree of centralization. The hierarchy serves the main mechanism of control and
coordination in most Turkish companies, with less emphasis, however, being placed
on the various lateral and informal means of coordination (Kozan and Ilter, 1994).
Traditional Turkish business firms are governed almost totally by a patriarch, who
is virtually free to exercise his intentions concerning succession to key managerial
positions within the firm. The traditional Turkish style of management also influences
the management succession process in Turkish FOBs. There are seldom formal rules
and procedures documented for the purpose of succession planning.
Bearing these characteristics of Turkish FOBs in mind, the key concerns of this
study are to examine the major characteristics of the FOB succession process in-
cluding the views of predecessors on the succession process, successor selection
criteria and the post-succession period. The study sheds new light on the succes-
sion process in place in Turkish FOBs, drawing on the perceptions of predecessors
from a large dataset. This article presents the first systematic study to deal with the
succession process in Turkish FOBs, which previously has been informed only by
anecdotal evidence.
The remainder of the article is set out in the following way. The background
literature on successor selection, successor relationships with predecessor, family
members and other stakeholders is reviewed in the next section. In this section,
emphasis will be given to exploring which member of the family is usually selected
as the successor, his/her entry mode and the prevalence of outside experience of
the successor. The literature review will also consider the method of successor
selection together with the most influential successor criterion in the selection. The
predecessor’s level of involvement after the succession decision and perception of
the various attributes of the post-succession process are also examined in the review.
The research methods are set out in the third section. The research was conducted
as a survey study relying on the views of predecessors that had already selected
their successors in a sample of Turkish FOBs. To this end, a survey instrument was
designed based upon the review of the extant literature. The fourth section presents
findings. Discussion and conclusions are in the last section.

Literature Review
As noted earlier, the primary goal of this study is to delineate the factors behind the
succession process for a sample of family-owned Turkish companies. As Motwani
et al. (2006) assert, within family-owned organizations, unique sets of issues arise.
This is because the presence of the ‘family’ dimension in addition to the ‘business’

157


dimension of the enterprise means that additional factors must be taken into ac-
count to understand organizational planning processes. The following subsections
provide a review of the main issues that are pertinent to the succession process in
FOBs, with particular emphasis on the family-business dilemma.

Successor Selection
Using a psychological approach to the understanding of succession among owner-
managed firms by borrowing Jung’s original concepts of extraversion and intro-
version, Stavrou (2003) proposed that FOBs demonstrate an extraverted attitude
during succession. In other words, Stavrou claims that when it comes to leadership
succession, the business (the subject) places primary importance on the values and
beliefs of an outside source, namely the family (the object) over its own needs.
Therefore, in FOBs the difficulty of succession decisions is compounded by the
complexities of family dynamics that are not present in non-family-owned busi-
nesses (Kuratko et al., 1993). The problem of finding a successor is not limited to
the person with the most suitable track record and abilities, for example, but has
the added complications of family membership and expectations (Brown and
Coverley, 1999).
The literature on succession typically presumes that the eldest sons of owners
will be their successors, although attention has been given recently to daughters (Fox
et al., 1996). The normal practice in western societies can be described as male primo-
geniture, i.e. the eldest male heir is chosen for succession. Kuratko et al. (1993) in
their study of US and Korean small business owners found that the overwhelming
majority wanted a son to take over the firm. This was the case for both the US and
Korean firms. Martin (2001) from a sample of small and medium-size firms found
that male offspring were described and treated as ‘heirs apparent’. This was the case
whether or not they were currently employed by the firm. In contrast, Bachkaniwala
et al. (2001) from case studies of South Asian FOBs found that the founder chose
his eldest son as his successor in only one case. In most cases intelligence, hard work,
good leadership skills and effective training under his guidance were identified as
factors influencing the founder’s choice of the successor.
Many FOBs fail to engage in the planning process to determine a successor.
Huang’s (1999) study of Taiwanese FOBs revealed that among the reasons for failing
to adopt a succession plan were the lack of a succession-planning department or
personnel charged with the task, concern about potentially negative side effects,
too small organizational scale, top management not recognizing the importance of
planning and unfamiliarity with plan contents and procedures. A survey of Canadian
family firms showed that FOBs pay the least attention to identifying the candidates
and developing criteria for selecting the successor. Furthermore, the family firms
trained the successors and communicated the succession decision although they
did not define the post-succession role for the incumbent (Sharma et al., 2000). How-
ever, Martin (2001) found some succession plans to be carefully devised following
meetings with accountants, solicitors and banks, while others were informal in that
they were not committed to writing but were the results of repeated discussions at
family and/or management meetings. Beckhard and Dyer (1983: 9) state that family-

158


controlled enterprises use the following scenarios to manage the continuity: (1) the
founder controls the process entirely, (2) the founder consults with selected family
members, (3) the founder works with professional advisors, and (4) the founder
works with family involvement.
The succession plan should not only identify the potential candidate, but also the
reasons why the candidate is preferable to other possible nominees (Borwick, 1993).
The two conditions, which are crucial for the succession to proceed as intended, are
the successor’s willingness to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the business
and his or her ability to gain the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies
required to manage within the finite time-span leading up to the retirement of the
incumbent (Fox et al., 1996). The successor’s time commitment and mode of entry
to the family business must be planned. Barach et al. (1988) indicate that most suc-
cessors join the family firm immediately after completing their education. One viable
strategy is to use summer employment and low-level jobs as methods of entry. Barach
et al. (1988) contend that the rarer course of external employment post-schooling
and prior to working for the family firm has some value. This is for several reasons:
non-family-owned firms might provide more opportunity and objective evaluation
of a young person’s achievement. Gaining experience in other companies can also
provide the potential successor with a broader perspective on managerial issues
and help him/her develop the capacity to adapt to far-reaching environmental
change. Furthermore, achievement outside the family business can win the entrant
credibility and respect when joining the family firm.
A low-level job entry strategy in the FOB facilitates the establishment of strong
relationships with key stakeholders. However, a major disadvantage associated
with this entry strategy is that mistakes may be too readily viewed as a sign of in-
competence on the part of the successor. While the delayed entry route allows the
successor to build self-confidence and credibility, the main drawback of this strategy
is that specific expertise and/or an understanding of the culture of the family busi-
ness may be lacking once the successor joins the FOB (Fox et al., 1996). In their
study of 102 family firms, Morris et al. (1996) found that most successors were well
educated with relatively few years of experience outside the family business, and
a large majority joined the company either as an entry-level employee or a lower-
level manager. In terms of succession planning, they found that the criteria used to
select heirs were usually not formalized.
Brown and Coverley (1999) from a sample of East Anglian family firms, found
that a list of requirements for prospective successor candidates showed experience
in the business as essential, experience in a similar business elsewhere as desirable,
and a good business education as optional. Handler (1991) argues that the following
factors influence the effectiveness of succession criteria: degree of training, degree
of responsibility, and experience outside the organization, communication con-
cerning succession and planning around succession. In their study on FOBs in the
USA, Motwani et al. (2006) found that in terms of skill requirements, respondents
rated decision-making ability of successor, the successors’ commitment to the busi-
ness, and interpersonal skills as the top three successor attributes. Bachkaniwala
et al. (2001) reported that most founders educated their offspring in order to enhance

159


their labour market prospects and not just for succession purposes. However,
founders were also involved in succession planning by guiding their heir to under-
take relevant education.

