An Archival Approach to Measuring Family Influence - SAGE Journals

669254

research-article2016

FBRXXX10.1177/0894486516669254Family Business ReviewAnglin et al.

Article

An Archival Approach to Measuring Family Influence: An Organizational Identity Perspective

Family Business Review 2017, Vol. 30(1) 19­–36 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0894486516669254 journals.sagepub.com/home/fbr

Aaron H. Anglin1, Shane W. Reid1, Jeremy C. Short1, Miles A. Zachary2, and Matthew W. Rutherford3

Abstract Drawing from a framework highlighting how family influence is reflected in organizational identity, we present archival and content analytic adaptations for three key factors signifying alignment between family and organizational identities: family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement. We validate these measures using archival data sources, “About Us” pages, and shareholder letters from S&P 500 firms. Random coefficients modeling indicates our measures are largely shaped by temporal and firm, followed by industry, differences. Our work paves the way for further investigation exploring the relationships between family involvement and organizational identity while simultaneously addressing lingering methodological challenges in family business research. Keywords panel data/longitudinal data, database/archival, content/narrative analysis, narratives Investigation surrounding the impact that family involvement has on a family business is a cornerstone of family business research (Sharma, Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012). Family involvement refers to the nature and extent to which family participation influences a firm— typically through management participation and ownership control (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002). To identify the more nuanced effects of family involvement on a family firm, family involvement research frequently adopts a “family essence approach” that explores the association between family involvement and certain behavioral, psychological, or performance consequences for the firm (e.g., Chrisman, Chua, Pearson, & Barnett, 2012; Holt, Rutherford, & Kuratko, 2010; Sharma et al., 2012). For example, family involvement may influence the continued commitment to the long-term viability of the firm (e.g., Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, & Zachary, 2014), shape organizational identity (e.g., Zellweger, Nason, Nordqvist, & Brush, 2013), or affect the creation of socioemotional wealth (e.g., Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007). The family essence approach often aims to blend direct measures of family involvement such as

ownership control or active participation in corporate governance with certain family essence characteristics to create comprehensive measures of family involvement (e.g., Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). For example, the Family Influence on Power, Experience, and Culture (F-PEC) scale seeks to capture family participation in ownership and management, while also capturing elements of family commitment (Holt et al., 2010; Klein et al., 2005). Berrone et al.’s (2012) measure of socioemotional wealth seeks to capture similar components of ownership and management while also capturing sentiments, emotions, and relationships within the family controlling the firm. 1

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 3 Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Jeremy C. Short, Department of Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, 307 W. Brooks, Room 206, Norman, OK 73019-0450, USA Email: [email protected]

20 To better understand the relationships between family involvement, family essence, and firm outcomes, it is imperative that family business scholars be equipped with a versatile set of measurement devices in which to capture involvement and essence characteristics. Unfortunately, nearly all data relating to family involvement and family essence have historically been captured through self-report measures, creating a number of measurement challenges and limitations (Chrisman et al., 2012; Evert, Martin, McLeod, & Payne, 2015; Zellweger, Nason, & Nordqvist, 2012). An overreliance on selfreports in capturing important constructs creates a common potential source of bias (i.e., monomethod bias) that threatens study validity in organizational research (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Additionally, response rates in some studies using self-report measures are often quite low (e.g., Zahra, Hayton, Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2008), weakening measurement reliability and potentially leading to biased estimates (Cycyota & Harrison, 2002). Family business scholars also argue that family involvement and essence may change and evolve over time (e.g., Berrone et al., 2012). Since collecting repeated observations using surveys is notoriously difficult, knowledge in many research streams is often limited to cross-sectional data. To mitigate these limitations, we propose that archival data sources be used to supplement the traditional survey-based approach as family involvement research continues to evolve. Family business scholars have noted that archival databases hold the potential to leverage a number of desirable qualities, including large sample sizes, relatively low cost, and the potential to engage in valuable replication (Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011). Such data can then be paired with techniques such as content analysis wherein organizational communications such as shareholder letters or mission statements are coded to gain further meaning (Duriau, Reger, & Pfarrer, 2007). For example, while traditionally measured using survey methods, family business scholars have used content analysis to measure entrepreneurial orientation (Short, Payne, Brigham, Lumpkin, & Broberg, 2009), market orientation (Zachary, McKenny, Short, Davis, & Wu, 2011), and organizational virtue orientation (Payne, Brigham, Broberg, Moss, & Short, 2011). Content analysis is particularly beneficial for family business scholars as it facilitates the ability to gather meaningful data from samples of family firms that are often challenging to collect en masse (McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2013).

Family Business Review 30(1) Thus, the pairing of archival data sources with content analysis allows researchers to leverage archival databases while measuring constructs of interest to family business scholars. To demonstrate the utility of this approach, we build on the organizational identity model proposed by Zellweger et al. (2013), which suggests that a family’s unique gravitation toward noneconomic goals is driven by three qualities: family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and the family self-esteem–enhancing qualities of the firm. We present and validate archivalbased measures of these three dimensions. Their framework offers a powerful pillar that motivates our work as it allows us to provide family business researchers with tools to probe the theoretical foundations laid forth by previous research among organizational identity, family involvement, and organizational outcomes. In addition, this model draws inspiration from key aspects of transgenerational control and socioemotional wealth. Thus, from a broader perspective, using this model also allows us to demonstrate how family business scholars may leverage archival approaches to examine questions concerning transgenerational control and socioemotional wealth—both of which have been identified as desperately in need of additional research (e.g., Sharma et al., 2012; Yu, Lumpkin, Sorenson, & Brigham, 2012). Our study contributes to the family business literature in two ways. First, we expand the current toolset available to family business scholars interested in family involvement research by providing new and useful ways in which to test and challenge their theoretical assumptions. In doing so, we provide guidance on how to leverage archival data sources and content analytic approaches to capture constructs of interest (cf. McKenny et al., 2013). Second, family business scholars have recently noted that family business research could greatly benefit from improving the understanding of causality among key constructs, incorporating time more explicitly into research designs, and increasing the reliability and validity of variables and constructs (Evert et al., 2015). Accordingly, we show that our measures can be used in longitudinal settings, which allows for both deeper investigations of causality among constructs as well as more direct incorporations of time (Sharma, Salvato, & Reay, 2013). Furthermore, our emphasis on establishing the reliability and validity of our proposed archival measures of family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement directly responds to the calls for increased attention to issues of construct

Anglin et al. validity and reliability in family business research (Evert et al., 2015; Pearson, Holt, & Carr, 2014). In sum, our study suggests novel approaches to capturing important family involvement constructs while responding to calls for further investigation of specific measurement issues needed in the family involvement literature.

