Family Business Succession:
Does Experience Gained in Family
Firm Really Count?
predrag ljubotina
Slovenia
predrag.ljubotina@gmail.com
jaka vadnjal
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
jaka.vadnjal@gmail.com
Potential family business successors have to resolve a complex
trilemma when choosing their career path. Instead of choosing
between the entrepreneurship and employment, they have to con-
sider family business succession as an additional option. guesss
2014 survey, conducted among more than 109.000 students in 34
countries, offered us the possibility to investigate the correlation
between successors’ career choice intentions and personal mo-
tives, family business experience and individual entrepreneurial
skills. We analysed the data using multinomial logistic regres-
sion since career decision is measured as a categorical dependent
variable with three possible solutions. We founded a significant
correlation between personal motives and career decision. Simi-
larly, the age at which potential successor was engaged in family
business activity significantly influences his or hers career choice
intention. On the other hand, we found that the length of engage-
ment is not a significant factor. The higher level of self-assessed
entrepreneurial skills is working in favour of succession when
compared with employment option.
Key words: Family business, succession, career decision, skills,
entrepreneurial education, feelings
https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.13.301-322
Introduction
Family business vision of long term, trans-generational growth of
family firm and wealth, is the main distinguishing factor between
family and nonfamily firms (Zellweger et al. 2012). Succession pro-
cess appears to be one of the most important issues for assuring that
growth from the viewpoint of continuation and sustainability of the
on-going business. We know several different cases, which show us
that it is very hard to predict family business future. We heard for
management 13 (4): 301–322 301
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
Kong’ Gumi, a factory, which was absorbed by a multinational com-
pany in 2006 after successfully running the business within the fam-
ily for about 1.400 years. On the other hand, we know that only one
third of family firms survive the first transition and poor 10% the
second nowadays (Le Breton-Miller, Miller, and Steier 2004). There
are many reasons for that and they vary substantially with time, per-
sonal values and environment. That is why continuous research in
the field of succession proves to be fundamental for the theory and
practice of family business.
Successors, without any doubt, have and should continue to have
one of the main roles in transition processes. They are usually con-
fronted with a specific trilemma when deciding for the future career
path, since they have an additional option comparing to their peers.
They can seek for a job, start a new venture as an entrepreneur or
take the responsibility for family firm future as a successor, both
in the role of manager and/or future owner of the business. Previ-
ous studies identified various factors influencing the potential suc-
cessor’s career decision process. However, there are several gaps in
deeper understanding the career intention of family business heirs.
There is a traditional belief that they will join the family business
and, sooner or later, take it over.
Still, potential successor is confronted with very hard decisions
when it comes to choosing the career path. Today, young people are
overexposed to many socio-economic factors in dynamic and con-
stantly changing environment. In the parallel, they are frequently
confronted with the lack of parental influence, due to lack of time.
Given the importance and economic relevance of family businesses
for any national economy, it is crucial to understand the communi-
cation gap, which results from described situation. This challenging
topic was addressed by some recent papers which investigated sev-
eral determinants of potential successor’s career choice intentions
(De Massis, Chua, and Chrisman 2008; Zellweger, Sieger, and Halter
2011; Altinay et al. 2012; Claire and Perryman 2016; Farrukh et al.
2017; Murphy and Lambrechts 2015). Young people are an impor-
tant part of human capital in the country or in the business. Since
human capital consists of knowledge, education, qualifications and
skills it is created through education and improving professional
skills, with consideration of work culture, psychological character-
istics and physical conditions (Dorożyńska and Dorożyński 2015).
Our research has an ambition to build the multilevel model with
the goal of explaining and predicting career choice intention based
on important individual motives, experience in family firm and self-
302 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
assessed entrepreneurial skills. We rely on a massive database from
the international guesss 2014 (Global University Entrepreneurial
Spirit Students’ Survey) survey which allowed us to test the model
on multinational level. Our main purpose is to test the influence of
family business experience on heir’s career decision taking into ac-
count personal motives and entrepreneurial skills perception. The
study provides a better insight into the family business dynamics
and intra-family relations in the context of succession process. We
also base our study on recent calls for additional research focused
on broader understanding of the area specially employing multi-
country samples and considering type of business to be started (e.g.
new own business or family business in our case) (Zapkau, Schwens,
and Kabst 2017).
Theoretical Background
Family business tends to be a very volatile structure based on two
important systems: family and business. These two systems have
different boundaries, rules and individual roles but they are still
interconnected. The inclusion of family and family members’ rela-
tions makes family businesses different when compared to nonfam-
ily owned firms (Eddleston, Kellermanns, and Sarathy 2008). Pre-
vious researches confirmed that there was a significant correlation
between family and family business. Family business which gives
more to family and business duality and correlation has better fam-
ily and business results (Basco and Rodríguez 2009). Family support
by itself significantly influences children’s entrepreneurial intention
(Shen, Osorio, and Rutgers 2017).
Each family member’s identity is partly defined by his relation-
ship with the family business (Kleiman and Peacok 1996). This rela-
tionship may be influenced by many different personal, business,
environmental or economic factors. Several impacting factors are
found to influence the family business transition process in the time
gap between heir’s education and career decision making. Some of
such factors are: social capital, gender, economic situation, histori-
cal background, personality, attitudes, experiences and parental role
model (Tarling, Jones, and Murphy 2016). Family business back-
ground has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions (Far-
rukh et al. 2017). Children with entrepreneurial parents are more in-
clined to follow an entrepreneurial career (Carr and Sequeira 2007).
Next generation family members need to find balance between their
own personal career interests and aspirations, family interests and
orientations and employment opportunities (Schröder and Schmitt-
number 4 · winter 2018 303
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
Rodermund 2013). In this position, family business long-term well
being may prevail over their personal career preference (Murphy
and Lambrechts 2015).
Parents as role models provide opportunities for their heir’s to
learn from their experiences (Bandura 1977; Altinay et al. 2012).