Successor–predecessor Relationships
The progressive weakening of the association between the predecessor and the
business is the essence of managing succession although it is the most difficult
step as a mutually dependent relationship between the owner and the firm is likely
to have been built over a long period of time. For most FOBs, predecessors do
not wish to contemplate succession because they fear the loss of power and status
(Fox et al., 1996). Handler (1990) asserts that the succession process involves a
mutual role adjustment between predecessor and successor. Within this process,
the predecessor adopts sequentially the roles of sole operator, monarch, delegator
and finally consultant. On the other hand, the successor moves from a no role posi-
tion to the positions of helper, manager and finally leader/chief decision-maker.
Handler (1990) argues that the last two stages of this role transition appear to be
the most critical to effective successions. It is during these pivotal phases that the
preparation of the next generation becomes most apparent. It is often not until
the predecessor has progressed into the role of delegator that the level of challenge,
responsibility, and task complexity for the successor can increase. This is seemingly
a very sensitive transition, which depends on the owner’s capacity to trust, share
and delegate.
In their study of South African FOBs, Venter et al. (2005) noted that satisfaction
with the succession process is strongly influenced by a willingness to take over the
business and the positive relationship between the owner and successor. Based on
case studies of six Kenyan firms, Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods (2002) found that for
most of the sample firms, with the transition from second to third generation, firms
began to work on a formalized succession plan involving both generations. While
the first generation owners that developed the business experienced difficulties in
relinquishing control, the third generation successors, often educated in foreign
countries, allowed the increased employment of non-family staff in their companies,
institutionalizing the notion of separating ownership and management.
Succession planning should include a clarification of the role, responsibilities,
and ownership stake of the predecessor after succession (Sharma et al., 2000). In
their study of a sample of Canadian firms, Sharma et al. (2000) found statistically
significant positive relationships between the predecessor’s perceptions about the
extent of succession planning and the variables of the predecessor’s willingness to
step aside and the presence of a competent successor.

Successor and Family Member/Stakeholder Relationships
Relations between family members may be crucial in maintaining business harmony
as well as achieving successful transition (Bachkaniwala, 2001). They may even play
a greater role than skills or education in determining the make-up of management
(Francis, 1993). As noted by Martin (2001: 223), the need to ‘keep the business in the
family’ has been identified as a key motivator for family-run firms globally.

160


Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods (2002) found that family members who were not
active in the business had considerable influence during succession, in particular
the mother of the successor who acted as a ‘silent buffer’ between the generations.
Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods (2002) also found that greater communication across
the generations resulted in goal congruence between the predecessor and the suc-
cessor and a commitment to the long-term strategy by the successor.
Handler (1991) found that a key factor to succession was the level of mutual respect
and understanding between current and next-generation family members. This
was defined as the degree to which these individuals had a good working relation-
ship that included trust, support, communication, feedback and mutual learning.
Handler maintained that the development of mutual respect and understanding
was an evolutionary process, which began in the home prior to the next-generation
family member’s involvement in the family business. Mutual respect between the
next-generation family member and the founder or owner can build over time as
the working relationship progresses. An essential characteristic of this relationship
is that the respect should be mutual. For this to happen, the next-generation family
members must have sufficient confidence in themselves, which enables others to
gain trust in their ability. To earn respect, the next-generation family members are
expected to prove themselves to other family members, particularly those that are
the founders or owners. In support of Handler’s (1991) views, Morris et al. (1996)
from a study of 102 family firms that had completed the succession process, found
that during the process relationships among family members were generally positive,
and tended to be based on trust, openness, respect, cooperation and closeness.
The succession process is only complete when the successor has gained legitimacy
and is widely accepted by the stakeholders. Completion of the process is contingent
on the successor’s ability to exercise appropriate leadership in the business (Fox
et al., 1996). The progressive delegation of authority to the successor is essential if
the successor is to assume full control. The lack of delegation not only frustrates
the learning process of the successor but, perhaps more importantly, it serves to
reduce their credibility in the eyes of employees and other key stakeholders (Fox
et al., 1996).
Although there is a dearth of research investigating Turkish management
practices, commentators and researchers tend to agree on certain characteristics
of management practices in Turkey (Lauter, 1970; Ramazanoglu, 1985; Skinner,
1964). Among the frequently mentioned characteristics of Turkish managerial
practices are a highly centralized organizational structure (Lauter, 1969, 1970; Pasa
et al., 2001; Skinner, 1964; Terril, 1965), reliance on short-term planning (Iseri and
Demirbag, 1999; Lauter, 1970), less clear organizational strategies (Sozen and Shaw,
2002; Terril, 1965), reactive rather than proactive strategies and long-term vertical
relationships (Iseri and Demirbag, 1999; Skinner, 1964). The nature of decision-
making in Turkish business organizations has been described as top-down and less
participative (Lauter, 1969; Sozen and Shaw, 2002) and hierarchical relations are
reported to be formal and status rigid (Pasa et al., 2001). Turkish business organ-
izations, probably due to overstaffing and top-down communication, have been
found to have high administrative intensity (Iseri and Demirbag, 1999; Sozen and
Shaw, 2002). In their work on understanding cultural diversity among 38 nations,

161


Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) noted Turkey to have the steepest
hierarchy in its organizations and to resemble more the ‘family type’ category. Sozen
and Shaw (2002) argue that submissive and paternalistic tendencies, and the avoidance
of initiation and innovation are derived from a patriarchal, benevolent and close-
knit family system and authoritarian and rote learning-based education system.
Such an administrative value appears to create action avoidance in terms of decision-
making and strategic planning.
As a close-knit society, business organizations in Turkey are dominated by private
holding companies run by family members and professional managers (Gunduz and
Tatoglu, 2003). As Pasa et al. (2001: 568) highlight ‘family members still hold per-
manent positions in organizations and continue to be responsible for relationships
with state officials’. The state, in Turkey, from the early years of the republic, has been
a major player in business life (Bugra, 1994; Ramazanoglu, 1985) and often inter-
venes by frequent and predictable policy changes (Bugra, 1994; Pasa et al., 2001).
The traditional Turkish management style has been criticized for a lack of sophis-
tication. The family stands at the heart of Turkish society with people having huge
trust in their family members, leading them to exhibit substantial loyalty to family
values. Family and other in-group relationships have significant influence on the
lives of Turkish people, which in turn influence the pattern of conducting business
in Turkey (Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002).

Derivation of Hypotheses
The review suggests that an idiosyncratic feature of Turkish management style
includes the intertwined structure of family and business entities. Before selecting
successors from within the family-wide candidate pool, predecessors may have a
chance to observe business performances of several family members in their routine
family interactions in general, and where they work in the FOB, in the work envir-
onment in particular. This provides predecessors with crucial knowledge about the
competencies of candidates as well as their interest in business. This invigilation,
especially of the work experience of several family members within the FOB, may
serve as a platform to provide ample opportunities to evaluate the comparative
potential of each candidate. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Business-related successor selection criteria will be more important than family-
related successor selection criteria for those selected to succeed after starting to work in
FOBs, as compared to those selected before starting to work in FOBs.