Review of Family Influence Family business scholars have struggled for decades to define and measure what it means to be considered a family firm (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999; Litz, 2008). Given the complexities and heterogeneity associated with family enterprises, drawing clear boundaries between family firms and nonfamily firms is inherently challenging. Traditionally, a firm was considered a family firm based on specific measures of family involvement. This meant that the firm was actively governed or managed by a dominant coalition of members of the same family or small number of families who maintained some form of majority or controlling ownership stake (Barry, 1975; Chua et al., 1999; Dyer, 1986). While this definition served as a valuable approach to distinguish family firms from nonfamily firms, observers noted that family involvement alone was not sufficient for capturing the distinct behavioral differences between family firms and nonfamily firms (Chrisman et al., 2012). Indeed, Astrachan et al. (2002) suggested that family firms are in fact not dichotomous but rather operate over a multidimensional continuum. Because not all firms with similar family involvement may consider themselves family firms and some families may be less willing to exert their influence in particularistic ways than others (Chrisman et al., 2012), recent scholars have suggested that the definition of family firms should expand to include measures of family essence as well. Family essence examines ways that families parley their involvement to influence aspects of the firm such as in the development of business policies and firm strategy (Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua, 1997), transgenerational intrafamily succession (Ward, 1997), firm vision and behavior (Chua et al., 1999), and family commitment to the firm (Chrisman et al., 2012). As research on family essence has evolved, findings have shown that varying measures of family essence can both distinguish family firms from nonfamily firms and differentiate behaviors among family firm types (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2012). For example, Chrisman et al. (2012) found that varying degrees of family involvement can dictate

21 how influential the family is on the pursuit of familycentered noneconomic goals by the firm. Their findings also indicated that family involvement did not produce consistent results across all family firms, suggesting that controlling families exert their influence in differing degrees. To meet the complexities involved in capturing the impact of family essence on the family firm, family business scholars have sought to develop more meaningful and comprehensive measures to enable a more nuanced understanding of the influence that family involvement has on an organization. For example, the F-PEC scale was developed to look at how family involvement influences a firm’s culture (Klein et al., 2005), the Family Influence Familiness Scale looks to measure the multidimensionality of familiness in decision making (Frank, Kessler, Rusch, Suess-Reyes, & Weismeier-Sammer, 2016), and Transgenerational Entrepreneurship examines levels of entrepreneurial orientation in controlling families (Zellweger et al., 2012). In each instance, the measures were developed to capture specific characteristics of family firms that scholars were not previously able to measure directly. Recently, family business researchers have become interested in how family involvement influences the organizational identity of the firm. Specifically, scholars have sought to investigate the strength of alignment between family and firm identities and how the strength of this alignment can inform how family firms might behave (Zellweger et al., 2013). Organizational identity represents the core values and beliefs of an organization that are deemed to be the most central, distinctive, and enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Zellweger et al., 2013). An organization’s identity defines how it is viewed both internally and externally and serves as the foundation of the firm’s reputation (Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Family identity is the meaning family members attach to the family for self-verification based on its history, intrapersonal relationships, and broader social reputation (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009). Given the often inseparable link between the dominant family and the firm, family business research suggests that in most cases, these identities tend to overlap to some degree (Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010). Building off this notion, Zellweger et al. (2013) proposed a model suggesting that the varying degrees in which a controlling family strives for alignment between family and organizational identity explains why family firms may pursue nonfinancial goals. Drawing from the

22 organizational identity and socioemotional wealth literatures, Zellweger et al. (2013) contend that how strongly families seek alignment between family and firm identity affects how likely family firms are to pursue nonfinancial goals. Strongly overlapping identities motivates controlling families to strive for a favorable organizational reputation, which is achieved through the pursuit of nonfinancial goals intended to satisfy nonfamily stakeholders. How strong this identity overlap is, and therefore how predictive it can be of the likelihood of pursuing nonfinancial goals, can be measured by three factors: visibility of the family in the firm, the transgenerational sustainability intentions of the family, and the capability of the business to give family self-enhancement. Their work provides a valuable foundation to understand an important linkage between family influence and how that influence is reflected in family firms. Consequently, in our work, we further discuss these factors and elaborate on the process we follow to develop their conceptual dimensions to create empirically quantifiable measures for use with archival data sources.

Visibility of the Family in the Firm Individuals who are visibly affiliated with an organization are more likely to be associated with that organization by stakeholders, contributing to its perceived identity (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). For controlling families, family members holding important organizational roles, such as CEO, serve as visible reminders of the family’s membership to the organization (Zellweger et al., 2013). Such visibility can motivate impression management by the family to maintain both the reputation of the firm and of the family, which then shapes public expectations for family behavior. These expectations can be used strategically by the firm such as in branding and marketing campaigns (“our family serving your family for the last three generations”; Zellweger et al., 2010; Zellweger et al., 2013). In other words, strong association with the family creates a public expectation of proven quality and service delivery (Zellweger et al., 2013). Visibility of the family, therefore, is dependent on family involvement in management and corporate governance, the social ties of the family, and congruent family and firm names (Zellweger et al., 2013). The higher the visibility, the more likely for there to be overlap between family and firm identity.

Family Business Review 30(1)

Transgenerational Sustainability Intentions of the Family Transgenerational sustainability intentions refer to a controlling family’s expressed desire to pass on control and leadership of the firm from members of one generation of the family to the next (Zellweger et al., 2012). This creates continuity over time that is critical in both the formation of an identity and the maintenance of a desired corporate reputation and values (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Zellweger et al., 2013). For family firms, especially those that strive for a strong identity overlap between the family and the firm, public expression of intention to pass on control of the firm within the family is seen as the best way to maintain a stable selfconcept of the family over time (Zellweger et al., 2013). Such an expression allows the family to obtain a level of consistency between prior and future appearance. Transgenerational sustainability intentions assure a continued legacy of the family, suggesting that the family will be an enduring element of the firm and signals that the controlling family places high value in family–firm identify fit (Zellweger et al., 2013). While such intentions are unique to family firms, the strength of this intention can vary among family firms. Organizational size, successor interest or disinterest, and the financial stability of the family and the firm can alter transfer intention strength (Zellweger et al., 2013). For example, the next generation may not want to continue on with the family business or the family may view a small firm as not providing the right financial subsistence for subsequent generations. Another consideration for the family is the consequences for the family should it lose the firm. If transgenerational transfer intentions are not fulfilled, irreparable harm can be done to a family’s identity given that a valued possession nurtured for future generations would lose its distinctiveness to the family (Zellweger et al., 2013). No matter the outcome, however, controlling families who seek to closely identify the family with the firm and vice versa will be more pronounced in their transgenerational intentions than those who do not.