They can also alter the learning environment and increase en-
trepreneurial motivation among their children. Individuals are be-
lieved to gravitate towards the role models with the goal of gain-
ing higher level of knowledge and skills (Gibson 2004). Previous
research confirmed that student whose parents have started a fam-
ily business and have been successful, have a significantly higher
entrepreneurial intentions, compared to their peers (Ozaralli and
Rivenburgh 2016). Early exposure to parental role models, which
is an everyday common situation in family business, positively in-
fluences children’s attitude towards self-employment (Chlosta et
al. 2012). Parental entrepreneurial role models and positive fam-
ily business experience generally nurtures the heir’s self-confidence
and reduces traditional fear from failure (Bosma et al. 2012). It also
significantly increases heir’s entrepreneurial ambitions (Altinay et
al. 2012). Beside business related knowledge, entrepreneurial fam-
ily members equip potential successors with business skills neces-
sary for successfully running the family firm (Nicolau et al. 2008).
Still, we have to mention that other researchers did not encounter
any positive correlation between heir’s exposure to family business
and attitude towards self-employment (Kim, Aldrich, and Keister
2006). Novel studies of the specific field are obviously necessary. Re-
searchers already called for further exploration of family dynamics
influence on family member’s career decision making (Aldrich and
Cliff 2003).
Another key factor in encouraging entrepreneurship is aware-
ness of entrepreneurs in local community. Recent studies showed
that student population is decidedly unaware of their local en-
trepreneurial community (Claire and Perryman 2016). This find-
ing is particularly important for college students who are in critical
phase of forming their career decision. Active involvement in fam-
ily business surely contributes to this awareness. Previous studies
found that family members are most strongly involved as young in-
dividuals (Klyver 2007). Entrepreneurial education is another con-
tributing factor in this context since it influences entrepreneurial
intentions mostly indirectly through improving students skills, need
for achievement, risk taking propensity, creativity and other en-
trepreneurial characteristics (Kusmintarti et al. 2016).
304 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
In our research we focused on personal traits processed in guesss
2014 study, which could partly be shaped by the family-business re-
lationship and heir’s exposure to family business. Personality traits
are known to be relevant factor for entrepreneurial intentions (Ozar-
alli and Rivenburgh 2016). Our paper contributes to the research in
the field of family business succession by investigating a specific
group of students with family business background and by mod-
elling their career decision with the desire for independency, en-
trepreneurial skills and exposure to family business. We designed
two models for two different time periods. Relaying on the results
of previous studies, which confirmed that family members want to
learn from family firm before starting their own business (Tarling,
Jones, and Murphy 2016), we observed heir’s career choice immedi-
ately after their studies and five years after that. This approach is
appropriate having in mind that based on actual career decision re-
search, potential successors who put their own career on hold at the
cost of helping family business, fulfilled their goals at later stage of
life (Murphy and Lambrechts 2015).
Helping the family inevitably shortens the time spent outside fam-
ily and family firm. Consequently, adolescents spend less time so-
cializing with their peers. On the other hand, these adolescents can
develop important entrepreneurial and general life skills and estab-
lish themselves as valued members of society (Fuligni and Telzer
2013). The sense of obligation to the family has implications in adult-
hood which makes potential heir’s decisions more difficult. This nat-
urally engrained act of helping the family is very specific in the con-
text of family firm. It differentiates potential successors from their
peers and is still relatively unexplored (Murphy and Lambrechts
2015).
Hypotheses Development
Among Kolvereid’s (1996) factors which are motivating individu-
als for self-employment (economic opportunity, autonomy, author-
ity, challenge, self-realization and participation in process), we de-
tected two personal factors, which may be shaped by family rela-
tions. Those are autonomy and self-realisation. Both factors are im-
portant motivators, frequently given as a reason for starting a new
venture (Kolvereid 1996). People often start businesses to achieve
autonomy. Almost all small business starters expose autonomy as
an important factor for their career decision. The firm could be
seen as an instrument for achieving that goal (van Geldern and
Jansen 2006). Even more, some studies control groups which con-
number 4 · winter 2018 305
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
sisted of non-entrepreneurs, also gave same value to autonomy as
nascent entrepreneurs (Carter et al. 2003). Self-realization, as an-
other influencing factor, is understood as the pursuit of goals that
are of interest to the entrepreneur (Edelman et al. 2010). Self-
realizer is a person who lives creatively and fully uses his poten-
tial (Maslow 1954). This definition was also adopted and used in
previous research where it was interpreted as transformation of op-
portunities into the reality (Maksimenko and Serdiuk 2016). Act-
ing on the basis of self-realization values is influenced by feeling
of personal expressiveness. As such, self-realization contributes to
intrinsic motivation and is correlated with perceived competence
(Waterman et al. 2003). Self-realization is also linked with the need
for self-improvement or achievement and represents an important
motive for entrepreneurial behaviour (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza
Sahuquillo 2012). The need for achievement is one of the most pow-
erful motivational factors within the domain of personal traits re-
lated to entrepreneurship (Altinay et al. 2012). Previous studies con-
firmed that significantly more start-ups are realized by individuals
whose valence for entrepreneurial career is based on self-realization
rather than financial success (Renko, Kroeck, and Bullough 2012).
h1 Higher level of perceived importance of autonomy result in pre-
ferring founding own new business over the succession and suc-
cession over the employment (Kolvereid 1996; van Geldern and
Jansen 2006).
h2 Higher level of perceived importance of self-realization result in
preferring founding own new business over the succession and
succession over the employment (Kolvereid 1996; Waterman et
al., 2003).