Another feature of Turkish management style is an excessive focus of power in
the hands of owner-managers. Where this leads to the adoption of an autocratic style,
this may pose serious threats to the healthy interplay among predecessors, successors
and other agents in the succession process. We expect predecessors to be reluctant
to delegate authority to successors unless they are satisfied with their expectations
regarding the post-succession period, and they develop a high level of reliance on
succession process and successors. Given the detailed analysis of this managerial
aspect in the literature review, the following two hypotheses are derived:
H2: The extent of the delegation of authority to the successor will vary with respect to
the predecessor’s perception of the post-succession era.

162


H3: The extent of the delegation of authority to the successor will vary with respect to
the predecessor’s perception of the succession process and the successor’s attributes.

Research Methods
Survey Instrument
In order to address the research questions a survey questionnaire was developed
drawing on the extant literature and discussions based on semi-structured inter-
views with representative managers of FOBs. The questionnaire was in three parts.
The first part was designed to obtain background data on the FOB ranging from
its legal status to geographical location, and to obtain data on which generation was
in control of the company, the relationship of successor to predecessor, education
level of successor, the first working position of successor in the family firm, and the
successor selection process.
In the second part of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to assess
the influence of a set of successor attitudes on the predecessor’s selection of succes-
sor on a five-point scale from 1 = ‘least influential’ to 5 = ‘most influential’.
In the third part of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to indicate
their level of agreement with a set of statements concerned with the successor–pre-
decessor relationship and the succession process, using five-point scales from
1 = ‘strongly agree’ to 5 = ‘strongly disagree’. The respondents were also asked to
express their perceptions regarding post-succession business developments using five-
point scales from 1 = ‘not true’ to 5 = ‘completely true’.

Data Collection
The survey was conducted on a sample of family-owned businesses in Turkey. For
the purposes of the survey, FOBs are defined as firms where the majority of the
voting shares are owned by members of a single family. The focus was on those
FOBs where a younger family member would assume control of the business from
an elder. Only manufacturing companies were included in the sampling frame in
order to minimize differences across industry sectors. The completion of a self-
administered questionnaire was requested from the incumbent predecessors of
surveyed companies.
The sampling frame was drawn from the website of TOBB (The Union of
Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Maritime Trade and Commodity Exchanges
of Turkey; http://www.tobb.org.tr), which provides an Industrial Database that
contains approximately 40,000 firms that are registered to any of 10 Chambers of
Industry, 19 Chambers of Trade and 64 Chambers of Industry and Trade in Turkey.
The names and addresses of these companies are available from the websites of
these chambers, which are linked to the website of TOBB. Neither the Industrial
Database of TOBB, nor any other database, provides a comprehensive list of family
unquoted companies in Turkey. Therefore, we were left with the option of taking a
pragmatic approach to the construction of the sample.
Three copies of the questionnaire were distributed to each of 146 students of
the Department of Management at Afyon Kocatepe University who were
instructed to contact and visit 3 stock ownership companies they chose from the

163


TOBB Industrial Database list. The participation-invoking nature of personal
communications and cost constraints led to this method rather than mailing the
questionnaire. The method of data collection via students was deemed appro-
priate in this study, because it was necessary to select companies with predecessors
who had already identified their successors. The involvement of a large number of
students enabled a convenient access to those firms with the required condition.
In contrast, a mail survey method would have required several iterations until the
targeted companies were identified. The methodology of the study is similar to the
convenient sampling used by Venter et al. (2005). Due to the impossibility of secur-
ing a mailing list of respondents in small and medium-sized FOBs in South Africa,
Venter and his colleagues employed research associates in the different regions
of the country to contact small and medium-sized businesses in general, with the
objective of identifying family businesses in particular. It may also be noted that
the involvement of students in data collection through questionnaires is utilized
in management research (e.g. Kula, 2005; Palmer, 2000).
No restriction was applied to the students in choosing the companies, but once
a student chose a company it was eliminated from the sampling frame so that
other students would not choose the same company. This avoided the possibility of
more than one questionnaire being completed by the same company. The students
presented an incumbent predecessor of each business with a letter of invitation to
participate in the study. If the invitation was accepted, the students delivered the
questionnaire and then retrieved it upon completion. Students were asked to return
the completed questionnaires bearing an official company stamp and the signature
of the respondent. Where a firm declined to participate, another company was drawn
from the sampling frame. A great deal of time and energy was spent by the students
in the search for companies with the specified requirements. Nearly all of the accessed
firms meeting the specified requirements agreed to participate in the research.
Less than two dozen companies declined to participate in the research on the
grounds of having no interest in such academic studies and long-term unavailability
of incumbent owner-managers due to frequent business travels abroad. A total of
438 questionnaires were returned, of which 30 were eliminated due to missing data,
resulting in a total of 408 usable questionnaires. While the sample is a convenient
one, there is no reason to believe it is not representative of the population, for
example, the majority of the sample firms (72%) are located in the Marmara and
Aegean regions, with both regions accounting for the great majority of the national
industrial output.
The responding companies were also compared across the main characteristics
of the sample such as industry type and geographical location and showed no sys-
tematic differences (p > 0.1). The characteristics of the sample firms are shown
in Table 1.

Data Analysis
In this study, frequency analyses, chi-square test, t-test and Anova tests were used.
Given the relatively large sample size and the reasonable assumption that the
sample is from a normal distribution, it was appropriate to use parametric tests. Com-
parison of the successors selected to succeed after or before starting work in the

164


Table 1. Characteristics of Sample

No. Percentage (%)
Legal Status
Joint-stock 95 23.3
Limited 229 56.1
Sole proprietorship 84 20.6
Geographic Location
Marmara 171 42
Aegean 122 30
Central Anatolia 97 24
Other 18 4
Sector
Machinery and equipment 53 13.0
Food 108 26.5
Textile and garments 57 14.0
Chemical products 15 3.7
Marble 47 11.5
Construction 44 10.8
Forestry products 51 12.5
Other 33 8.1
Total 408 100

FOB was conducted by implementing two-tailed t-tests. In a similar vein, mean dif-
ferences in views on post-succession era and on succession process with respect
to the extent of delegation of authority to successor were examined by means of
Anova tests. The non-parametric equivalents of the tests (Mann-Whitney U and
the Kruskal-Wallis Test) were also conducted to remove any doubts that may stem
from the nature of the data. The non-parametric tests (not reported here) confirm
the findings of the parametric tests.

Findings
Succession Structure
The findings of the succession-related issues are reported in Table 2. The majority
of incumbent predecessors were of the founding generation (60.3%), followed by
second generation (30.1%) and third generation (7.8%). In terms of the identity
of the successor, 59.6% of the sample selected their sons, 15.9% their brothers and
only 4.2% their daughters. In general, the successors were either working at the
family firm (47.5%) or were still at school (39.2%). In terms of education level, nearly
58% of the successors had a university degree with about 27% having a high school
diploma. The successors mainly started in their family firms as low-level managers
(41.9%). Only 20% of the successors had prior work experience in other firms.

165


The respondents were also asked to indicate the method of successor selection.
In about two-thirds of the sample firms, successors were selected on the basis of the
predecessors’ sole decision. Among the other successor selection methods used by
the predecessors were consultations with all family members (18.9%) and consult-
ations with some family members (4.2%). The least used methods of successor
selection were asking the family-member candidates to nominate themselves
(2.9%) and consultation with friends (1.5%).