Capability of the Business to Give Family SelfEnhancement Self-enhancement, rooted in identity theory, states that members who associate with organizations that possess

Anglin et al. identities that are perceived as attractive will see enhancements in their own self-esteem (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). This is because such association provides them a more positive evaluation of self (Dukerich et al., 2002). Families are affected in much of the same ways as they look to associate their name with an organization perceived to possess qualities such as power, competence, efficiency, or moral worth (Gecas, 1982; Zellweger et al., 2013). As such, firms that provide families with self-esteem–enhancing qualities will lead to a heightened desire by the family to sync their identity with the firm’s. For example, firms high in public opinion or who have good standing within the community will cause a controlling family to have an increased desire for merged identities as it allows the family to bask in the reflected glory of the firm’s good press (Cialdini et al., 1976; Zellweger et al., 2013). Alternatively, negative attributes of the firm such as product recalls or ethics violations could lead to embarrassment for the family, causing them to de-emphasize the family identity from the firm’s in order to separate the association between the family and the firm. Therefore, the more positive attributes of the firm that can also be attributed to the family, the higher the likelihood that there will be a greater emphasis on family– firm identity alignment.

Creation and Validation of Family Influence Measures To provide researchers with a useful set of tools to further investigate the relationship between organizational identity and family influence that leverage the insights provided by the Zellweger et al. (2013) model, we develop and validate archival-based measures for firm visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement. To illustrate their potential to inform family business scholars, we use data collected from the S&P 500. The S&P 500 has served as an important sampling frame in the family business literature, providing insights on a number of phenomena such as entrepreneurial orientation (Short, Broberg, Cogliser, & Brigham, 2010), long-term orientation (Brigham et al., 2014), market orientation (Zachary, McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011), and family firm ambidexterity (Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2014). In particular, the S&P 500 is attractive because it features publically traded firms that have a vested interest in sharing information regarding their

23 norms, values, beliefs, and decision-making processes in a variety of documents made available to the public (e.g., annual reports, shareholder letters, online content). Moreover, publically traded firms, such as those in the S&P 500 index, are also required to disclose key financial information to the public, which can be combined with other publically available documents to triangulate firm-level attitudes and behaviors as well as their related outcomes (e.g., Short et al., 2010). We examine firms that were listed as a part of the S&P 500 from 2001 to 2012. Given that a portion of our analysis examines changes in our measures over time, this time frame maximizes comparability with other studies that examine changes in family business measures through time (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). To create measures that capture characteristics unique to family firms, we separate the S&P 500 into firms that we suspect may exhibit such characteristics from those who will not. To do so, we follow previous work in Family Business Review and define family firms as those where there was a principal shareholder (representing a 10% or more ownership stake) represented by two or more related family members, where at least one of whom was either an executive member of the top management team and/or a board member (cf., Brigham et al., 2014). Indeed, this classification “represents a conservative measure of family business status that is more likely to identify companies that truly capture the essence of family business” (Brigham et al., 2014, p. 79). We classify a firm as family if it met these criteria. Using this definition, we were able to match data from corporate “About Us” pages, shareholder letters, archival databases, and corporate websites for 136 family firms and 428 nonfamily firms over the 12-year time period of our study. Note that the sum of family and nonfamily firms exceeds 500 as some firms were delisted during this time period while other firms were placed into the S&P 500. To provide further evidence that our sample of identified family firms is truly representative of firms that identify as family firms, we perform a computerized content analysis of the “About Us” pages collected for all S&P 500 firms (family and nonfamily). Content analysis refers to a class of methods through which researchers make reliable inferences by interpreting and coding rhetorical content (Duriau et al., 2007). Computer-aided versions of content analysis (CATA) uses software to make quantitative assessments of such rhetorical content (Zachary,

24 McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011). Corporate “About Us” pages provide an overview of the company in its own words, creating an avenue for the company to describe the central and distinctive characteristics of the organization. Consequently, if being known as a family firm is an important characteristic of the firm, it is likely to be stressed in the “About Us” page. To measure the extent to which firms identify as family firms, we use the family dictionary created by the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) to examine the prevalence of language related to family in the “About Us” pages. The LIWC is a computerized content analysis program that analyzes text files and computes the percentage of words in that text that fall into linguistic categories, such as emotional language, self-reflection, and causation (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). The family dictionary captures words directly related to aspects of family, such as “family,” “families,” “relatives,” and “paternal.” We conduct a two-sample t test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in language use related to family between family and nonfamily firms. The results indicate that the mean of family firms (M = 0.22) is significantly larger than the mean of nonfamily firms (M = 0.15) at p = .02, thus providing further evidence that our sample of identified family firms is representative of firms identifying as family firms. In addition, because the “About Us” pages reflect aspects of family, we can use them to create and validate additional measures related to family that can be captured with content analysis. Accordingly, we use these pages in the creation of our measures for transgenerational sustainability and family self-enhancement.

Content Validity Content validity is concerned with the extent to which a given measure is reflective of an underlying construct (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). When using content analysis, scholars recommend evaluating content validity by examining the fit between a particular conceptual or theoretical definition of the construct and its empirical measure (Short et al., 2010). To demonstrate the content validity of our proposed measures, we illustrate the match between the theoretical conceptualizations of family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement and our proposed measures. We summarize these matches in Table 1 and elaborate on each measure below.

Family Business Review 30(1) Family Visibility.  Family visibility is characterized by family members holding publically visible organizational roles, congruent family and firm names, and the use of the family in branding (Zellweger et al., 2013). Family members in public organizational roles can be directly obtained from existing archival data bases, allowing researchers to easily ensure content validity. An organization’s board of directors and top management teams are perhaps the most visible members of the organization. Accordingly, we recommend measuring family visibility by assessing family involvement as the percentage of family members serving on the board of director and as top management team members. To collect these measures, we use data triangulated from three sources: Lexis-Nexis, BoardEx, and firm websites. For instance, if a board had two family members, we code a family board members variable as 2 and if the top management team had one family member, then the family managers variable was coded as 1. The values were then divided by total board members and total top management team members, respectively. In addition, overlap between the family name and the firm name can also be directly observed (e.g., Walton and Walmart). Thus, for firms demonstrating an overlap between family name and firm name, a Name Overlap variable was coded 1 for firms with an overlap and 0 for firms with no overlap. Transgenerational Sustainability. Transgenerational sustainability intentions reflect the controlling family’s expressed wish to pass on control and leadership of the firm from members of one generation of the family to the next (Zellweger et al., 2012). This is characterized by expressing a desire for continuity over time and the wish to maintain the reputation and central values of the family firm (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Zellweger et al., 2013). To capture these desires, we suggest combining three dictionaries provided by DICTION—a popular CATA software package that contains previously validated dictionaries commonly used to measure management constructs (Short & Palmer, 2008) and has been previously used in family business research (e.g., McKenny, Short, Zachary, & Payne, 2012; Short et al., 2009). We recommend that transgenerational sustainability be captured by combining the Past Concerns, Present Concerns, and Commonality dictionaries. Combining the Past and Present Concerns dictionaries creates a temporal index capturing temporal continuity (Bligh,

25

Anglin et al. Table 1.  Matching Conceptualization With Measures. Variable

Conceptualization

Measure

Source

Firm visibility

Characterized by family members holding public organizational roles, congruent family and firm names, and the use of the family in branding

Lexis-Nexis, BoardEx, and firm websites

Transgenerational sustainability

Desire to pass on control and leadership of the firm from members of one generation of the family to the next; characterized by expressing a desire for continuity over time and the desire to maintain the reputation and central values of the family firm