Entrepreneurs often share family business background. Prior
family business experience affects future generations in many ways
(Dyer 1992). Their entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours may be
positively or negatively shaped towards business ownership (Carr
and Sequeira 2007). Parental work experiences for example, have
significant influence on children. These influences may be internal-
ized in a form of norms or children’s future behaviour (Menaghan
and Parcel 1995). Some previous pieces of research correlate these
findings with family business, namely by confirming that early ex-
posure to entrepreneurship and experience in the family business
will affect family member’s entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes
in the future. Many entrepreneurs confirmed their prior direct ex-
posure to family business in their young age (Dyer and Handler
306 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
1994). Early socialization in a family business is recognized as an
influential factor, which influences the formation of individual’s en-
trepreneurial values and attitudes (Light and Bonachich 1991). Early
exposure to family business also builds positive entrepreneurial val-
ues and beliefs which are lasting and impacting (Tarling, Jones, and
Murphy 2016). Potential successors are involved with the family
business in their young age through the activity of helping. This rep-
resents an important part of their career exploration during child-
hood which further relates to exploratory behaviour during adoles-
cence (Murphy and Lambrechts 2015). Length of exposure to fam-
ily business (working for family firm) may as well be a significant
influential factor when time comes for a career decision (Morris,
Williams, and Nel 1996). Since career exploration is related to ca-
reer decision making, family members who are involved in family
business for a long period of time, without exploring other career
opportunities, may limit their choices in critical period (Schröder
and Schmitt-Rodermund 2013).
h3 Older the heir is when exposed to family business for the first
time higher is the preference for employment or founding own
new business over the succession (Dyer and Handler, 1994).
h4 Longer exposure to family business leads to preferring family
business succession over employment and founder career al-
ternatives (Carr and Sequeira 2007; Morris, Williams, and Nel,
1996).
Another factor, which importantly influences the succession pro-
cess and successor’s career decision as a crucial part of it, is heir’s
ability to take the control over family firm. Successor’s business skills
play an important role since lack of skills may easily lead to the re-
fusal of the position (De Massis, Chua, and Chrisman 2008). Previous
studies among students deriving from family businesses showed that
offspring’s intention to join the family business is significantly re-
lated to individual skills and abilities (Stavrou 1999). In their study,
Morris, Williams, and Nel (1996) also concluded that heir’s formal
level of education and training as well as self-perception of his or her
preparation level at the time of succession has a significant influence
on the succession process itself. In this context, the concept of en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy should be mentioned, especially in rela-
tion to heir’s level of education and skill training, which should con-
centrate more on capabilities like innovation and risk-taking man-
agement and less on technical entrepreneurial skills (Chen, Greene,
and Crick 1998). Recent studies confirmed a positive relationship be-
number 4 · winter 2018 307
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
tween self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention since individual’s
belief on his or her abilities positively affects the entrepreneurial
intention (Farrukh et al. 2017; Owoseni 2014).
All these factors are contributing to the positive image of the fam-
ily firm in the eyes of the heir. The succession process is generally
more likely to succeed if children have a positive image of the family
firm. In such case, participation in family business is viewed more as
an opportunity and not that much as an obligation. With the goal of
long term survivor, family business has to produce motivated heirs
with highly developed entrepreneurial skills (Kleiman and Peacok
1996).
h5 Students with more positive perception of their own entrepre-
neurial skills will prefer founding own new business over the
succession and succession over the employment (De Massis,
Chua, and Chrisman 2008; Morris, Williams, and Nel 1996;
Stavrou, 1999).
Methods
Our data originates from guesss 2014 survey data collection with
around 109.000 student respondents from 34 countries. The sur-
vey collected data anonymously on-line. With the goal of prevent-
ing multiple responses bias we used ip identification based ques-
tionnaire. In the absence of general family business definition we
relied on the definition of Barnes and Hershon (1976) according to
which the majority of shares in family business is owned by one
or more members of the same family. Consequently, 23.485 Euro-
pean students with family business background from 18 countries
were sampled from data set (Great Britain, Germany, Luxemburg,
Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Fin-
land, France, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Estonia and
Hungary).
Respondents were answering direct questions about the possible
ownership of mother, father or both parents. Students, with fam-
ily business background, who already owned their own business,
were also excluded from the study, since they could have been a po-
tential source of survivor bias in retrospective studies (Davidsson
2004; Gartner 1989). Our respondents were asked about their career
choice immediately after their studies and five years after that pe-
riod. They had four possibilities to choose from: ‘an employee’, ‘an
entrepreneur’, ‘a successor’ or ‘I don’t know yet’. The option ‘I don’t
know yet’ allowed avoiding forced decisions. Only student with fam-
ily business experience are included in the study. After all necessary
308 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
table 1 Sample Structure
Item Immed. after studies 5 years after studies
n % n %
Career choice Employee 3450 85.9 1660 45.9
Founder 268 6.7 1444 39.9
Successor 298 7.4 515 14.2
Gender Man (ref) 1763 43.9 1599 44.2
Woman 2253 56.1 2020 55.8
Entrep. education No (ref) 1844 45.9 1689 46.7
Yes 2172 54.1 1930 53.3
Valid 4016 100.0 3619 100.0
reductions 4.016 students were included in the study for the period
immediately following their studies and 3.619 students for the period
of five years after finishing their studies. The number of participants
differs due to undecided individuals, which were excluded. The prin-
cipal demographics and responds about basic career intentions are
displayed in table 1.
Since our dependant variable is categorical with three possible so-
lutions (employee, founder, successor), we used multinomial logistic
regression, which we found as the most appropriate statistic method.
In our paper we investigate succession so it is always the reference
category when interpreting our regression results. We constructed
two regression models. One for the period immediately after finish-
ing the study and one for the period five years after finishing the
study. The second option is forcing respondents to concentrate on
both periods precisely when answering (Zellweger, Sieger, and Hal-
ter 2011). Besides, an entrepreneur typically works elsewhere for
five years in average, before engaging in a new start-up (Brockhaus
and Horwitz 1986).