Successor Selection Criteria
For the purpose of discovering the most favoured succession criteria, the respond-
ents were asked first to select ‘the most influential single criterion’ from a pre-
determined list. Subsequently, the respondents were asked, in a different question,
to evaluate the level of influence of each criterion on the list separately.
For the whole sample, Table 3 shows the rank order of the criteria in terms of
the degree of influence on successor selection. By far the most influential selection
criteria was competency. Other influential selection criteria were interest in the
business, and education. Less influential factors were family harmony, lack of an
alternative and level of respect.
In order to compare the factors influential to successor selection for those suc-
cessors selected before starting to work in the family business with those selected
after starting work in the family business, the incumbent predecessors were asked
the following two questions: ‘For how many years has the successor has been working
in your family business?’ and ‘How many years ago did you select the successor?’
The mean value of the responses to the first question was 5.79 years and the mean
value of the responses to the second question was 3.40 years. Comparison of the
answers to these two questions showed that for the whole sample the proportion
of the successors selected after starting to work in the family business (Group A)
was 53.9%, while the proportion of the successors selected before starting to work
in the family business (Group B) was 31.9%, with the remainder not responding
to these questions.
For the purpose of making a comparison between the successor groups selected
to succeed at different periods, we excluded the answers with missing information,
and thereby were left with 116, 60 and 55 responses for ‘competency’, ‘interest in
business’ and ‘education’, respectively. Of the total of 116 predecessors who rated
‘competency’ as the most influential single succession criterion, 79 (68.1%)
respondents were from the group with the successors selected to succeed after
starting to work in the FOB, while 37 (31.9%) respondents were from the group
with the successors selected to succeed before starting to work in the FOB. Simi-
larly, the overwhelming majority of the predecessors (49 respondents, 81.6%)
who indicated that ‘interest in the business’ as the most influential single criterion
selected their successors after they started to work in the FOB, while the remain-
ing 11 predecessors (18.4%) made their selection before the successors started to
work in the FOB. The converse tendency applies to the third most favoured criter-
ion of ‘education’. In this case, the majority of the predecessors (33 respondents,

166



Table 2. Main Succession-related Issues

No. Percentage (%)
Status of existing generation
First generation 246 60.3
Second generation 123 30.1
Third generation 32 7.8
Fourth generation 5 1.2
No answer 2 0.5
Successor
Son 243 59.6
Daughter 17 4.2
Brother 65 15.9
Son-in-law, cousin 81 19.9
No answer 2 0.5
Present status of successor
Working at the family firm 194 47.5
Working at another firm 14 3.4
Still in school 160 39.2
Other 38 9.8
No answer 2 1
Education level of successor
Primary school 18 4.4
Secondary school 28 6.9
High school 109 26.7
University 236 57.8
No answer 17 4.2
The entry mode of successor
Worker 68 16.7
Low-level manager 171 41.9
High-level manager 115 28.2
No answer 54 13.2
Prior work experience of successor in another firm
Yes 82 20.0
No 303 74.3
No answer 23 5.7
Method of successor selection
Predecessor’s sole decision entirely 277 67.9
All family members 77 18.9
Some of family members 17 4.2
Self-nomination 12 2.9
Predecessor’s friends 6 1.5
No answer 19 4.7
Total 408 100

60%) who rated ‘education’ as the most influential single criterion were from the
group who selected the successors before working in the FOB, whereas 22 predeces-
sors (40%) made their selection after the successors began working in the FOB.

167


Table 3. The Most Influential Successor Selection Criterion

Criteria Whole Sample (A) (B) (A+B)X
No. % No. %X %Y No. %X %Y No.
Competency 133 32.6 79 43.4 68.1 37 34.9 31.9 116
Interest in the business 68 16.7 49 26.9 81.6 11 10.4 18.4 60
Education 66 16.2 22 12.1 40.0 33 31.1 60.0 55
Family harmony 36 8.8 19 10.4 67.8 9 8.5 32.2 28
Lack of any other 28 6.9 10 5.5 40.0 15 14.2 60.0 25
alternative
Level of respect 4 1.0 3 1.7 75.0 1 0.9 25.0 4
No answer 73 17.9
Total 408 100.0 182 100.0 106 100.0
Notes: (A) Successors selected to succeed after starting to work in the family business; (B)
Successors selected to succeed before starting to work in the family business; X For most of the
criteria, (A+B) is less than the numbers in the second column due to missing data; %X shows the
percentage of column totals; %Y shows the percentage of (A+B) for each row.

The inter-group analysis of the criteria reveals different rankings for each group.
Table 3 shows that by far the most influential factor on the selection of successors
selected after starting work in the family business is ‘competency’ followed by
‘interest in the business’. For the successors selected before starting work in the
family business, ‘competency’ and ‘education level’ constituted the most influential
criteria on successor selection, with each having about the same level of influence.
As the family-related criteria of ‘family harmony’ and ‘level of respect’ were not
ranked highly for both groups, no support has been found for H1. Our findings indi-
cate that selection of the successors after starting to work in the FOB does not lead
to business-related criteria being replaced by family-related criteria.
The respondents were also asked to assess the influence of each of the successor
selection criteria per se on successor selection on a scale from 1 = ‘least influential’
to 5 = ‘most influential’. As shown in Table 4, with the exception of the criterion
‘lack of any other alternative’, all the other five criteria have mean values greater
than four indicating a high level of influence placed on each criterion for both
groups of successors (i.e. those selected before starting work in the family business
and those selected after starting work in the family business). For the set of six suc-
cessor selection criteria, there exist statistically significant differences between
both groups of successors with respect to the following three criteria: ‘competency’,
‘education’ and ‘interest in the business’. Of these selection criteria, ‘competency’
and ‘interest in the business’ were found to be significantly more influential (at
p < 0.01 level) for the successors selected after starting work in the family business
than for those selected before starting work in the family business. In contrast, the
selection criterion of ‘education’ was significantly more influential (at p < 0.1 level)
in the selection of successors selected before starting work in the family business.
These findings constitute further evidence that leads to the rejection of H1. The
summary of these findings is illustrated in Figure 1.

168


Table 4. Successor Selection Criteria: Comparison of the Successors Selected to Succeed
After Starting Work and Before Starting Work in the FOB

Criteria No. Mean SD t-value
(A) 216 4.52 0.77
Competency 2.608**
(B) 127 4.26 1.06
(A) 215 4.19 1.10
Family harmony –1.189
(B) 128 4.33 1.01
(A) 215 4.18 1.10
Education –1.755*
(B) 124 4.39 0.99
(A) 218 4.72 0.63
Interest in the business 5.081**
(B) 124 4.25 1.06
(A) 216 4.46 0.91
Level of respect 0.517
(B) 125 4.41 1.00
(A) 199 2.10 1.46
Lack of any other alternative –0.703
(B) 119 2.22 1.59
Notes: The mean is the average on a scale of 1 (= ‘least influential’) to 5 (= ‘most influential’);
(A) Successors selected to succeed after starting to work in the family business; (B) Successors
selected to succeed before starting to work in the family business; *p<0.1, ** p<0.01

Figure 1. Findings Regarding the Favoured Succession Criteria by Different Successor
Groups