Family self-enhancement

Firm praised as being accomplished, moral, and involved in the community or philanthropy

Percentage of family managers on the top management team Percentage of family board members on the board of directors Name overlap: Do the family name and firm name overlap (1 = overlap, 0 = no overlap) DICTION 7.0 Past Concern and Present Concern dictionaries: Terms relevant to past and present, when used in combination, suggest temporal continuity (Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004) DICTION 7.0 Commonality Dictionary: Captures language highlighting the agreed-on values of a group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement DICTION 7.0 Accomplishment Dictionary: Captures languagerelated to organized activity and task completion DICTION 7.0 Human Interest Dictionary: Captures language concerning people and human activities DICTION 7.0 Collectives Dictionary: Captures language focused on groups and communities DICTION 7.0 Praise Dictionary: Language relating to positive affirmations about a person, group, or entity

Kohles, & Meindl, 2004). This is consistent with the desire for temporal continuity held by the family firm. The Commonality dictionary captures language highlighting the agreed-on values of a group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement (Hart, 2000), which are in line with the family’s desire to maintain the reputation and central values of the family firm. The Commonality dictionary is rooted in the work of Etzioni (1961, 1968) that is concerned with a communitarian approach to understanding organizational behaviors that has been highly influential in family

About Us pages, shareholder letters

About Us pages, shareholder letters

business research (e.g., Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Dyer, 2006). For family businesses, this communitarian approach suggests that family businesses are often governed by normative pressures that require family values to be preserved by the organization over time (e.g., Dyer, 2006). In sum, the combination of these three dictionaries results in a measure designed to capture language consistent with the temporal continuity and maintenance of the central values of the firm over time, which is theoretically congruent with the notion of transgenerational sustainability.

26 To calculate the transgenerational sustainability variable, we summed the standardized scores for each dictionary (Past Concern + Present Concern + Commonality) as computed by the DICTION software program. This approach is consistent with past research combining multiple dictionaries to capture organizational constructs, as well as DICTION’s own approach to creating more complex variables from individual dictionaries (cf., Bligh et al., 2004; Davis & Gardner, 2012; Hart & Carroll, 2013). DICTION computes standardized frequency scores from normative data for each of its 40 variables based on a 50,000-item sample of discourse (Hart & Carroll, 2013). These standardized scores are based on the average use of each type of language represented by each dictionary calculated after analyzing the 50,000 texts. Higher standardized scores represent a greater emphasis on a particular type of language. In our case, higher standardized scores for Past Concern, Present Concern, and Commonality represent a greater emphasis on each type of this language, while an increased sum of these scores represents a greater emphasis on transgenerational sustainability. Family Self-Enhancement. Family self-enhancement occurs when the organization is portrayed as competent, accomplished, moral, and involved in the community or philanthropy. Such qualities allow for the family to “bask in the reflected glory of firm” (Zellweger et al., 2013, p. 237). To capture these family self-enhancement characteristics, we recommend combining DICTION’s Accomplishment, Human Interest, Collectives, and Praise dictionaries. The Accomplishment dictionary includes words expressing task completion and organized human behavior (Hart, 2000), which can be used to capture a family’s display of its competence and accomplishments. The Human Interest dictionary captures language focusing on people and their activities and the Collective dictionary captures language related to groups and communities (Hart, 2000), both allowing for the measure of language relating to the firm’s concern for community ties and philanthropic activity (e.g., Berrone et al., 2012). The Praise dictionary includes words relating to positive affirmations about a person, group, or entity (Hart, 2000). This captures the family firm’s desire to promote its attractive qualities (e.g., Berrone et al., 2012). To calculate the family self-enhancement variable, we summed the standardized scores for each dictionary (Accomplishment + Human Interest + Collectives + Praise) as computed by the DICTION

Family Business Review 30(1) Table 2.  Means and Correlations for Family Firms. Variable

M

SD

1.   Family managers 0.22 0.34 2.  Family board 0.09 0.09 members 3.   Name overlap 0.29 0.46 4.  Transgenerational 70.75 34.43 sustainability 5.  Family 89.22 128.04 self-enhancement

1

2

3

   

.64** −.12 .003 .02

4

−.04 −.03 −.12

   

−.01 −.09 .93**

program. When combined, these dictionaries create a measure designed to capture a family firm’s promotion of its accomplishments and community involvement. Table 2 provides the summary of means, standard deviations, and correlations of the newly created measures.

Convergent Validity and Dimensionality Convergent validity examines how closely measurements of a construct are related to that construct and provides an indication of how well these components capture an underlying latent construct (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Two ways that provide evidence of convergent validity are examining the internal consistency of a measure and examining the factor structure of the proposed measure. Examining the factor structure of the measure also provides insight into the dimensionality of a measure (e.g., Brigham et al., 2014), which refers to the relatedness between individual dimensions and their association to a single construct (Bernstein & Nunnally, 1994; Brigham et al., 2014). To address the convergent validity and dimensionality of our new measures, we calculate Cronbach’s alpha and conduct a factor analysis of the transgenerational sustainability and family self-enhancement measures. Factor analysis is a valuable tool examining the convergent validity and dimensionality of constructs measured through content analysis (e.g., Short et al., 2010; Short & Palmer, 2008). Note we do not conduct these analyses on our family visibility measures as these measures can be captured directly (i.e., they are not latent). The results of these analyses are provided in Table 3. Cronbach’s alphas for transgenerational sustainability (α = .73) and family self-enhancement (α = .82) suggest that both measures possess strong internal consistency. The factor loadings for each construct show that the dictionaries for each measure load on one construct, providing evidence

27

Anglin et al. Table 3.  Internal Consistency and Factor Analysis. Principal components Transgenerational sustainability  Cronbach’s α = .73  Commonality   Past concern   Present concern Family self-enhancement  Cronbach’s α = .82  Praise   Human interest  Accomplishment  Collectives

Factor loadings

.86 .87 .89

.93 .80 .95 .88

Table 4.  Family Versus Nonfamily Computer-Aided Content Analysis Means. Family M

Nonfamily M

Mean difference p

0.22 70.75

0.15 65.73

.02 .04

89.22

65.19

.06

Uniqueness     .26 .24 .20     .13 .36 .11 .22

of convergent validity. Furthermore, the low uniqueness scores indicate that the dictionaries should be used unidimensionally. Simply, the dictionaries should be combined (i.e., summed) to create one measure. Taken together, these results suggest our proposed measures for transgenerational sustainability and family selfenhancement possess adequate convergent validity of unidimensional constructs.

