The process factor named “Succession Ground Rules” and its related variables were identified in plentiful research classes of 8 to 15 out of the 38 studies reviewed (table 2.9). Principally, the researcher identified several fundamental guidelines that are believed indispensible, should be clarified and decided before the formal commencement of succession to guide different courses of action safely (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Ambrose, 1983; Aronnoff, 1998; Aronnoff & Eckrich, 1999;
67
Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Huber et al., 2015; Ocasio, 1999; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016; Ward; 1987; Wiersema, 1992).
Table 2.9: The Relative Frequency of Variables Related to Succession Ground Rules
Succession Process Factors and Variables
Selected Studies for the
Review Most Typical- Supportive Articles Total (n=38) Total (%)
Succession Ground Rules #1/#2/#3/#4/#5/
#9/#10/#11/#13/ #15/#16/#18/#22/
#26/#31/#35
Succession planning: early
established, clearly communicated and appropriately adjusted
15 39
Shared vision for the future 12 32
Gradual transfer of power and control in a transition period
-incumbent phase-out/
working together/successor phase-in -mentoring connection established -exit options communicated
8 21
Internal selection committee and criteria
-signaling and screening -due diligence
-person-job fit/person-organization fit/ person-supervisor fit/person owning family fit
8 21
Time frame and timing 13 34
Frequently, and once established, these guiding principles of succession process were moreover found to be subject of supervision from a selection committee under the board of directors (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Aronnoff & Ward, 2010; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Ward & Zsolnay, 2017) and/or the owning family (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Maco, et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014). It was acknowledged that a judicious package of ground rules is distinguished by a relevant succession planning (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Handler, 1990; Heinrichs, 2014; Lansberg, 1988, 1989; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Malone, 1989), a joint vision for the business future (Barack & Gantisky, 1995; Heinrichs, 2014; Huber et al., 2015; Potts, 2001b), and a gradual and transitional transfer of leadership in the prism of a time horizon (Acero &
68
Alcalde, 2016; Aronnoff & Ward, 2010; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Garcia- Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015).
On the contrary, research findings on this critical aspect of succession revealed that in case of misconception or incompetent administration of the decided ground rules, a number of conflicts may arise which certainly obstruct the entire process (Benavides- Velasco et al., 2013; Heinrichs, 2014; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Miller & Le- Breton-Miller, 2014; Sharma et al., 2000; Sonnenfeld & Spence, 1989; Stanley, 2010). Consequently, a decisive set of ground rules should be launched early, clearly communicated and clarified in an atmosphere of commitment (Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Gilding et al., 2015; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). If not, the endevour of succession may be critically deteriorated (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Aronnoff & Ward, 2010; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Chalus-Sauvannet et al., 2015; Dyck et al., 2002; Dyer, 1986; Heinrichs, 2014; Sharma et al., 2000). Accordingly, the most frequently cited variables that have been particularly explored and closely associated to succession ground rules are discussed as follows:
Succession Planning
Research findings from numerous successions in family businesses (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Barbera et al., 2015; Benavides-Velasco, 2013; Cater et al., 2016; Garcia- Ramos et al., 2017; Handler, 1990; Heinrichs, 2014; Hoy, 2007; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Lansberg, 1988, 1989; Maco et al., 2016; Malone, 1989; Miller & Le-Breton- Miller, 2014; Sharma et al, 2001; Ward 1987; Wright & Kellermanss, 2011) confirmed that any business with a clear objective to expand its entrepreneurial activity over the years, it absolutely needs an appropriate “succession planning”. The appropriateness of this planning embeds all the required arrangements in order to locate and attract competent successors from within the family business (Heinrichs, 2014; Hytti et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014; Rautamaki & Romer- Paakkanen, 2016), or from the free market (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Hammond et al., 2016; Klein and Bell, 2007).
It was often recognized that succession planning and similar family firm challenges are connected to a suitable matching of successor socio-professional profile with the business idiosyncratic identity (Carr et al., 2016; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2003; Maco et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014). The
69
proper mix and much of successor with the family business was found to guarantee the harmony of the owning family and assure business continuity to the next generation (Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Klein & Bell, 2007; Miller, 1993; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014; Ocasio, 1999; Osborne, 1991; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016). For that reason, a preannounced and well understood succession planning according to the future needs of the family business has been acknowledged vital to the process effectiveness across the forthcoming generations (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Pitcher et al., 2000; Poutziouris, 2001; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016; Tagiuri & Davis, 1992).
Shared Vision for the Future
From reviewing the best available literature on the the subject matter, the researcher identified that a shared vision is fundamental for accomplishing succession process effectively (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Tagiuri & Davis, 1992; Wright & Kellermanss, 2011). Consequently, various research findings on successful successions supported that process effectiveness, as a must organizational goal in family businesses, is often guided by a pre-announced and well communicated shared vision for the future (Barach & Gantisky, 1995; Barach et al., 1998; Barbera et al., 2015; Benavides- Velasco et al., 2013; Chrisman et al., 1998; Denison et al., 2004; Dyer, 1986; Hnatek, 2015; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016).