Views on Post-succession
In order to assess the extent of decision-making authority delegated to the succes-
sors, the predecessors were asked to indicate the degree of their own decision-making
authority relative to that of their successors. For the full sample, the predecessors
were found to have the largest share of decision-making authority with a mean
value of nearly 70% resting with the predecessor. In over one-fifth of the sample
firms, the decision-making authority was delegated mainly to the successor, with the
predecessor’s share being less than 50%. For the purposes of this study, this group
of firms was labelled as ‘the firms with strong delegation of authority’ (Group A).
In about 64% of the sample firms, the extent of decision-making authority of the
predecessor ranged between 51% and 99%. This group of firms was labelled as

169


‘the firms with weak delegation of authority’ (Group B). For about 16% of the
sample firms, decision-making authority was solely in the hands of the predecessor.
This group of firms was labelled ‘no delegation of authority’ (Group C).
The attitudes of predecessors towards four predetermined statements con-
cerning post-succession issues are shown in Table 5. In general, respondents envisage
that their companies will be successful in their absence with the mean value of 2.23
on a five-point scale from 1 = ‘strongly agree’ to 5 = ‘strongly disagree’. There is,
however, a statistically significant difference (at p < 0.01 level) in the mean values
of the responses provided to this statement by each group of sample firms charac-
terized as varying levels of authority delegation. The group of firms with a strong
delegation of authority (Group A) were relatively more favourably disposed to the
view that their company would be more successful post-succession compared to
the other two groups of firms (Group B and Group C) with weak or no delegation
of authority.
The respondents were relatively sure about the business strategy of their com-
panies in the post-succession era, with a mean value of 3.9 on a five point scale from
1 = ‘not true’ to 5 = ‘completely true’. Again, there is some significant variation (at
p < 0.1 level) in the responses of predecessors towards this statement between the
three groups of firms. The firms belonging to the Group A, where the managerial
authority predominantly rests with the successor, were more certain about the
business strategy in the post-succession era compared to the other two groups of
firms. Thus, H2 is partially supported as there were significant variations between
the extent of authority delegated to successors and predecessors’ perception of
post-succession era with respect to the following two statements: ‘I am sure our
company will be successful in my absence’ (at p < 0.05 level) and ‘I am clear about
the business strategy after me’ (at p < 0.1 level).
The predecessors were also of the opinion that the key employees of their com-
panies would support the successor, with a mean 3.6 on a five point scale from
1 = ‘not true’ to 5 = ‘completely true’. There were no significant statistical differ-
ences between the three groups of sample firms on the basis of their responses to
this statement.
The predecessors were somewhat ambiguous about their post-succession roles
in their companies, as the mean value of 3.14 (on a five point scale from 1 = ‘not
true’ to 5 = ‘completely true’) is only slightly above the mid-rank value of 3. There
were no significant statistical differences between the three groups of sample firms
on the basis of their responses provided to this statement.

Views on Succession Process
The predecessors were asked to provide their views on a number of statements
regarding the succession process using a five-point scale from 1 = ‘strongly agree’ to
5 = ‘strongly disagree’. Table 6 lists the statements in rank order based on the extent
of agreement by the predecessors. The respondents were largely in agreement with
the statements on succession process with most of the mean values of the responses
well below the mid-rank value of three. Ranking by mean scores, with the highest
ranked statements those with the lowest mean values, six statements had means of
less than 2, as follows: ‘It is important for me for the succession process to go in a

170


Table 5. Views on Post-succession Era

Statements Group No. Mean. SD F-value
I am sure our company will be (A) 85 1.84 1.07 5.864**
successful in my absence (§) (B) 258 2.31 1.26
(C) 64 2.45 1.37
Total 407 2.23 1.26
I am clear about our business (A) 85 4.09 1.22 2.371*
strategy after me (B) 259 3.91 1.26
(C) 64 3.64 1.29
Total 408 3.90 1.26
I am sure the successor will be (A) 83 3.54 1.67 0.265
supported by the key employees (B) 251 3.65 1.54
of our company (C) 63 3.51 1.64
Total 397 3.60 1.58
My post-succession role in the (A) 85 3.24 1.65 1.650
company is well defined. (B) 258 3.19 1.63
(C) 64 2.80 1.64
Total 407 3.14 1.64
Notes: The mean is the average on a scale of 1 (= ‘not true’) to 5 (= ‘completely true’), except
for the statement with the sign (§) for which the mean is the average on a scale of 1 (= ‘strongly
agree’) to 5 (= ‘strongly disagree’); (A) is the group of companies with strong delegation of
authority to successor; (B) is the group of companies with weak delegation of authority to
successor; (C) is the group of companies with no delegation of authority to successor;
*p<0.1, **p<0.05

planned way’, ‘I exert great effort in getting the successor to know the company
well’, ‘I exert great effort in training the successor’, ‘All family members support
the successor’, ‘The successor has an education suitable to our company’ and ‘The
successor is competent enough’. Two statements had mean values of more than 2
but less than 3, namely ‘The successor has high degree of responsibility’ and ‘The
successor’s background is suitable to the company’. This leaves one statement with
a mean value over 3: ‘The successor can earn more in another company’.
Some support has been found for H3, in that for five of the nine statements stat-
istically significant differences were found between the three groups of sample
firms characterized by the varying degree of delegation of managerial authority in
terms of the level of agreement indicated by the predecessors. The extent of dele-
gation of managerial authority to the successor by the predecessor increases, as
the implementation of the succession in a planned way becomes more important
(p < 0.10), the relevance of successor’s education increases (p < 0.05), the compe-
tency of the successor is regarded satisfactory (p < 0.05), the responsibility of the
successor increases (p < 0.05) and the background of the successor is regarded more
suitable to the company (p < 0.01). Figure 2 summarizes the relationship between
the extent of authority delegated and the perception of predecessors regarding
post-succession era and succession process.

171



Table 6. Views on Succession Process

Statements Group No. Mean SD F-value
It is important for me for the succession (A) 85 1.39 0.64 2.712*
process to go in a planned way (B) 259 1.64 1.01
(C) 64 1.70 1.02
Total 408 1.60 0.95
I exert great effort in getting the (A) 83 1.70 1.00 0.551
successor to know the company well (B) 249 1.71 1.04
(C) 59 1.86 1.21
Total 391 1.73 1.06
I exert great effort in training the (A) 83 1.78 1.10 0.144
successor (B) 251 1.72 1.04
(C) 60 1.77 1.11
Total 394 1.74 1.07
All family members support the successor (A) 83 1.87 1.12 0.133
(B) 257 1.88 1.08
(C) 64 1.80 1.14
Total 404 1.86 1.09
The successor has an education suitable (A) 85 1.72 0.89 5.206**
to our company (B) 258 1.85 1.02
(C) 62 2.24 1.13
Total 405 1.88 1.02
The successor is competent enough (A) 83 1.70 1.04 6.251**
(B) 251 1.86 1.05
(C) 58 2.33 1.21
Total 392 1.90 1.09
The successor has high degree of (A) 80 1.61 0.99 27.479**
responsibility (B) 248 1.93 1.11
(C) 59 3.02 1.54
Total 387 2.03 1.24
The successor’s background is suitable to (A) 84 1.83 0.93 26.321***
our company (B) 251 2.10 1.08
(C) 61 3.07 1.17
Total 396 2.19 1.13
The successor can earn more in another (A) 84 3.07 1.38 1.732
company (B) 255 3.27 1.22
(C) 64 3.45 1.19
Total 403 3.26 1.25
Notes: The mean is the average on a scale of 1 (= ‘strongly agree’) to 5 (= ‘strongly disagree’);
(A) is the group of companies with strong delegation of authority to successor; (B) is the group
of companies with weak delegation of authority to successor; (C) is the group of companies with
no delegation of authority to successor; *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