Concurrent Validity Concurrent validity refers to the ability of a measure to distinguish between groups it should be able to distinguish between (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). For our measures, this requires the ability to distinguish between family and nonfamily firms. Accordingly, using the “About Us” pages, we conduct two-sample t tests to determine if family firms used more language related to transgenerational sustainability and family selfenhancement. These results are provided in Table 4. The results generally support the notion that family firms use more language related to transgenerational sustainability (family M = 70.75, nonfamily M = 64.74, p = .04) and family self-enhancement (family M = 89.22, nonfamily M = 71.77, p = .06). As such, these measures appear to do a reasonable job of distinguishing between family and nonfamily firms.

Exploring Measure Variance Over Time Organizations evolve and change over time suggesting that the impact of a family’s influence an on a firm’s identity may change over time as well. Furthermore,

Variable Family Transgenerational sustainability Family self-enhancement

organizational characteristics often vary considerably by firm and industry (Allison et al., 2014). To provide researchers with insight into how family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement vary over time within firms, between firms, and between industries, we use random coefficients modeling to examine the variation in our measures from 2001 to 2012 (cf. Short, McKenny, Ketchen, Snow, & Hult, 2016). In addition, we also explore whether change in our variables follows a gradual linear trend or is a function of discontinuous events. Note that there was no change in Name Overlap during the time period of our analysis as no organizations changed their name. Furthermore, analysis of the firm and industry variation suggests that the probability of Name Overlap is determined entirely at the firm level. Therefore, we do not provide an analysis of variance over time for this dimension. While board and top management characteristics can be captured over time from archival databases, the “About Us” pages used to create and validate our content analysis measures do not appear to consistently change over time. Documents such as “About Us” pages, mission statements, and vision statements are quite useful when researchers are interested in research questions that call for directly capturing family firm characteristics or validating measures of family firm characteristics because these documents directly describe the characteristics and purpose of the firm (cf. Botero, Thomas, Graves, & Fediuk, 2013). Accordingly, we used “About Us” pages to validate our transgenerational sustainability and family self-enhancement measures. However, because these narratives are rarely rewritten, they are of limited use for research questions focused on changes or fluctuations in firm characteristics over time and how these changes relate to organizational outcomes. Other documents such as shareholder letters, management discussion sections in 10-Q and 10-K reports, and press releases are produced periodically over time. These documents may not always

28

Family Business Review 30(1)

Table 5.  Variance Decompositions. Variables

Family manager

Variance decomposition  Temporal 2.40 × 10−2  Firm 7.36 × 10−2  Industry 2.77 × 10−2 Percentage  Temporal 19.17%  Firm 58.74%  Industry 22.08%

Family board members

Transgenerational sustainability

Family self-enhancement

1.29 × 10−3 4.95 × 10−3 2.20 × 10−2

383.82 157.72 68.98

8688.55 3912.42 723.28

4.56% 17.53% 78.90%

directly address firm characteristics, but the language used in these documents is frequently still reflective of the underlying characteristics of the firm (e.g., Short et al., 2010). As such, while “About Us” pages may provide an ideal data source from which to validate family business measures, these other narrative types are a valuable data source for examining the variation of firm characteristics over time. Accordingly, we use shareholder letters to examine how transgenerational sustainability and family self-enhancement vary over time. Content analysis of shareholder letters has been leveraged in family business research to capture other organizational characteristics such as entrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Short et al., 2010) and organizational ambidexterity (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). This research suggests that shareholder letters provide valuable information concerning family firm characteristics as well as how such characteristics may vary through time. We use random coefficient modeling (RCM) to decompose the variance of each measure (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). RCM is a valuable tool for examining the firm level, industry, and temporal properties of constructs of interest to family business researchers (Allison et al., 2014). RCM enables scholars to create regression models that incorporate nested data (e.g., firms within industries) through simultaneously estimating regression models at different levels of analysis (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). In this process, higher level equations are used to estimate the coefficients of the lower level equations by treating lower level coefficients as dependent variables. This alleviates problems arising from the independence of observations assumption present in traditional regression-based analyses (Brush, Bromiley, & Hendrickx, 1999). Therefore, organizational researchers are able to more accurately

62.87% 25.83% 11.30%

65.21% 29.36% 5.43%

model the nested nature of organizational data (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007). For our model design, we follow the example of others using content analysis of key constructs of interest in family business research and decompose variance into temporal, firm, and industry effects (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). These models include three levels. The first level captures the effects of the family firms as a whole through time, the second level captures firm level effects, and the third level captures industry effects. To test for a linear trend in our variables, we then add a LINEAR variable ranging from 0 to 11 to represent the 12 years in our sample (e.g., Short, Ketchen, Bennett, & Du Toit, 2006). To test discontinuous change patterns, we enter each year separately (e.g., Short et al., 2006). We then compare the fit of each model to determine if change in our measures is best modeled as linear or discontinuous (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). Our analysis of variance suggests substantial variation within firms, between firms, and between industries for our measures. The results for this analysis are provided in Table 5. For family visibility, we looked at our measures for both family managers and family board members. For family managers, firm years explained 19.17% of variation, firm-level effects explained 58.74% of variation (χ2 = 1325.64, p < .01), and industry-level effects explained 22.08% of variation (χ2 = 139.70, p < .01). For family board members, firm years explained 4.56 % of variation, firm-level effects explained 17.53% of variation (χ2 = 1362.67, p < .01), and industry-level effects explained 78.90% (χ2 = 158.18, p < .01). For transgenerational sustainability, firm years explained 62.87 % of variation, firm-level effects explained 25.83% of variation (χ2 = 206.31,

29

Anglin et al. Table 6.  Linear Change Models. Variables Fixed effects   Average dimension effect, γ000   Average linear change rate, γ100 Random effects   Level 1 temporal variation, etij   Level 2 firm variation, r0ij   Level 3 industry variation, µ00j

Family manager

Family board members

Transgenerational sustainability

Family self-enhancement

2.91 × 10−1** −9.31 × 10−3**

1.16 × 10−1** −4.07 × 10−3**

−779.72* 0.43*

−5647.530** 2.94**

2.30 × 10−2 7.34 × 10−2 **; 2 χ = 1384.69 2.75 × 10−2 **; χ2 = 139.63

1.09 × 10−3 5.15 × 10 −3**; 2 χ = 1660.73 2.33 × 10−3**; χ2 = 152.88

381.62 155.97**;   χ2 = 206.31 71.33**;   χ2 = 137.05

8595.34 3831.10**;   χ2 = 215.16 771.60;   χ2 = 110.74

Transgenerational sustainability

Family self-enhancement

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 7.  Discontinuous Change Models.