It was explicitly admitted that a comprehensive and smooth business transfer to the next generation of leaders is assured by a fundamental vision (Heinrichs, 2014; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Maco et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014). To this extent, Dyer (1986, p.133, as cited in Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004, p.310) characteristically stressed that “…the individual dreams of different generations [must] be woven together into a shared collective dream”. This joint dream is believed as a trustworthy variable for effective business succession as various consequential decisions are exceptionally supportive in this prospect (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Bizri, 2016; Chalus-Sauvannet et al., 2015; Danco, 1982; Hammond et al.,
70
2016; Heinrichs, 2014; Hoy, 2007; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Jaskievicz & Klein, 2007; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016).
Gradual Transfer of Power and Controlin a Transition Period
The researcher was able to identify that a gradual transfer of power and control from the incumbent to his successor is a decisive element of succession ground rules (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Heinrichs, 2014; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014). To this extent, it was acknowledged that such a gradual shift of authority has a time horizon of five to seven years on average to be accomplished (Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Klein & Bell, 2007; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014). At this point of the process, the incumbent, as the key responsible of succession, should take all the appropriate measures to do so appropriately (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Cater et al., 2016; Gilding et al., 2015; Handler, 1990; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015).
It was believed that a transition period of mentoring and bonding between the incumbent and successor is critical for succession effectiveness (Cater et al., 2016; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Maco et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton- Miller, 2014). Such a bonding relationship was found to be facilitated when the incumbent is particularly supportive by establishing healthy atmosphere based on trust and explicit plans to exit the business (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Cannella & Shen, 2001; Heinrichs, 2014; Klein & Bell, 2007; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016). The latter aspect entails a new challenging activity for the incumbent by means of being “ambassador” of the family business (Heinrichs, 2014; Huber et al., 2015; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Poutziouris, 2001; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016), or building a new career to satisfy his individual needs (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Hnatek, 2015; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz, 2015; Klein & Bell, 2007; Le Breton- Miller et al., 2004; Miller & Le-Breton-Miller, 2014; Ward & Zsolnay, 2017).
Internal Selection Committee and Criteria
It was widely discovered that when the incumbent is favourable toward acceptance of opinions and recommendations from an internal selection committee, then succession launching and monitoring is substantially facilitated (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Garcia- Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Miller & Le- Breton-Miller, 2014). The adequate fit of the new family business leader to the family
71
business idiosyncratic requirements was viewed as a vital priority of the relevant committee (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Castanias & Helfart, 1991, 1992; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Lee et al., 2003; Maco et al., 2016; Miller & Le-Breton- Miller, 2014). Moreover, the selection committee was believed to consist of the family executives and possibly of some large family shareholders with the decision to take according to specific successor criteria (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Witt, 2004). It was additionally acknowledged that in larger family firms, where non-family successors are attracted from the opened market, a relevant committee is synthesized by members of the board of directors in a way to apply best the key task of due diligence (Acero & Alcalde, 2016; Boeker & Goodstein, 1993; Garcia-Ramos et al., 2017; Heinrichs, 2014; Klein & Bell, 2007; Klein, 1988; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016).
Time Frame and Timing
The systematic review of best available literature on the topic stressed the importance of sequential timing and communication in succession (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Dyck et al., 2002; Heinrichs, 2014; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011; Miller & Le- Breton-Miller, 2014; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016). In this regard, Benavides-Velasco et al. (2013), Klein and Bell (2007), and Rautamaki and Romer- Paakkanen (2016) all emphasized that succession is a planned and multifaceted process. It has to be early established, clearly communicated, and appropriately adjusted with reflective feedback (Barbera et al., 2015; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Heinrichs, 2014; Pavel, 2013; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016). Time frame and timing variables “…in a slow and subtle process of role adjustment between the incumbent and the successor is key” (Handler, 1990, as cited in Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004, p.314).
Nevertheless, Benavides-Velasco et al. (2013), Dyck et al. (2002), Heinrichs (2014), and Jaskiewicz et al. (2015) highlighted the key role of the competitive environment to the timing variable. Consequently, a steady organizational context may allow freedom for a continuing and secure transition while an unstable environment may demand a far quicker process (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Chalus-Sauvannet et al., 2015; Dyck et al., 2002; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). This was found true “…as the incumbent may become obsolete very quickly” (Dyck et al., 2002, as cited in Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004, p.314). Therefore, points in time in relation to
72
the incumbent health and successor educational and professional development have all a vital importance for effective family business succession (Barbera et al., 2015; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013; Hammond et al., 2016; Heinrichs, 2014; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Rautamaki & Romer-Paakkanen, 2016). In the light of the best available research information, as resulted from the systematic literature review concerning the factor named “Succession Ground Rules”, the researcher decided to establish the following hypothesis with a negative rationale (Popper, 1994) to investigate Cypriot family wineries:
SH3: In the organizational context of family wineries in Cyprus, succession