Our first two independent variables are autonomy (three items:
‘freedom’, ‘independence’ and ‘to be your own boss’) and self-
realization (three items: ‘to realize your dream’, ‘to create something’
and ‘to take advantage of your creative needs’). Both are captured
using 7-point Likert scale. We used items already tested in some ear-
lier studies (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). We measured
self-assessed entrepreneurial skills as our third independent vari-
able using 8 items. Students indicated their level of competence in
performing eight entrepreneurial tasks: (1) identifying new business
opportunities; (2) creating new products and services; (3) applying
my personal creativity; (4) managing innovation within a firm; (5)
number 4 · winter 2018 309
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
table 2 Pearson Correlations: Immediately After Studies
Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) 1 –0.022 0.036* 0.038** –0.037* 0.039** –0.029 0.037* –0.044**
(2) –0.022 1 0.448** –0.128** 0.324** 0.024 0.015 0.167** 0.198**
(3) 0.036* 0.448** 1 –0.143** 0.370** 0.054** 0.009 0.125** 0.128**
(4) 0.038** –0.128** –0.143** 1 –0.210** –0.056** –0.023 –0.038* –0.108**
(5) –0.037* 0.324** 0.370** –0.210** 1 0.013 0.065** 0.197** 0.152**
(6) 0.039** 0.024 0.054** –0.056** 0.013 1 –0.250** –0.097** 0.033*
(7) –0.029 0.015 0.009 –0.023 0.065** –0.250** 1 0.179** 0.097**
(8) 0.037* 0.167** 0.125** –0.038* 0.197** –0.097** 0.179** 1 0.164**
(9) –0.044** 0.198** 0.128** –0.108** 0.152** 0.033* 0.097** 0.164** 1
notes Column/row readings are as follows: (1) gender, (2) autonomy, (3) self-
realization, (4) entrepreneurial education, (5) skills, (6) age working for fb, (7) time
working for fb, (8) feelings toward fb, (9) career decision.
table 3 Pearson Correlations: Five Years After Studies
Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) 1 –0.009 0.040* 0.025 –0.031 0.042* –0.020 0.035* –0.060**
(2) –0.009 1 0.451** –0.124** 0.326** 0.026 0.011 0.167** 0.272**
(3) 0.040* 0.451** 1 –0.139** 0.367** 0.058** 0.006 0.132** 0.166**
(4) 0.025 –0.124** –0.139** 1 –0.202** –0.056** –0.024 –0.042* –0.116**
(5) –0.031 0.326** 0.367** –0.202** 1 0.020 0.058** 0.200** 0.225**
(6) 0.042* 0.026 0.058** –0.056** 0.020 1 –0.248** –0.076** 0.047**
(7) –0.020 0.011 0.006 –0.024 0.058** –0.248** 1 0.175** 0.050**
(8) 0.035* 0.167** 0.132** –0.042* 0.200** –0.076** 0.175** 1 0.235**
(9) –0.060** 0.272** 0.166** –0.116** 0.225** 0.047** 0.050** 0.235** 1
notes Column/row readings are as follows: (1) gender, (2) autonomy, (3) self-
realization, (4) entrepreneurial education, (5) skills, (6) age working for fb, (7) time
working for fb, (8) feelings toward fb, (9) career decision.
being a leader and communicator; (6) building up a professional
network; (7) commercializing a new idea or development; and (8)
successfully managing a business. The eight items were developed
from previous studies of self-efficacy and innovation (Chen, Greene,
and Crick 1998; Zhao 2005; Kickul et al. 2009; DeNoble, Ehrlich, and
Singh 2007). The measuring scale was from 1 (very low competence)
to 7 (very high competence). Our fourth and fifth independent vari-
ables are continuous since students were directly asked when (at
what age) and for how long (in months) they had been actively en-
gaged in family business.
We introduced three control variables in the model: gender, en-
trepreneurial education and positive or negative feelings towards
310 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
family business. Gender and entrepreneurial education are intro-
duced as categorical values. Participants were asked if they have
attended at least one subject, which included entrepreneurial the-
ory and/or skills. We captured students feeling towards their family
business with five items measured using 7-point Likert scale (at-
tachment, feelings, tradition, importance of keeping the firm in the
family and having a deep insight into business).
Pearson correlations results are shown in tables 2 and 3. Since all
correlations are well below the marginal value of 0.6, shared vari-
ance is not the problem (Hair et al. 2010). We calculated variance
inflation factor (vif) for each independent variable. It never exceeds
1.4 which is well below the marginal value of 3.0 and it is safe to
expect that multicolinearity does not seem to be a problem in our
model (Hair et al. 2010). Our independent variables are confirmed
to be empirically distinct since one factor solution from Harman’s
single-factor test accounted for 33.59% of total variance. As such, it
didn’t reach the threshold of 50% (Hair et al. 2010).
Results
Our regression model results for both periods observed are pre-
sented in table 4. Looking at motivational factors included in the
model, we may conclude that higher level of craving autonomy leads
more to succession compared to employment. Calculated coefficients
are noticeably high for both periods (B = –0.463 and B = –0.353). We
also see that students intend to engage into a new start-up rather
than taking over a family firm (B = 0.009 and B = 0.197). Relaying
on this conclusions we can confirm our first hypotheses for both
investigated time-periods. The motive of self-realization results in
slightly differentiated picture. We can completely confirm our sec-
ond hypotheses for the period following immediately after studies,
since potential heirs with higher desire for self-realization will pre-
fer to continue family business tradition rather than find an em-
ployment (B = –0.049). On the other hand, they also prefer a new
start-up to succession (B = 0.127). For the period of five years af-
ter finishing their studies, the participants prefer both alternatives
over the succession (B = 0.100 and B = 0.388). This only partly con-
firms our second hypotheses which claimed, that higher level of
perceived importance of self-realization result in preferring found-
ing own new business over the succession and succession over the
employment.
The older the heir is when firstly exposed to family business ex-
perience, the higher is the probability for succession career decision
number 4 · winter 2018 311
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
table 4 Regression Models Results
Model coefficients Immed. after studies 5 years after studies
B Sig. B Sig.
