Aplicaciones de la ecuación de Bernoulli

We are interested in answering the research question of what requirements family successors must fulfil in the succession process to be considered suitable successors. With the sole exception of Le Breton-Miller et al. (2004), whose comparison of scholarly and anecdotal literature identifies criteria that are believed to foster successful leadership successions, the integration of selection criteria into the overall succession process in previous studies has been rudimentary. For example, Keating and Little (1997) only identify the following decisive selection criteria in the case of farms in New Zealand: children’s interest in and commitment to the family firm, gender (although unconsciously), health issues, overall skills and well-timed readiness. Blumentritt, Mathews and Marchisio (2013) limit the sought-after attributes to successors’ takeover desire and talent. Our study, however, is devoted to the application of specific selection criteria within the process of recruiting family successors and explores criteria beyond those considered in the studies cited above.

Following Barber (1998, p.5; cited by Breaugh and Starke, 2000, p.407), who defines the recruitment process as one that “includes those practices and activities carried on by the organization with the primary purpose of identifying and attracting potential employees” for long-term employment, we disaggregate the recruitment practices and activities that are necessary to identify and attract family successors in family businesses into incremental stages. Figure 17 illustrates the recruitment process in family businesses a) as a whole and b) the stages of the recruitment process with sub-components. For ease of comprehension, we ensure that the conceptual model is as simple as possible, i.e., by omitting contextual factors and loops between the stages (Dineen and Soltis, 2011; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004). We integrate our results into this general model and the stages.

Stage one – Pre-Selection Process I. The selection process begins with family business incumbents at an early stage (Anderson and Rosenblatt, 1985). The prolonged nature of the pre-selection stage, which begins in childhood, leads us to divide the pre-selection phase into two parts. In Pre-Selection I, parents only have a vague conception of the prospective successor’s selection; this understanding begins to crystallise as the heir reaches adolescence and evolves over time (Keating and Little, 1997) and with early integration into the business environment. Parents can prepare the descendant for a probable future role (Ibrahim et al., 2001) by conveying management-related values (García-Alvarez et al., 2002) and obtaining early

105 impressions of the child’s management-related talent and interest in the family business (Keating and Little, 1997).

Stage two – Needs Assessment. Regardless of whether succession is necessary because of approaching retirement, health issues or other factors, ascertaining the need to consider a child for a future managerial position initiates the actual process of recruiting a family successor (Anderson and Rosenblatt, 1985). It is commonly believed that structured requirement profiles are rarely determined prior to family succession. As Sharma et al. (2000, p.239) suggest, “family firms pay the least attention to identifying the candidates and developing criteria for selecting the successor.” Nevertheless, Keating and Little (1997, p.169) find that “the identification and placement of a successor does not just fall into place, but is part of a systematic, though often implicit, process.” In other words, parents do not explain the process or selection criteria. Based on these statements, we believe that the person who is currently leading the family firm knows best what types of abilities, skills and knowledge prospective successors need to adequately perform the job and job tasks. We thus assume that, at this stage, incumbents conduct job and requirement analyses on the basis of which they determine the suitability of potential successors – although such job and requirement analyses may be unwritten and informal. This basis for analysis is the key point of departure for our research.

Stage three – Pre-Selection Process II. The objective in Pre-Selection II is to assess whether potential successors satisfy the requirement and job profiles. In the case of multiple heirs, this stage may (further) reduce the pool of potential successors.

Many authors argue that the decision in favour of a family successor is more influenced by emotions than by objective criteria (Howorth and Ali, 2001; Lansberg, 1988), personal acquaintance and ties (Pérez-González, 2006; Miller et al., 2003), family member support (Brockhaus, 2004), the health of the incumbent (Le Breton- Miller et al., 2004) or the ages and life stages of both key players (Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Davis and Tagiuri, 1989). The influence of these family succession-specific factors on the choice of a successor can easily present the impression of a rather ‘unprofessional’ selection process, leading predecessors to “appoint ex ante inefficient managers to the CEO position” (Hillier and McColgan, 2009, p.462). However, if our assumption regarding the existence of (unwritten and informal) job and requirement profiles is correct, then predecessors use these profiles to evaluate both the hard and soft skills of all potential family successors.

Stage four − Recruitment Channel. Incumbents now enter into a personal dialogue with eligible candidates to identify their interest in filling the future leadership vacancy. In other words, the incumbents ‘recruit’ potential family successors (Goldberg, 1996).

106

Stage five − Selection Process. This stage results in the final choice of the most appropriate successor (Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Fiegener et al., 1994). The heir who best satisfies the requirement profile and exhibits an interest in assuming the leadership position is securely incorporated into the business through positioning at either a subordinate or a superior level (García-Alvarez et al., 2002; Longenecker and Schoen, 1978). Here, the incumbent has the benefit of a long-lasting collaborative process to continuously verify whether the successor’s development in terms of skills, work habits (Osborne, 1991) and work performance (Moog et al., 2012) fulfils the requirements of the leadership position and to gradually withdraw from his own role as the successor’s responsibility simultaneously increases (Handler, 1990). Moreover, gradual succession enables the successor to cement his command of firm-specific matters (Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004) and reconsider whether his personal goals and the job characteristics coincide with the individual career objectives that succession implies (Cabrera-Suárez, 2005) or whether alternative career opportunities may afford a better fit (Rogal, 1989). Ultimately, successors depend on the willingness of their predecessors to ultimately ‘recruit’ the descendant, whereas predecessors depend on their successors’ decision to ‘apply for the vacancy’. Subsequently, negotiations occur to determine the following: leadership (Neubauer, 2003) and ownership transfer (Moog et al., 2012; Hauser, Kay and Boerger, 2010); the compensation of siblings who were not selected as successors (Keating and Little, 1997); and the details of the predecessor’s resignation. The recruitment and selection process concludes with the job contract, which studies often assume is negotiated without information asymmetry (Kets de Vries, 1993). Given the time required to fill the executive position, the general consensus is to advise family firms to allot ample time for the selection process (Brun de Pontet, Wrosch and Gagne, 2007; Osborne, 1991).

Akin to other researchers on family business succession (e.g., Blumentritt et al., 2013; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Churchill and Hatten, 1987; Longenecker and Schoen, 1978; McGivern, 1978), our conceptual model orders the succession process chronologically. However, we further illustrate that the selection process of family successors is based on structured and systematic assessments of promising candidates that help realistically elucidate aspirants’ suitability for the position in terms of hard and soft skills, thereby leading to the selection of the most suitable contender. Admittedly, this statement holds true only if our decisive assumption is correct – namely, if predecessors conduct job and requirement analyses and verify whether potential family successors satisfy these requirements. In the following, we elaborate selection criteria extracted from a comprehensive review of the family business literature and analyse our primary data – interviews with predecessors and successors

107 – to generate a general requirement profile. We also provide preliminary insights into systematic patterns in requirements at specific stages of the process and whether predecessors’ and successors’ understandings of the characteristics deemed necessary differ across the stages described above.

108

Figure 17: Process of family successors’ recruitment and selection into management positions

109

5.3 Literature review on succession processes and selection criteria for family