172



Figure 2. The Relationship between the Extent of Authority Delegated and the
Perception of Predecessors Regarding Post-succession Era and Succession Process

Discussion and Conclusions
This study has delineated the factors behind the succession process of family owned
businesses by investigating selection, training and entry-mode of successors as well
as the involvement of family members and stakeholders in the succession process.
Data from the predecessors of 408 FOBs in Turkey reveals a number of insightful
findings on the succession process of FOBs.
First, the decision of the predecessor dominates the method of successor selec-
tion. As noted in earlier studies of FOBs undertaken in developed countries (e.g.
Kuratko et al., 1993), the sons are at the forefront of the candidate lists to take
over control of the firm. This result confirms in the Turkish context the finding by
Martin (2001) that male offspring were described and treated as ‘heirs apparent’. The
dominant entities are the predecessors themselves in taking the successor selection
decisions. In that decision, family members have little influence as suggested by
Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods (2002); they act only as agents of secondary importance.
Another finding emerging from the study is that while most of the successors do
not have previous work experience in another company, the predecessors in gen-
eral are somewhat opposed to the successors joining the family business as high-
level managers. Thus, the successors in Turkish FOBs follow a similar pattern to
that indicated by Barach et al. (1988). For successors, working at another firm is
largely a disregarded option and the position of low-level manager is the first place
of entry to the family business following or during their education. This finding

173


suggests that the predecessors attach little value to the experience gained in other
companies. It appears that the predecessors prefer to emphasize the maintenance
of relationships with key stakeholders and an understanding of the culture of the
family business. The commonly observed phenomenon of keeping the crucial body
of managerial knowledge away from the non-family members in Turkey may be
a factor in rendering other-firm experience not so advantageous. The choice of a
low-level managerial position rather than a higher level position points to the
resistance of predecessors to giving up their authority in FOBs. The predeces-
sors seem to bring the managerial pattern of their successors in line with them
until the successors are promoted to higher ranking positions.
The findings of the study provide no support for H1. When asked to indicate the
most influential single criterion, business-related criteria, namely ‘competency’,
‘interest in the business’ and ‘education’, are ranked the highest. The majority of
predecessors who rated ‘competency’ or ‘interest’ as the most influential single
criterion are those predecessors who selected successors following the latter’s
work experience in the FOB. In contrast, the majority of predecessors indicating
‘education’ as the most influential single criterion are from the group that selected
successors before they worked in the FOB. On the other hand, within group com-
parisons show that while competency and interest in business are the most influ-
ential ‘single criterion’ for successors selected to succeed after starting to work in
FOB, competency and education are the most favoured ‘single criterion’ for those
successors selected before they started working in the FOB. Compared to business-
related criteria, family harmony and successor’s level of respect to predecessor are
given only scant prominence as the single criterion.
As a further step in the analysis, the respondents were also asked to evaluate the
importance of both business and family-related criteria individually, rather than
nominating the most influential single criterion. This part of the analysis also yields
the same results. In selecting successors, predecessors seem to attach importance
to all criteria related both to family concerns and business concerns, which is sup-
ported by high scores of all criteria except ‘the lack of alternative candidate’.
However, when working in the family business, the successors tend to impress the
predecessors more when making the selection decision, by portraying their com-
petencies and their involvement in the business. In successor selection decisions,
the successor’s education, irrespective of the relevance to the particular field of
his/her business acts as a substitute for competence and interest in the business.
This substitution effect is especially valid for the candidates who were selected to
lead before starting to work in the business. In the light of these findings it can be
argued that education in Turkish FOBs is not a complementary option to the essen-
tial feature of gaining experience in business, as suggested by Brown and Coverley
(1999). Rather, especially when selecting the potential successor well before ob-
serving him in the business, the emphasis shifts from interest in the business and
competency to education. The university degrees and high school diplomas of the
successors may strengthen the egos and support the pride of the predecessors as
well as being an objective signal of potential competency. In sum, the interplay of the
criteria with regard to the existence of work experience is not between family-related

174


criteria and business-related criteria, but rather within business-related criteria. This
result may also explain lack of support for H1.
As suggested by H2, the predecessors delegate more decision-making authority
to their successors if they are more certain of the future direction of their business.
These predecessors are also of the opinion that the successors are competent; have
a high degree of responsibility, and relevant education and work experience. The
successors are expected to be successful by these predecessors. The findings also
establish important links between the transfer of control and attitudes towards
the succession process. The results tend to support the arguments of Handler (1990)
in that as the extent of delegation expands, the preparation, the level of challenge
and responsibility of successors increase. In line with the findings of Sharma et al.
(2000) in their study on Canadian firms, a statistically significant positive relation-
ship was found between the predecessors’ perceptions about the extent of succession
planning and the predecessors’ desire to relinquish power in the Turkish context.
The assertion by Fox et al. (1996) who link the completion of the succession pro-
cess to the successors’ ability to exercise appropriate leadership in the business
was also confirmed in the present study. Relevance of education and background
of successors to the business, and high levels of competency and responsibility
are among the indispensable inputs to good leadership. Our findings suggest that
the control of the firm was shifted to the successors only if they were perceived
by the predecessors as endowed with these attributes. This statistically significant
relationship tends to support H3.
Overall, the results of the study confirm the assertion by Bhalla et al. (2006) that
few strategic decisions in family businesses are made on purely economic grounds;
rather, the values and aspirations of the owners play an important role. Some of
the observed behaviours in the study were close to what is called the ‘systemic
approach’. The systemic approach, as Bhalla et al. (2006) put forward, indicates
that wider social roles and political constraints prevent deliberative managerial
strategies developing, or anything like profit-maximization from occurring. In fact,
the selection of a successor from the family circle and the exclusive determining
power of the predecessor in this decision appear to be reflections, at the outset, of
the systemic approach. However, the succession behaviour observed in the study
does not entail harmful implications for business interests. It is true, as Stavrou
(2003) emphasizes that preferences in the successor-selection process among
family members such as status, gender and birth order are not necessarily in the
best interests of the firm, and given the emphasis on family needs, criteria such as
competence are frequently ignored during the succession process in many owner-
managed businesses. However, Stavrou (2003) asserts that where business and
family needs coincide, this attitude does not pose a threat to the well-being of the
business. That is, family-related criteria may be considered during the process of
selecting a successor but the most important criteria should be those ensuring
what is best for the business. The findings of this study regarding the succession
criteria employed largely conform to these assertions. The reliance on the business-
related criteria such as competency, interest in business, education at the expense
of family harmony, and level of respect by successor for predecessor, implies that

