Herramientas de análisis

The limited research available on the history of family firms in the manufacturing sector argues that inadequate succession planning caused frequent firm failure (Scranton, 1992). A study of manufacturing family firms in Philadelphia showed that proprietors' sons would be apprenticed to the factory floor and expected to learn their fathers’ technical skill sets. However, these practical experiences failed to prepare the next generation for the increasingly complex commercial aspects of manufacturing (Scranton, 1984). This led to the development of “practical apprenticeships” (Black, 2007), whereby family owners who were reluctant to

engage their sons in formal education, rotated their sons around the different departments of the firm. This rotation of activity allowed their sons to acquire the broader knowledge required to manage a manufacturing firm: sales, transportation, recruitment of staff, legal, and accounting knowledge.

Recent research into family manufacturing firms finds that providing a diverse knowledge base for family firm successors in the manufacturing industry continues to be problematic (Calder, 1961; Zellweger, Nason, & Nordqvist, 2011). In addition to knowledge, the entrepreneurial attitude required to undertake the risks required for successful innovation did not always transmit to the second generation (Zahra, 2005). Suggestions for future research in this direction include understanding how entrepreneurial values, such as risk-taking product and process innovation, and pro-activeness, are transmitted from one generation to another (Zellweger et al., 2011). This study will investigate this question of how family values (as explained by the Bourdieusian concepts of doxa and habitus) are transmitted from the previous to the current owner.

Literature Review Page 69 Where training, in both knowledge and values occurs, family firms appear to prefer on-the-job training. A sample of 918 family and non-family firms across all industries indicate, that, as the firm grows in size, family firms are less likely to invest in formal training for their employees (Reid & Adams, 2001). Family firms continue to rely on on-the-job training, which prioritises the immediate technical knowledge required to perform their role, rather than extending their skills to encompass project management, sales, or other related organisational activities (Kotey & Folker, 2007). Other studies have speculated that family firm owners have deep knowledge of their firm and of their industry, (this study would term such deep knowledge as habitus). The owner’s expertise therefore, it is argued, compensates for the lack of formal training for their employees (Reid, Morrow, Kelly, & Mccartan, 2002).

The finding that family firms are less likely to invest in training as they grow is consistent with earlier research that family firms are less likely to adopt formal processes for innovation as their firm grows (J. P. Marshall et al., 2006a). The result is that family firms will grow in an inefficient way, which could explain some findings that family firms are more likely than non- family firms to fail in the long-term (Office for National Statistics, 2017). The resistance to formal processes is consistent with the recent finding that family-owned and family-managed firms in the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom are less likely than non-family firms to adopt formal management processes (Office for National Statistics, 2017). Family-owned and family-managed firms are therefore largely responsible for the poor productivity

experienced by UK manufacturers in comparison to those of other developed countries (Block, 2012). However, family-owned but non-family managed firms have the highest level of formal management processes. This has called for a recommendation that more family-owned firms outsource their management to non-family members (Office for National Statistics, 2017) in order to improve their productivity. This study will explore whether family firms are more

Literature Review Page 70 likely to adopt formal processes for innovation, whether they are more likely to be short-lived than non-family firms, and the reasoning behind adopting or rejecting formal processes. A further cause of poor productivity in family-owned manufacturing firms could be due to the high value placed on direct participation in and supervision of the manufacturing process by family owners (H. S. James, 1999). Family owners have thereby become wedded to existing manufacturing processes, to the point of excluding innovative new ways of working. Previous research has indicated how family firms have resisted hiring outside parties who, although they could introduce new methods of working, had no family interest in the firm (Scranton, 1984). Historically, the marriage of sons and daughters was a method for developing trade alliances or bringing capital into the firm, rather than introducing a mechanism for introducing innovations (Scranton, 1992). In particular, there is no evidence that women in the family were seriously considered as successors or awarded a significant role within the firm (Colli & Rose, 2007). Given that women now have the right to own property and financial assets, it would be expected that women should now be considered as successors in the family firm. Recent research indicates that this is not, however, the case (Dumas, 1998; Martinez Jimenez, 2009). This study will investigate whether the ownership structure of family firms is more diverse than non-family firms, and also whether women continue to play a significant role in the family firm.

This section has discussed the family firm-specific issues in the manufacturing industry, including insufficient training of the next generation, an aversion to formal management processes which would improve productivity, the reluctance to invest in new technology, and the exclusion of women from succession. Ultimately, there has been no substantive empirical research into the causes of these differences between family and non-family firms in the manufacturing sector. The lack of research represents a major gap in our understanding of family firms and of the manufacturing sector. This study will add value in analysing not only

Literature Review Page 71 whether these family-specific issues are convincingly demonstrated in the sample, but will explore the causes of these differences. While the literature discussed above has explored family-firm specific issues, there are broader challenges to the manufacturing sector which will now be discussed.