Employee Intercept 9.445 0.000 7.535 0.000
Autonomy –0.463 0.000 –0.353 0.000
Self–realization –0.049 0.471 0.100 0.048
Skills –0.145 0.043 –0.240 0.000
Age working for fb –0.054 0.002 –0.059 0.000
Time working for fb –0.009 0.000 –0.002 0.441
Feelings toward fb –0.403 0.000 –0.549 0.000
Gender (mail) –0.249 0.048 –0.368 0.001
Entrep. education –0.448 0.000 –0.201 0.064
Founder Intercept 1.183 0.151 0.316 0.517
Autonomy 0.009 0.926 0.197 0.001
Self–realization 0.127 0.195 0.388 0.000
Skills 0.149 0.136 0.095 0.118
Age working for fb –0.052 0.026 –0.036 0.019
Time working for fb 0.001 0.840 –0.001 0.659
Feelings toward fb –0.435 0.000 –0.524 0.000
Gender (mail) 0.057 0.741 –0.120 0.264
Entrep. education 0.092 0.605 0.304 0.005
compared to both other alternatives in both periods, which we ob-
served (B = –0.054; B = –0.052; B = –0.059; B = –0.036). Based on
these results, we can completely reject our third hypotheses based
on which, older the heir is when exposed to family business for the
first time, higher should be the preference for employment or found-
ing own new business over the succession. Highly significant results
in this part surprised us, since they seem to oppose general believe
that exposure in younger age positively influences succession inten-
tion.
We found out that duration of an active exposure to family busi-
ness does not have any significant influence on heir’s career choice.
Our results are not statistically significant, with the exception of co-
efficient, which is defining the correlation between succession op-
tion and the employment alternative. The longer the time of involve-
ment in family firm, the higher the possibility for succession com-
pared to employment straight after the studies are completed (B =
–0.009). We can confirm only this part of our fourth hypothesis. Still
the values of all coefficients, including the one mentioned above, are
very low (B = –0.009; B = -0.002; B = 0.001; B = –0.001). As such, they
312 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
have a low impact on the career decision in our model (dependant
variable).
In both periods, students with higher developed entrepreneurial
skills prefer to take over family business if confronted with employ-
ment alternative (B = –0.145; B = –0.240). They also prefer starting of
a new company to succession (B = 0.149; B = 0.095). Still, we have to
emphasize that our results are not statistically significant when com-
paring founder and successor career opportunities. Due to this fact
we can only partly confirm our fifth hypothesis according to which
students with more positive perception of their own entrepreneurial
skills should prefer founding own new business over the succession
and succession over the employment.
Measuring feelings towards family business ended up with highly
statistically significant results. Like expected, students with family
business background and higher level of positive feelings towards
family firm, will prefer succession career to both alternatives (B = –
0.403; B = –0.549; B = –0.435; B = –0.524). Model coefficients are very
high in this part, which indicates that this variable should be a part
of similar models when investigating career decision process.
Our control variable for gender emerged as statistically signifi-
cant when comparing employment career with succession alterna-
tive. Male students, compared to females, will more likely choose
succession over employment in both observed time-periods (B = –
0.249; B = –0.368). We detected a difference when comparing founder
and succession alternative, yet without statistically significant re-
sults. Males, compared to females, will more likely start-up a new
company than take over a family business in the period immediately
after their studies (B = 0.057). Five years after that, males will more
likely choose succession over foundation (B = –0.120).
Students without any kind of entrepreneurial education will pre-
fer succession career to employment in both observed periods. Co-
efficient is high (B = –0.448) and highly statistically significant (p <
0.001) for the period immediately after studies. Regardless the lack
of entrepreneurial education, they will also rather choose to start-up
a new company despite the opportunities they could have in family
firm. The coefficient is noticeably high (B = 0.304) and statistically
significant (p = 0.005) for the period five years after the studies.
Discussion and Implications
Our paper contributes to explaining and better understanding the
career trilemma which stands in front of students with family busi-
ness background upon finishing their studies. We investigated career
number 4 · winter 2018 313
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
decision patterns of students in European countries in relation to
motivation for autonomy and self-realization, entrepreneurial skills
and exposure to family firm in the form of active involvement. With
some very interesting results, we believe that the study substan-
tially upgrades family business succession literature and gives some
new perspectives and guides for future researches of career deci-
sion making process. Our study differentiates entrepreneurial inten-
tion from family business succession intention. As such it follows the
calls for closing the research gap on this area (Zapkau, Schwens, and
Kabst 2017).
Potential heirs, driven by high level of autonomy motive will def-
initely choose succession rather than employment career. Despite
frequently mentioned potential obstacles from the parent’s side, they
still feel they can be more autonomous in family firm than else-
where if they take the role of an employee. This finding is in line
with previous research results which claimed that family support
significantly influences children’s entrepreneurial intention (Shen,
Osorio, and Rutgers 2017; Farrukh et al. 2017). We also saw that im-
mediately after the studies, they don’t make a difference between
level of autonomy gained as a successor or as a founder. Five years
later they will prefer to start-up a new business instead of succes-
sion. We could speculate that they are willing to try for a few years
and check if they can reach desired level of autonomy within fam-
ily firm. This line of conclusion adequately follows previous studies
which founded out that family members want to learn from family
business before starting their own firm (Tarling, Jones, and Murphy
2016). The motive of self-realization gave us similar results. We de-
tected a different result only when comparing employment and suc-
cession alternatives five years after the study. Students with stronger
desire for self-realization would find a job rather than take over a
family business in that period. It is possible that the reason for this is
gaining experience in stabile environment provided inside a family
business. After obtaining the adequate knowledge and skills, heirs
will seek self-realization opportunities elsewhere as employees or
with new start-ups, which confirms the results from previous stud-
ies (Murphy and Lambrechts 2015; Tarling, Jones, and Murphy 2016).
These findings should serve as guidelines for parents when planning
a succession process. Both motives emerged as very important in the
decision making process, so parents should carefully consider how
to make it possible for children to reach their goals.