175


business concerns are not sacrificed to family concerns. Rather, Turkish FOBs adopt
a compromising attitude in successor selection.
The findings of the study have several implications for family-owned businesses.
Most of the sample companies are in the hands of the founding or second gener-
ations. In future as control passes to the incoming generations, the incumbent owners
will be expected to be more exposed to innovations and to be more in favour of
promoting a professional type of management. This in fact corroborates the finding
reported by Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods (2002) who noted that with the transition
of control to the next generation, the successors endorsed the increased employ-
ment of non-family staff in their companies, institutionalizing the notion of separ-
ating ownership and management.
In that regard, from successor selection to successor adaptation to the family
business, more professional counselling will be required in every stage of the suc-
cession. Furthermore, with the growing awareness that the family business is an
entirely separate entity from the family, family councils with clearly defined roles
and responsibilities should be established in order to provide an interface between
the family and the business. The new generation is perceived to be successful only
when delegated with full authority. The predecessors should, therefore, ensure the
creation of a suitable business environment for authority delegation.
There are a number of areas for future research. This study has focused on the
perceptions of the predecessors; a promising area of future research would be an
evaluation of the perceptions of the successors, family members and other stake-
holders in the succession process. Drawing on a relatively large dataset, this study
has enabled generalization of the key findings on the succession process in Turkish
FOBs. However, to gain a richer understanding of the underlying dynamics of the
succession process a case study approach would be useful. Finally, succession is a
subject closely intertwined with good governance. Future studies could approach
the subject of succession by emphasizing the perspective of corporate govern-
ance with a view to revealing the differences in succession practices between well-
governed and poorly governed FOBs. This would also serve to enhance the
importance of succession issues in the governance framework.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the journal’s two anonymous referees whose suggestions
and comments substantially contributed to the article.

References
Bachkaniwala, D., Wright, M. and Ram, M. (2001) ‘Succession in South Asian Family
Businesses in the UK’, International Small Business Journal 19(4): 15–27.
Barach, J. A., Gantisky, J., Carson, J. A. and Doochin, B. A. (1988) ‘Entry of the Next Generation:
Strategic Challenge for Family Business’, Journal of Small Business Management 26(2):
49–56.
Beckhard, R. and Dyer, W. G. (1983) ‘Managing Continuity in the Family-owned Business’,
Organizational Dynamics 12(1): 5–12.
Bhalla, A., Henderson, S. and Watkins, D. (2006) ‘A Multiparadigmatic Perspective of Strategy’,
International Small Business Journal 24(5): 515–37.

176


Bjuggren, P. and Sund, L. (2001) ‘Strategic Decision Making in Intergenerational Succession
of Small- and Medium Size Family-owned Businesses’, Family Business Review 14(1):
11–23.
Borwick, C. (1993) ‘Eight Ways to Assess Succession Plans’, HRMagazine (May): 109–14.
Brown, R. B. and Coverley, R. (1999) ‘Succession Planning in Family Businesses: A Study
from East Anglia, UK’, Journal of Small Business Management 37(1): 93–7.
Bugra, A. (1994) State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study. New York:
State University of New York University Press.
Davis, P. S. and Harveston, P. D. (1998) ‘The Influence of Family on the Family Business
Succession Process: A Multi-Generational Perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Perspective 22(3): 31–49.
Fahed-Sreih, J. and Djoundourian, S. (2006) ‘Determinants of Longevity and Success in
Lebanese Businesses: An Exploratory Study’, Family Business Review 19(3): 225–34.
Fox, M., Nilakant, V. and Hamilton, R. T. (1996) ‘Managing Succession in Family-owned
Businesses’, International Small Business Journal 15(1): 15–25.
Francis, B. C. (1993) ‘Family Business Succession Planning’, Journal of Accountancy 176(2):
49–51.
Gunduz, L. and Tatoglu, E. (2003) ‘A Comparison of the Financial Characteristics of Group
Affiliated and Independent Firms in Turkey’, European Business Review 15(1): 48–54.
Handler, W. C. (1990) ‘Succession in Family Firms: A Mutual Role Adjustment between
Entrepreneur and Next-generation Family Members’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 15(1): 37–51.
Handler, W.C. (1991) ‘Key Interpersonal Relationships of Next-generation Family Members
in Family Firms’, Journal of Small Business Management 29(3): 21–32.
Handler, W. C. and Kram, K. E. (1988) ‘Succession in Family Firms: The Problem of Resistance’,
Family Business Review 1(4): 361–81.
Huang, TungChun (1999) ‘Who Shall Follow?: Factors Affecting the Adoption of Succession
Plans in Taiwan’, Long Range Planning 32(6): 609–15.
Iseri, A. and Demirbag, M. (1999) ‘Overcoming Stereotyping: Beyond Cultural Approach’,
Middle East Business Review 3(1): 1–21.
Janjuha-Jivrav, S. and Woods, A. (2002) ‘Successional Issues within Asian Family Firms’,
International Small Business Journal 20(1): 77–92.
Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2002) ‘Arabic Cluster: A Bridge between East and West’,
Journal of World Business 37(1): 40–54.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993) ‘The Dynamics of Family Controlled Firms: The Good News
and the Bad News’, Organizational Dynamics 21(3): 59–71.
Kozan, M. K. and Ilter, S. S. (1994) ‘Third Party Roles Played by Turkish Managers in
Subordinates’ Conflicts’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(5): 453–66.
Kula, V. (2005) ‘The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Perform-
ance: Evidence from Turkey’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 13(2):
265–77.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S. and Montagno, R. V. (1993) ‘Family Business Succession in
Korean and US Firms’, Journal of Small Business Management 31(2): 132–6.
Lauter, G. P. (1969) ‘Sociological-Cultural and Legal Factors Impeding Decentralization of
Authority in Developing Countries’, Academy of Management Journal 12(3): 367–78.
Lauter, G. P. (1970) ‘Advanced Management Process in Developing Countries: Planning in
Turkey’, California Management Review 12(3): 7–12.
Marcoulides, G. A., Yavas, B. F., Bilgin, Z. and Gibson, C. B. (1998) ‘Reconciling Culturalist
and Rationalist Approaches: Leadership in the United States and Turkey’, Thunderbird
International Business Review 40(6): 563–83.

177


Martin, L. (2001) ‘More Jobs for the Boys?: Succession Planning in SMEs’, Women in Man-
agement Review 16(5): 222–31.
Morris, M. H., Williams, R. W. and Nel, D. (1996) ‘Factors Influencing Family Business
Succession’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 2(3): 68–81.
Motwani, J., Levenburg, N. M., Schwarz, T. V. and Blankson, C. (2006) ‘Succession Planning
in SMEs’, International Small Business Journal 24(5): 471–95.
Palmer, J. J. (2000) ‘Internet Access in Bahrain: Business Patterns and Problems’, Techno-
vation 20(8): 451–8.
Pasa, S. F., Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2001) ‘Society, Organizations and Leadership in
Turkey’, Applied Psychology 50(4): 559–89.
Ram, M. and Jones, T. (2002) ‘Exploring the Connection: Ethnic Minority Businesses and
the Family Enterprise’, in D. E. Fletcher (ed.) Understanding the Small Family Business,
pp. 157–67. London: Routledge.
Ramazanoglu, H. A. (1985) ‘A Political Analysis of Emergence of Turkish Capitalism,
1839–1950’, in H. A. Ramazanoglu (ed.) Turkey in World Capitalist System, pp. 222–48.
Gower: Aldershot.
Sharma, P., Chua, J. H. and Chrisman, J. J. (2000) ‘Perceptions About the Extent of Succes-
sion Planning in Canadian Family Firms’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
17(3): 233–44.
Skinner, G.W. (1964) ‘A Test Case in Turkey’, California Management Review 6(3): 53–66.
Sozen, S. and Shaw, I. (2002) ‘The International Applicability of “New” Public Management:
Lessons from Turkey’, International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(6): 475–86.
Stavrou, E. T. (2003) ‘Leadership Succession in Owner-managed Firms through the Lens of
Extraversion’, International Small Business Journal 21(3): 331–47.
Terril, W. A. (1965) ‘Management Organizations and Methods in Turkey’, Human Organ-
ization 24(2): 96–104.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Global Business, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Venter, E., Boshoff, C. and Maas, G. (2005) ‘The Influence of Successor-Related factors on
the Succession Process in Small and Medium-Sized Businesses’, Family Business Review
18(4): 283–303.
Yurtoglu, B. (2000) ‘Ownership Structure of Turkish Listed Firms’, The ISE Finance Award
Series 1: 55–76.
Ward, J. L. (1987) Keeping the Family Business Healthy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westhead, P. (2003) ‘Succession Decision-making Outcomes Reported by Private Family
Companies’, International Small Business Journal 21(4): 369–401.