Fixed effects  Average   Average (2002 vs. 2001)   Average (2003 vs. 2001)   Average (2004 vs. 2001)   Average (2005 vs. 2001)   Average (2006 vs. 2001)   Average (2007 vs. 2001)   Average (2008 vs. 2001)   Average (2009 vs. 2001)   Average (2010 vs. 2001)   Average (2011 vs. 2001)   Average (2012 vs. 2001) Random effects   Level 1 temporal variation, etij   Level 2 firm variation, r0ij   Level 3 industry variation, µ00j   Test against linear change model

Family manager

Family board members

2.71 × 10−1 1.43 × 10−2 1.56 × 10−2 4.16 × 10−3 −5.72 × 10−3 −2.58 × 10−2 −3.01 × 10−2 −4.78 × 10−2* −6.02 × 10−2** −6.94 × 10−2** −7.31 × 10−2** −8.62 × 10−2**

1.11 × 10−1** −7.57 × 10−4 −7.04 × 10−4* −9.67 × 10−3** −1.40 × 10−2** −1.74 × 10−2** −2.37 × 10−2** −2.79 × 10−2** −3.36 × 10−2** −3.57 × 10−2** −3.73 × 10−2** −4.24 × 10−2**

2.30 × 10−2 7.34 × 10−2**; χ2 = 1392.44 2.75 × 10−2**; 2 χ = 139.44 χ2 = 1619.56**

1.09 × 10−3 5.15 × 10 −3**; χ2 = 1660.73 2.33 × 10−3**; 2 χ = 152.88 χ2 = 10042.61**

90.85** −0.41 −3.39 −1.36 −0.40 −3.49 3.38 2.07 0.77 2.93 2.36 −1.39 381.62 155.98;   χ2 = 206.21** 71.33**;   χ2 = 137.05 χ2 = 15474.27**

253.58** 3.38 −12.79 −7.19 −0.44 −18.93 21.38 23.60* 10.66 12.40 18.54 −0.30 8697.71 3938.18;   χ2 = 201.92** 567.26;   χ2 =   94.71 χ2 = 1570.33**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

p < .01), and industry level effects explained 11.30 (χ2 = 137.05, p < .01). Finally, for family self-enhancement, firm years explained 65.21 % of variation, firm level effects explained 29.36% of variation (χ2 = 215.16, p < .01), and industry-level effects explained 5.43% (χ2 = 110.74, p = .09), although the chi-square for the industry level effects was not significant.

The results for the linear change models and discontinuous change models are provided in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. Table 7 includes chi-square tests for the linear versus discontinuous change models. While the LINEAR variables are all statistically significant at p < .01, the chi-square tests comparing linear versus discontinuous models for family visibility,

30 transgenerational sustainability, and family selfenhancement all indicate that these measures are best modeled as discontinuous. Conceptually, this suggests that changes in firm and family identity overlap would more likely be driven by a punctuated event instead of a gradual change over time. We discuss the implications of this finding below in the Discussion section.

Discussion Research into family influence has evolved from direct measures of family involvement (based largely in ownership and management representation) to more complex, nuanced looks at how family essence influences various aspects of the firm and firm behavior. Commensurate with this challenge, family business scholars are faced with increasing methodological challenges for empirically testing the growing number of new theoretical frameworks (Brigham et al., 2014; Chrisman et al., 2012). Accordingly, defining and refining models and measures salient to the advancement of the family business literature remain both a key challenge and key opportunity for the field (Litz, Pearson, & Litchfield, 2012). The validation of constructs and new measures through increased rigor is a critical step in moving forward family business research (Brigham et al., 2014; Pearson & Lumpkin, 2011). We believe our efforts in creating and validating archival measures relating to factors influencing the alignment of family–firm identities contributes to this important focus of family business research. Our research aims specifically to develop tools that enable the measurement of factors relating to the convergence of family and organizational identities in family firms through utilization of archival data. Building from the Zellweger et al. (2013) model of organizational identity in family firms, we develop measures for the three factors influencing the pursuit of noneconomic goals in family firms: family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and the family self-enhancing qualities of the firm. We establish the validity of our new measures in several ways. First, we show that our proposed measures are consistent with the theoretical conceptualizations of the model by comparing the theoretical conceptualizations of our constructs with the corresponding definitions of their measurement components. Second, we provide evidence for convergent validity and show transgenerational sustainability and family

Family Business Review 30(1) self-enhancement to be unidimensional constructs. Third, we show that family firms use language relating to our measures more often than nonfamily firms, indicating our measures distinguish family firms from nonfamily firms. Finally, we provide an exploratory investigation into how our measures vary across time and at the firm level and industry level. Overall, the results of our tests offer sound support for the validity of our measures. Our work holds important implications for the family business literature. For researchers seeking to investigate how family–firm identity alignment influences family firms, our measures offer the first validated approach for leveraging the Zellweger et al. (2013) model of organizational identity in family firms. Consequently, our work paves the way for further theory testing using our measures. For instance, the incorporation of aspects relating to transgenerational control and socioemotional wealth into our measures also suggests an opportunity for a broader application of our approaches to test theory in these areas, answering calls for additional research into transgenerational control and socioemotional wealth (e.g., Sharma et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2012). Future research could leverage our measures to explore potential relationships with commonly measured family firm outcomes such as financial performance (Yu et al., 2012). Our finding that change in our measures is best modeled as discontinuous suggests that family and firm identity overlap may change as a result of a punctuated event more so than by a general trend over time. This finding lends support for Zellweger et al.’s (2013) call for the exploration of “identity-forging incidents” in relation to family–firm identity overlap (p. 242). For instance, key events such as the replacement of a family board member with a nonfamily member, succession events, economic or environmental shocks, mergers and acquisitions, or firm closures may all be more likely to shape identity overlap than gradual trends over time (cf. Zellweger et al., 2013). Unfortunately, family business research is largely silent on the most salient drivers of change in family and firm identity overlap. However, our work combined with insights from Zellweger et al. suggests that future research should target key events in the history of the firm for investigation into such changes. For instance, future research could study how family and firm identity alignment may change after a family firm has conducted an initial public offering.

Anglin et al. The results of our validation study also provide two additional methodological contributions to family business research. First, in demonstrating how archival data sources and content analysis can be leveraged to capture key constructs of interest, we expand the options available to scholars looking for new and useful ways to test and challenge theoretical assumptions. Our use of archival data represents a shift from the more traditional survey-based approach that has previously dominated family business research (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2012; Evert et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012). As survey data collection faces growing challenges, the incorporation of archival data offers a possible solution to a potential stagnation in research findings. Additionally, the nonreactive and unobtrusive nature of archival data allows the flexibility to measure several different constructs in a single study (Lakshman, 2012). In addition, we answer calls to incorporate the influence of time among key family business constructs (Evert et al., 2015). Archival data provide the ability to extend the measurement of key constructs to longer periods of time as they are easier to capture at multiple points in time than self-report data (Bardi, Calogero, & Mullen, 2008). Our exploration into the variations of our measures across industries and over time also answers Allison et al.’s (2014) call for the integration of family business characteristics driven by temporal, firm, and industry characteristics.