Our results show that the older the heir is when actively engaged
into family business, the more probably he/she will decide for a suc-
314 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
cession career compared to both other career alternatives (employ-
ment or new start-up). This finding is, by all means something to
think about since it doesn’t support previous findings which claimed
that early exposure to experience in family business will affect fam-
ily member’s intentions and attitudes (Dyer and Handler 1994) and,
that family members are most strongly involved as young individu-
als (Klyver 2007). It does still however support previous findings that
early socialization in family firm forms individual’s entrepreneurial
values and attitudes (Light and Bonachich 1991). Our result is also
supporting the fact that helping in family firm develops important
entrepreneurial and general life skills (Fuligni and Telzer 2013). We
can’t say that our finding completely opposes to previous researches
since the design of our study was driven by existing data set and re-
sults we provided are not directly comparable with previous studies.
However, we think that our paper indicates the necessity for further
research of the topic similarly like some other recent studies con-
cluded (Murphy and Lambrechts 2015).
Based on previous studies, researchers expected that length of ex-
posure to family business may significantly influence career deci-
sion (Morris, Williams, and Nel 1996). Our study importantly con-
tributes to this specific question by resulting with negative answer
in case of students with family business background. We still have
to keep in mind, that we are investigating a very narrow group of
young people confronted with a specific trilemma. Yet, our results
are very clear. The length of engagement in family firm doesn’t af-
fect heir’s career decision. Our conclusion is in line with previous
studies which concluded that long period of involvement in fam-
ily business may limit career choice opportunities in critical period
(Schröder and Schmitt-Rodermund 2013). This finding represents a
useful and practical guideline for parents and educational institu-
tions. It is important to gain some experience, however, longer expe-
rience does not necessarily affect future career decision. Exposure
to family business is something that seems to occur spontaneously
when speaking about potential heirs. This fact may also represent
a pleasure since long-term well being of family business may op-
pose to heir’s personal interests (Murphy and Lambrechts 2015). Our
findings indicate that this is not likely to be a considerable prob-
lem for career decision making process at least when we analyze
the length of active engagement (working for family firm). There are
other influential factors, to which a potential heir is constantly ex-
posed in family with family business, like lack of parental time, ex-
posure to business problems, parental stress and many more. In our
number 4 · winter 2018 315
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
opinion, these factors should be precisely modelled in future studies.
From the implication perspective our result implies that it is very im-
portant to include potential successor as much as possible into fam-
ily business during the period of heir’s university study. In our opin-
ion entrepreneurial parents should follow this guideline regardless
the amount of previous successor’s engagement in the family firm.
Previous researchers already confirmed the correlation between
entrepreneurial skills and self-competence (Morris, Williams, and
Nel 1996; Farrukh et al. 2017). We can confirm that higher level of en-
trepreneurial skills surely gives stronger feeling of self-competence
which further results in preferring succession to employment and
a new start-up to succession. This is an expected result which con-
firms existing concepts and previous findings (Chen, Greene, and
Crick 1998; Farrukh et al. 2017). It is of great importance for par-
ents, educational institutions and governments providing support
environment for businesses. Our control variable which included en-
trepreneurial education in the model, gave similar results, which is
also expected. Nowadays, when we have already recognized the im-
portance of sme for national economy, it is crucial to provide high
level of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills to young generation. It
is of the best interest of all parties. Parents may think, that provid-
ing more knowledge and developing entrepreneurial skills will lead
heirs to select a, for them unwanted, independent path but this is
not necessarily true. In our opinion, it is crucial to recognize that not
developing entrepreneurial skills is surely the least desirable choice.
There are many factors influencing potential heir’s career decision.
Highly developed entrepreneurial skills should be recognized as a
precondition and shouldn’t be used as a tool for influencing heir’s
decision. However, parents should become aware of the results of
this study and try to gain children’s confidence and affection for fam-
ily firm using other methods, since their goal should always be to
assure the long-term survival of a family firm.
Continuing our thinking from previous paragraph, we should have
a look at feelings towards family business. In our model this variable
reached highly statistical significance in favour of family business.
It may well be one of the important tools for gaining heir’s affec-
tion mentioned beforehand. This result is in accordance with nat-
urally engrained need for helping the family, which has significant
implications for career decision according to previous studies (Mur-
phy and Lambrechts 2015). Building positive feelings towards fam-
ily business should be a continuous process. Parents, as role models,
surely have the main role in this process. Having in mind our previ-
316 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
ously discussed results about the age of heir’s engagement into fam-
ily business, parents should know that it is never too early and it is
never too late. They should start involving young children in family
business as soon as possible and they should never stop until career
decision is already, not only made, but implemented.
When observing entrepreneurial education, we learned that en-
trepreneurial education doesn’t increase the entrepreneurial inten-
tion level. This finding is in line with previous studies which con-
firmed that entrepreneurial education by itself is not a sufficient in-
fluencing factor. It has to be understood more as a mediating fac-
tor which influences personal traits and psychological characteris-
tics of an individual (do Paço et al. 2015). Similarly, Kusmintarti et
al. (2016) confirmed that entrepreneurial education is an indirect
factor which influences student’s entrepreneurial skills, risk taking
propensity and creativity.
Limitations of the Research
Our research is partly limited by the fact that we used an existing
dataset. This disabled us to design a model which could be more
comparable with the results of previous studies. guesss survey used
self-assessed measures, which is much easier and cheaper method
for gaining information but could be biased. However, we limited this
problem by using multi-item Likert scales and by guaranteeing strict
confidentiality to our participants.
The study is also limited by the fact that guesss survey doesn’t
provide information about job access, which could be a factor influ-
encing heir’s career decision. This is the main reason why we limited
our study to European countries where we expect comparable con-
ditions regarding the issue all over the region.