EKREM TATOGLU is Associate Professor of International Strategic Management at
Bahcesehir University. Address: Faculty of Business Administration, Bahcesehir University,
Besiktas, Istanbul, 34349, Turkey. [email: ekremt@bahcesehir.edu.tr]

VEYSEL KULA is Associate Professor of Finance, Afyon Kocatepe University.
Address: Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Afyon Kocatepe University,
Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. [email: kula@aku.edu.tr]

KEITH W. GLAISTER is Dean and Professor of International Strategic Management,
Management School, University of Sheffield, UK. Address for correspondence:
Management School, The University of Sheffield, 9 Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 4DT, UK.
[email: k.glaister@sheffield.ac.uk]

178



Planification de la succession dans les entreprises familiales
Témoignage de Turquie
Ekrem Tatoglu
Université de Bahcesehir, Turquie
Veysel Kula
Université de Afyon Kocatepe, Turquie
Keith W. Glaister
Université de Sheffield, R.-U.
Pour un grand nombre d’entreprises familiales (EF) la succession intergénérationnelle est une
question de réflexion déterminante. Le présent article examine la dynamique du processus
de succession pour les EF qui ont déjà pris une décision en ce qui concerne la succession
de l’entreprise et qui ont donc nommé leurs éventuels successeurs. En fait, le but que se
propose avant tout cette étude est de définir les facteurs sur lesquels s’appuie le processus
de succession, en étudiant les modes de sélection, de formation et d’admission des éventuels
successeurs ainsi que le degré d’implication de divers membres de la famille et des différentes
parties intéressées dans ledit processus de succession. Des informations recueillies en Turquie
auprès des prédécesseurs de 408 entreprises familiales – au nombre desquelles les opinions
d’un certain nombre de prédécesseurs concernés par le processus de succession, les critères
de sélection desdits successeurs et la prise en compte de la période de post-succession - ont
abouti à tout un ensemble de conclusions perspicaces sur les traits majeurs du processus de
succession des EF. Nous avons là la première étude systématique qui traite du processus de
succession dans les entreprises familiales turques, -processus qui jusqu’à présent n’avait été
documenté que par des témoignages empiriques.
Mots clés: Entreprises familiales – Prédécesseur – Planification de la succession – Successeur –
Turquie

Planificación de la sucesión en las empresas familiares
Testimonio de Turquía
Ekrem Tatoglu
Universidad de Bahcesehir, Turquía
Veysel Kula
Universidad de Afyon Kocatepe, Turquía
Keith W. Glaister
Universidad de Sheffield, RU
La sucesión intergeneracional para cargos de dirección es la cuestión clave para muchas
empresas familiares. Este artículo investiga la dinámica del proceso de sucesión para las
empresas familiares que ya han decidido sobre la sucesión y elegido a sus sucesores. El objetivo
principal de este estudio es definir los factores sobre los que se basa el proceso de sucesión
examinando la selección, formación y modo de entrada de los sucesores, además del grado
de participación de la familia y de las partes interesadas en el proceso de sucesión. Los datos
de los predecesores de 408 empresas familiares en Turquía revelan una serie de conclusiones
perspicaces respecto a las características principales del proceso de sucesión de las empresas
familiares con inclusión de los pareceres de los predecesores sobre el proceso de sucesión, los
criterios para la selección de sucesores y el período postsucesión. Éste es el primer estudio

179


sistemático que trata del proceso de sucesión en las empresas familiares turcas, que antes
había estado documentado solamente por relatos anecdóticos.
Palabras clave: Empresa familiar; predecesor; planificación de la sucesión; sucesor;
Turquía

Nachfolge-Planung in Familienunternehmen
Belege aus der Türkei
Ekrem Tatoglu
Bahcesehir Universität, Türkei
Veysel Kula
Afyon Kocatepe Universität, Türkei
Keith W. Glaister
Universität von Shefﬁeld, Großbritannien
Ein wichtiges Thema für viele Familienunternehmen ist die generationenbezogene
Managementnachfolge. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Dynamik der Nachfolge in
Familienunternehmen, die die Nachfolgefrage schon geklärt haben und eine Entscheidung über
den Nachfolger getroffen haben. Das Hauptziel dieser Studie ist, die entscheidenden Faktoren
hinter dem Nachfolgevorgang durch die nähere Untersuchung von Auswahl, Ausbildung
und die Art, wie die Nachfolger in das Unternehmen gelangen, sowie die Einbeziehung
anderer Familienmitglieder und Interessenvertreter innerhalb des Unternehmens in die
Nachfolgeauswahl zu schildern. Daten von Vorgängern aus 408 Familienunternehmen in
der Türkei zeigen einige aufschlussreiche Erkenntnisse über die Hauptcharakteristiken der
Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen auf, einschließlich der Ansichten von Vorgängern auf
die Nachfolgevorgang, Auswahlkriterien für Nachfolger und die Zeit nach der Nachfolge.
Dies ist die erste systematische Studie, die sich mit dem Nachfolgevorgang in türkischen
Familienunternehmen befasst, nachdem Studien zuvor nur durch anekdotische Einzelberichte
gestützt wurden.
Schlüsselwörter: Familienunternehmen; Vorgänger; Nachfolgeplanung; Nachfolger; Türkei

家族所有企业的继承规划——来自土耳其的证据
Ekrem Tatoglu
Bahcesehir大学，土耳其
Veysel Kula
Afyon Kocatepe大学，土耳其
Keith W. Glaister
谢菲尔德大学，英国

对于许多家族所有企业(FOB)来说，两代管理人员的接替是一项关键问题。本文调查了
那些已经做出继承决定并选择了其继承人的FOB，研究其继承过程的各种情况。该研
究的首要目的是通过调查对继承人的选择、培训和进入管理层模式，以及家庭成员和利
益相关者对继承过程的参与进行研究，从而描绘继承过程背后蕴含的因素。来自土耳其
408个FOB前任继承人的数据揭示了有关FOB继承过程主要特征的许多深入发现，包括前
任对继承过程的观点、继承人选择标准以及继承后时期。这是对土耳其FOB继承过程的
第一次系统性研究，而先前人们只能从一些传闻证据中了解。
关键字：家族所有企业；前任继承人；继承计划；继承人；土耳其

180


Succession process among africa owned business general 1

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Succession process among africa owned business general 1

Ähnlich wie Succession process among africa owned business general 1 (20)

Mehr von John Johari

Mehr von John Johari (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Succession process among africa owned business general 1