Future Research Our work creates measures for the three factors argued to capture the identity overlap between a family and a family firm. However, if Zellweger et al.’s (2013) model is correct, family visibility, transgenerational sustainability, and family self-enhancement should influence how and why family firms pursue noneconomic goals. Accordingly, future research should leverage our measures to investigate the impact of family–firm identity alignment on setting and achieving noneconomic goals. For example, family business scholars could use our measures to examine the creation of socioemotional wealth, corporate social responsibility, or the maintenance of family harmony (cf. Chrisman et al., 2012). Furthermore, noneconomic goals may often take the place of economic goals in family firms and so future research could examine how our three measures relate to the achievement of these goals (Chrisman & Patel,

31 2012). For example, a study could be conducted to examine if increases in family– firm identity alignment lead to the crowding out of economic goals by noneconomic goals and how this relates to firm performance. Because Zellweger et al. (2013) argue that their model is recursive, researchers could then compare if changes in performance are predictive of changes in family–firm identity alignment. In some cases, there is a disconnect between how the organization views itself and how it is perceived by the public (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). Given that two of our measures (transgenerational sustainability and family self-enhancement) capture identity characteristics from the organization’s point of view, these measures could be leveraged to investigate differences in how a family firm views itself and how it is viewed by the public. For instance, future research could leverage media sources (e.g., news reports) in conjunction with content analysis to investigate the public opinions regarding an organization (e.g., Cardon, Stevens, & Potter, 2011). If public opinion concerning a family firm’s morality, its relationship with the community, or its future intentions (i.e., the self-enhancing qualities) are at odds with how the organization presents itself, then a disconnect between the firm’s identity and public perception would be suggested. Researchers could then explore what consequences this may hold for the firm. For example, a persistent disconnect between a firm’s identity and public perception might suggest family and manager myopia, leading to poor long-term performance. Although we desire that our measure of family influence motivate subsequent research, we also believe that future studies could use content analysis to examine other important family business constructs. For example, Berrone et al. (2012) make a case for using content analysis, including CATA, to explore socioemotional wealth and found that rhetoric related to the dimensions of socioemotional wealth differed significantly between family and non-family firms. Moreover, content analysis could be leveraged to explore other aspects of family business and influence such as the F-PEC scale (Astrachan et al., 2002), the Family Influence Familiness Scale (Frank et al., 2016), and the social capital model of familiness (Pearson, Carr, & Shaw, 2008). To facilitate such investigations, it is important to note that there are a variety of publically available programs that include their own premade dictionaries, which may assist researchers in measuring their constructs of

32 interest. For example, while we use dictionaries included in the LIWC and DICTION software packages, the CAT Scanner program (McKenny & Short, 2012), the ProfilerPlus created by Social Science Automation, and the Psychiatric Content Analysis and Diagnosis program (Gottschalk & Bechtel, 2002), all include dictionaries that might be leveraged by family business researchers. Measuring family business constructs using content analysis may also help address the need for more temporal family business research by making reliable longitudinal data more accessible (cf. Sharma et al., 2013). Continued emphasis on cross-sectional research designs can largely be explained by the difficulty of obtaining repeated observations over time. However, as this and other recent studies demonstrate (e.g., Allison et al., 2014; Short et al., 2009; Zachary, McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011), content analysis can often efficiently and reliably measure family business constructs over time in both public and private firms. Future research should leverage such advantages by using content analysis to examine how relationships within family firms exist and change with time. For example, scholars could leverage our developed measure of family influence to respond to growing interests in family business and management research regarding the role of the family on nonpecuniary goals (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2012; McKenny et al., 2012). Furthermore, by analyzing a variety of firm narratives aimed at different sets of stakeholders (e.g., advertisements, employee policy information, shareholder letters, sustainability reports, etc.), future research could examine the congruence and consistency of family influence on various firmstakeholder relationships and their related effects. For example, crowdfunding narratives of social ventures might also present a useful narrative text highlighting elements of family influence given their focus on individuals often coupled with noneconomic goals (Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2013).

Limitations The current investigation provides insight into how our measures vary over time, and our 12-year time frame is consistent with past research examining temporal changes in family firm characteristics (e.g., Allison et al., 2014). However, the 12-year time period used for our analysis of variance may limit the ability to capture some important changes of the firms within our sample. For instance, the year-to-year changes in the discontinuous models capture a significant increase in family

Family Business Review 30(1) self-enhancement in 2008—the height of the financial crisis—suggesting that macro-environmental conditions may influence family self-enhancement. Unfortunately, our time frame does not include other important changes in the macro environment, such as the year-to-year economic prosperity of the 1990s or the crash of the tech bubble in 1999. Moreover, major changes in identity are often highly idiosyncratic to a particular organization, occurring only intermittently during the history of the firm, such as during a merger or acquisition (e.g., Clark, Gioia, Ketchen, & Thomas, 2010). To shed further light into how family influence on an organization’s identity may change over time, future research could adopt an event history approach to investigate how certain punctuated events reshaped family visibility, transgenerational sustainability intentions, and family self-enhancement. For example, future research could use press releases or shareholder letters to examine changes in family–firm identity overlap after succession from one generation to the next. Our study relied on relatively large and wellestablished publically traded family firms. Using this well-worn criteria, up to 30% to 40% of the S&P 500 and Fortune 500 could be characterized as family firms (Anderson & Reeb, 2004; Gomez-Mejia, LarrazaKintana, & Makri, 2003). However, older and larger family firms may be more or less likely to share their information concerning their core identity in organizational communications than small- to medium-sized family firms. As such, it may be that our results differ when compared to a sample of smaller family firms. However, considering that many larger U.S. family firms are under less direct family control than family firms in other countries (Morck & Yeung, 2003), our sample is advantageous as it allows scholars to determine the extent to which these otherwise professionally controlled yet family-owned firms exhibit family influence on the organizational identity, which may help better understand the degree to which large family firms act as “family” firms. Regardless, scholars are encouraged to further examine our archival-based measures of family influence in a wider variety of family firms. For example, future research could compare the extent of family–firm identity overlap in smaller and larger firms and examine potential differences in the pursuit of noneconomic goals by these firms. The benefits derived from our use of CATA are not without limitations. Although CATA has repeatedly produced theoretically consistent results in family

33

Anglin et al. business research (e.g., Payne et al., 2011; Zachary, McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2011), such techniques can be prone to measurement error variance that could potentially undermine research findings (McKenny, Aguinis, Short, & Anglin, 2016). While we provide initial tests of reliability and validity, an in-depth look into the measurement error variance of transgenerational sustainability and family-self enhancement will be challenging until future studies adopt our measures. Future research drawing from our work should view our analysis as exploratory and take care to assess measurement error variance to ensure confidence in their findings, while also providing insight into the level of measurement error variance present in our proposed measures. Given the burgeoning variety of measures used to capture unique family business constructs, family business research could benefit from a comprehensive review of measurement error variance in key measures. This review would provide family business researchers with insight into the quality of extant measures as well as provide guidance for improving measurement in family business and serve to complement existing methodological reviews of the family business literature (e.g., Evert et al., 2015).