Future Studies
Our study significantly advanced the understanding of successor’s
previous entrepreneurial engagement in family firm influence on his
or her entrepreneurial intention but still left opened some important
questions linked to family business succession process. The age and
the length of potential heir’s active involvement into family business
as well as informal exposure to family business environment should
be investigated using more complex models. Further studies should
strive for better explaining the influential factors, deriving from fam-
ily environment in one general multilevel model. Our suggestion is
further grounded by the fact that feelings towards family business
variable emerged as highly significant in our model.
number 4 · winter 2018 317
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
Since some of our results are in conflict with previous studies,
we recommend replication studies with the goal of resolving these
conflicts. Future studies should put a stronger emphasis on the spe-
cific trilemma confronted by the students with family business back-
ground and clearly distinguish between new start-up and succession
direction within entrepreneurial career possibilities.
With further qualitative research the reasons behind the influence
of different variables on target group career choice intentions should
be analyzed. Qualitative studies do not allow establishing significant
influences but they do offer a possibility of better understanding the
family business environment which makes potential successor ca-
reer decision more complicated. This kind of qualitative research
could be used as a base point for building a much more predictive
multilevel quantitative model targeting the issue of succession. Fu-
ture researcher should also consider analyzing different geographi-
cal regions and cultural environments.
References
Aldrich, H. E., and J. E. Cliff. 2003. ‘The Pervasive Effects of Family
on Entrepreneurship: Toward a Family Embeddedness Perspective.’
Journal Of Business Venturing 18 (5): 573–96.
Altinay, L., M. Madanoglu, R. Daniele, and C. Lashley. 2012. ‘The Influ-
ence of Family Tradition and Psychological Traits on Entrepreneur-
ial Intention.’ International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2):
489–99.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-
Hall.
Barba-Sánchez, V., and C. Atienza Sahuquillo. 2012. ‘Entrepreneurial
Behavior: Impact of Motivation Factors on Decision to Create a New
Venture.’ Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la
Empresa 18:132–38.
Barnes, L. B., and S. A. Hershon. 1976. ‘Transferring Power in the Family
Business.’ Harvard Business Review 54 (4): 105–14.
Basco, R., and M. J. P. Rodríguez. 2009. ‘Studying the Family Enterprise
Holistically: Evidence for Integrated Family and Business Systems.’
Family Business Review 22 (1): 82–95.
Bosma, N., J. Hessels, V. Schutjens, M. Van Praag, and I. Verheul. 2012.
‘Entrepreneurship and Role Models.’ Journal of Economic Psychol-
ogy 33 (2): 410–24.
Brockhaus, R. H., and P. S. Horwitz 1986. ‘The Psychology of the En-
trepreneur.’ In The Art and Science of the Entrepreneurship, edited
by D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor, 25–48. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Carr, J. C., and J. M. Sequeira. 2007. ‘Prior Family Business Exposure
as Intergenerational Influence and Entrepreneurial Intent: A The-
318 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
ory of Planned Behavior Approach.’ Journal of Business Research 60
(10): 1090–1098.
Carter, N., W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, and E. J. Gatewood. 2003. ‘The
Career Reasons of Nascent Entrepreneurs.’ Journal of Business Ven-
turing 18 (1): 13–39.
Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene, and A. Crick. 1998. ‘Does Entrepreneurial
Self-Efficacy Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers?’ Journal of
Business Venturing 13 (4): 295–316.
Chlosta, S., H. Patzelt, S. B. Klein, and C. Dormann. 2012. ‘Parental Role
Models and the Decision to Become Self-Employed: The Moderating
Effect of Personality.’ Small Business Economics 38 (1): 121–38.
Claire, L., and A. A. Perryman. 2016. ‘Where’s Waldo? The Search for
Entrepreneurial Role Models.’ Journal of Entrepreneurship Educa-
tion 19 (1): 91-102.
Davidsson, P. 2004. Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
De Massis, A., J. H. Chua, and J. J. Chrisman. 2008. ‘Factors Preventing
Intra-Family Succession.’ Family Business Review 21 (2): 183–99.
DeNoble, A., S. Ehrlich, and G. Singh. 2007. ‘Toward the Development
of a Family Business Self-Efficacy Scale.’ Family Business Review 20
(2): 127–40.
do Paço, A., J. M. Ferreira, M. Raposo, R. G. Rodrigues, and A. Dinis.
2015. ‘Entrepreneurial Intentions: Is Education Enough?’ Interna-
tional Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11 (1): 57–75.
Dorożyńska, A., and T. Dorożyński. 2015. ‘Human Capital and fdi in
Central and Eastern Europe.’ Managing Global Transitions 13 (2):
151–70.
Dyer, G. W. 1992. The Entrepreneurial Experience: Confronting Career
Dilemmas of the Start-Up Executive. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass.
Dyer, G. W., and W. Handler. 1994. ‘Entrepreneurship and Family Busi-
ness.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19 (1): 71–83.
Eddleston, K. A., F. W. Kellermanns, and R. Sarathy. 2008. ‘Resource
Configuration in Family Firms: Linking Resources, Strategic Plan-
ning and Technological Opportunities to Performance.’ Journal of
Management Studies 45 (1): 26–50.
Edelman, L. F., C. G. Brush, T. S. Manolova, and P. G. Green. 2010.
‘Start-up Motivations and Growth Intentions of Minority Nascent
Entrepreneurs.’ Journal of Small Business Management 48 (2): 174–
96.
Farrukh, M., A. A. Khan, M. S. Khan, S. R. Ramzani, and B. S. A. So-
ladoye. 2017. ‘Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Role of Family Fac-
tors, Personality Traits and Self-Efficacy.’ World Journal of Entrepre-
neurship Management and Sustainable Development 13(4): 303–17.
Fuligni, A. J., and E. H. Telzer. 2013. ‘Another Way Family Can Get in the
Head and Under the Skin: The Neurobiology of Helping the Family.’
Child Development Perspectives 7 (3): 138–42.
number 4 · winter 2018 319
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
Gartner, W. B. 1989. ‘Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial
Traits and Characteristics.’ Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 14
(1): 27–37.