Conclusion The present research provides a new archival approach for measuring the antecedents that drive the alignment between family and organizational identities, extending our understanding of family influence. For family business scholars, the measures presented here provide the opportunity to measure family influence in new and exciting contexts and also demonstrates the process for which other measures important to family business research can be adapted for use with archival data. Such an approach has the ability to stimulate new avenues of research that were perhaps previously unavailable in family business research. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity (Vol. 7): Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2014). Integrating time into family business research: Using random coefficient modeling to examine temporal influences on family firm ambidexterity. Family Business Review, 27(1), 20-34. Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 690-707. Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 209-237. Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15, 45-58. Bardi, A., Calogero, R. M., & Mullen, B. (2008). A new archival approach to the study of values and value–behavior relations: Validation of the value lexicon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 483-497. Barry, B. (1975). The development of organization structure in the family firm. Journal of General Management, 3, 42-60. Bernstein, I. H., & Nunnally, J. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279. Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362-387. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211-239. Botero, I. C., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official websites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 12-21. Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G., Payne, G. T., & Zachary, M. A. (2014). Researching long-term orientation: A validation study and recommendations for future research. Family Business Review, 27, 72-88. Brush, T. H., Bromiley, P., & Hendrickx, M. (1999). The relative influence of industry and corporation on business segment performance: an alternative estimate. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 519-547.

34 Cardon, M. S., Stevens, C. E., & Potter, D. R. (2011). Misfortunes or mistakes? Cultural sensemaking of entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 79-92. Chirico, F., & Salvato, C. (2008). Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaptation in family firms. Family Business Review, 21, 169-181. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 267-293. Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 976-997. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-19. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 397-438. Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2002). Enhancing survey response rates at the executive level: Are employeeor consumer-level techniques effective? Journal of Management, 28, 151-176. Davis, K. M., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). Charisma under crisis revisited: Presidential leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, and contextual influences. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 918-933. Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245-260. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507-533. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 5-34. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263. Dyer, W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family firms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19, 253-273.

Family Business Review 30(1) Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442-476. Etzioni, A. (1961). Complex organizations: A sociological reader. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: A theory of societal and political processes. New York, NY: Free Press. Evert, R. E., Martin, J. A., McLeod, M. S., & Payne, G. T. (2015). Empirics in family business research progress, challenges, and the path ahead. Family Business Review, 29, 17-43. Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & WeismeierSammer, D. (2016). Capturing the familiness of family businesses: Development of the Family Influence Familiness Scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/etap.12229 Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in familycontrolled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 226-237. Gottschalk, L. A., & Bechtel, R. J. (2002). PCAD 2000: Psychiatric content analysis and diagnosis. Corona del Mar, CA: GB Software. Retrieved from http://www.gbsoftware.com/PCADManual.pdf Hart, R. P. (2000). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart, R. P., & Carroll, C. E. (2013). Help manual: DICTION 7.0. Austin, TX: Digitex. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385-1399. Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Kuratko, D. F. (2010). Advancing the field of family business research: Further testing the measurement properties of the F-PEC. Family Business Review, 23, 76-88. Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Northridge, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning. Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation,

Anglin et al. and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 321-339. Lakshman, C. (2012). Structured content analysis in leadership research: A new method for international contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33, 477-493. Litz, R. A. (2008). Two sides of a one-sided phenomenon: Conceptualizing the family business and business family as a Möbius Strip. Family Business Review, 21, 217-236. Litz, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Litchfield, S. (2012). Charting the future of family business research: Perspectives from the field. Family Business Review, 25, 16-32. McKenny, A. F., Aguinis, H., Short, J. C., & Anglin, A. H. (2016). What doesn’t get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206316657594. McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2012). CAT scanner manual. Norman, OK: Author. McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., & Payne, G. T. (2013). Using computer-aided text analysis to elevate constructs: An illustration using psychological capital. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 152-184. McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., & Payne, G. T. (2012). Assessing espoused goals in private family firms using content analysis. Family Business Review, 25, 298-317. Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 367-382. Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Broberg, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Short, J. C. (2011). Organizational virtue orientation and family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 257-285. Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 949-969. Pearson, A. W., Holt, D., & Carr, J. (2014). Scales in family business studies. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business (pp. 551-572). London, England: Sage. Pearson, A. W., & Lumpkin, G. (2011). Measurement in family business research: How do we measure up? Family Business Review, 24, 287-291. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management of the family business: Past research and future challenges. Family Business Review, 10, 1-35. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. E. (2012). 25 years of family business review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25, 5-15. Sharma, P., Salvato, C., & Reay, T. (2013). Temporal dimensions of family enterprise research. Family Business Review, 27, 10-19.

35 Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 1245-1264. Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. C. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 320-347. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Bennett, N., & Du Toit, M. (2006). An examination of firm, industry, and time effects on performance using random coefficients modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 259-284. Short, J. C., McKenny, A. F., Ketchen, D. J., Snow, C. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). An empirical examination of firm, industry, and temporal effects on corporate social performance. Business & Society, 55(8), 1122-1156. Short, J. C., & Palmer, T. B. (2008). The application of DICTION to content analysis research in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 727-752. Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G., & Broberg, J. C. (2009). Family firms and entrepreneurial orientation in publicly traded firms: A comparative analysis of the S&P 500. Family Business Review, 22, 9-24. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54. Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges and best practices. Family Business Review, 10, 323-337. Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41, 393-414. Yu, A., Lumpkin, G., Sorenson, R. L., & Brigham, K. H. (2012). The landscape of family business outcomes a summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables. Family Business Review, 25, 33-57. Zachary, M. A., McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Davis, K. M., & Wu, D. (2011). Franchise branding: An organizational identity perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 39, 629-645. Zachary, M. A., McKenny, A., Short, J. C., & Payne, G. T. (2011). Family business and market orientation: Construct validation and comparative analysis. Family Business Review, 24, 233-251. Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 1035-1054. Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing

36 family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1, 54-63. Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Family Business Review, 25, 136-155. Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 229-248.

Author Biographies Aaron H. Anglin is a PhD Candidate in the Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. His research focuses on new venture financing, entrepreneurial decision making, research methods, and family business. His work has been featured in the Journal of Management. Shane W. Reid is currently a doctoral student in Management and International Business at the Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. His current research areas of interest include family business, corporate strategy, leadership, and entrepreneurship. Jeremy C. Short is the Rath Chair in Strategic Management at the University of Oklahoma. His research has appeared in a number of journals including Academy of Management Journal,

Family Business Review 30(1) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Organization Science, Organizational Research Methods, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Family Business Review. Miles A. Zachary is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business & Economics at West Virginia University. His research broadly considers the sociocognitive elements of organizations that influence different organizational outcomes and stakeholder relationships over time, including organization identity/image and social evaluations. He has published research in Journal of Management, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Family Business Review, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Business Horizons, among others. Matthew W. Rutherford is an associate professor and Johnny D. Pope Chair in Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. He has published over 20 peer-reviewed articles in top entrepreneurship and management journals. He is also author of the book, Strategic Bootstrapping. His experience is in new and small firm consulting. He has provided consulting services to hundreds of organizations of all sizes. His current research foci are new venture strategy, family business, and new venture finance.