Gibson, D. E. 2004. ‘Role Models in Career Development: New Direc-
tions for Theory and Research.’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 65
(1): 134–56.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate
Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, nj: Pearson Education.
Kickul, J., L. K. Gundry, S. D. Barbosa, and L. Whitcanack. 2009. ‘In-
tuition Versus Analysis’ Testing Differential Models of Cognitive
Style on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and the New Venture Cre-
ation Process.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (2): 439–53.
Kim, P. H., H. E. Aldrich, and L. A. Keister. 2006. ‘Access (Not) De-
nied: The Impact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on En-
trepreneurial Entry in the United States.’ Small Business Economics
27 (1): 5–22.
Kleiman, R., and E. Peacok. 1996. ‘Family Businesses as an Economic
Phenomenon.’ Michigan Family Review 2 (2): 93–101.
Klyver, K. 2007. ‘Shifting Family Involvement During the Entrepreneur-
ial Process.’ Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 13 (5):
258–77.
Kolvereid, L. 1996. ‘Organizational Employment versus Self-Employ-
ment: Reasons for Career Choice Intentions.’ Entrepreneurship: The-
ory and Practice 20 (3): 23–31.
Kusmintarti, A., A. Thoyib, G. Maskie, and K. Ashar. 2016. ‘Entrepre-
neurial Characteristics as a Mediation of Entrepreneurial Educa-
tion Influence on Entrepreneurial Intention.’ Journal of Entrepre-
neurship Education 19 (1): 24–37.
Le Breton-Miller, I., D. Miller, and L. P. Steier. 2004. ‘Toward an Inte-
grative Model of Effective fob Succession.’ Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 28 (4): 305–28.
Light, I., and E. Bonachich. 1991. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans
in Los Angeles, 1965–1982. San Francisco: University of California
Press.
Maksimenko, S., and L. Serdiuk. 2016. ‘Psychological Potential of Per-
sonal Self-realization.’ Social Welfare Interdisciplinary Approach
6(1): 93–100.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Menaghan, E. G., and T. L. Parcel. 1995. ‘Social Sources of Change in
Children’s Home Environments: The Effects of Parental Occupa-
tional Experiences and Family Conditions.’ Journal of Marriage and
Family 57 (1): 69–84.
Morris, M. H., R. W. Williams, and D. Nel. 1996. ‘Factors Influencing
Family Business Succession.’ International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ial Behavior & Research 2 (3): 68–81.
320 management · volume 13
Family Business Succession
Murphy, L., and F. Lambrechts. 2015. ‘Investigating the Actual Career
Decisions of the Next Generation: The Impact of Family Business
Involvement.’ Journal of Family Business Strategy 6 (1): 33–44.
Nicolau, N., S. Shane, L. Cherkas, and T. D. Spector. 2008. ‘The Influ-
ence of Sensation Seeking in the Heritability of Entrepreneurship.’
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2 (1): 7–21.
Owoseni, O. O. 2014. ‘The Influence of Some Personality Factors on En-
trepreneurial Intentions.’ International Journal of Business and So-
cial Science 5 (1): 278–84.
Ozaralli, N., and N. K. Rivenburgh. 2016. ‘Entrepreneurial Intention:
Antecedents to Entrepreneurial Behavior in the U.S.A. and Turkey.’
Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6 (1): 1–32.
Renko, M., G. K. Kroeck, and A. Bullough. 2012. ‘Expectancy Theory and
Nascent Entrepreneurship.’ Small Business Economics 39(3): 667–84.
Schröder, E., and E. Schmitt-Rodermund. 2013. ‘Antecedents and Con-
sequences of Adolescents’ Motivations to Join the Family Business.’
Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (3): 476–85.
Shen, T., A. E. Osorio, and A. S. Rutgers. 2017. ‘Does Family Support
Matter? The Influence of Support Factors on Entrepreneurial Atti-
tudes and Intentions of College Students.’ Academy of Entrepreneur-
ship Journal 23 (1): 24–43.
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. ‘Do Entrepreneur-
ship Programmes Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and
Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Inspiration and Re-
sources.’ Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4): 566–91.
Stavrou, E. T. 1999. ‘Succession in Family Businesses: Exploring the Ef-
fects of Demographic Factors on Offspring Intentions to Join and
Take over the Business.’ Journal of Small Business Management 37
(3): 43–61.
Tarling, C., P. Jones, and L. Murphy. 2016. ‘Influence of Early Exposure
to Family Business Experience on Developing Entrepreneurs.’ Edu-
cation + Training 58 (7–8): 733–50.
van Geldern, M., and P. Jansen. 2006. ‘Autonomy as a Start-Up Motive.’
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 13 (1): 23–32.
Waterman, A. S., S. J. Schwartz, E. Goldbacher, H. Green, C. Miller, and
S. Philip. 2003. ‘Predicting the Subjective Experience of Intrinsic
Motivation: The Roles of Self-Determination, the Balance of Chal-
lenges and Skills, and Self-Realization Values.’ Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin 29 (11): 1447–458.
Zapkau, F. B., C. Schwens, and R. Kabst. 2017. ‘The Role of Prior En-
trepreneurial Exposure in the Entrepreneurial Process: A Review
and Future Research Implications.’ Small Business Management
55(1): 56–86.
Zellweger, T. M., F. W. Kellermanns, J. J. Chrisman, and J. H. Chua. 2012.
‘Family Control and Family Firm Valuation by Family ceos: The Im-
number 4 · winter 2018 321
Predrag Ljubotina and Jaka Vadnjal
portance of Intentions for Transgenerational Control.’ Organization
Science 23 (3): 851–68.
Zellweger, T., P. Sieger, and F. Halter. 2011. ‘Should I Stay or Should
I Go? Career Choice Intentions of Students with Family Business
Background.’ Journal of Business Venturing 26 (5): 521–36.
Zhao, F. 2005. ‘Exploring the Synergy between Entrepreneurship and
Innovation.’ International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Re-
search 11 (1): 25–41.
This paper is published under the terms of the Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
322 management · volume 13