Family Business Dynamics - Session 13 Notes

The session will cover vocational development and intergenerational factors in family businesses.

Hargrove et al. (2002) suggests that family-of-origin interaction patterns play small but significant roles in:
- Formulating clear and stable career goals.
- Promoting self-confidence in completing career planning activities.
The family systems perspective proposes that the ability to make appropriate vocational decisions for young adults is directly influenced by:
- The quality of family interactions.
- Boundaries.
- Emotional interdependencies perpetuated in the family.

Barak, Feldman, & Noy (1991) examined family influences on the traditionality of preschool children’s interests.
Findings:
- Only the gender traditionality of a mother’s occupation was related to children’s vocational interests.
- Children had less stereotypical interests if their mothers were employed in nontraditional careers.
Whiston & Keller found that parental attitudes toward women, parental employment status, and paternal occupation did not significantly affect the traditionality of boys’ or girls’ vocational interests.

Birk & Brimline (1984) found:
- Mothers tend to rank themselves as having the most influence on their children’s career exploration.
- Fathers also ranked themselves as being most influential.
Children are opportunistic:
- They follow their mothers when they are in non-traditional or higher-status positions.
- They explore more options when their mother works outside the home.
- They are less likely to follow their father if they have a good relationship with their mother.

Whiston & Keller (2004) found that across the lifespan:
- Family structure variables (e.g., parents’ occupations) and family process variables (e.g., warmth, support, attachment, autonomy) influence a host of career constructs.
- Roles children learn influence vocation choice and career decision-making significantly.

Swartz (2009) highlights that the core is parent–adult child relationships (stem family relationships).
Multigenerational families are more common now than in the 19th century (Coontz 1992).
They are increasingly important to Americans due to marital instability and demographic shifts.
They involve both affective ties (emotion) and instrumental support ($ or child care).
They constitute an important and largely hidden aspect of how families contribute to the reproduction of social inequality in society. (CTPQ – How would this affect Family Business Dynamics?)

Co-survivorship increases the supply of kin available for intergenerational ties.
In 2000, most 40-year-olds and 25% of 50-year-olds had both parents still living (Settersten 2007).
44% of 60-year-olds had at least one parent still living (Settersten 2007).
Today, most people will spend the vast majority of their relationship with their parents as adults, creating longer shared lives and the potential for sustained intergenerational relations (Bengtson, 2001).
Only about 5% of adult children provide or arrange care for an impaired elderly parent (Settersten 2007).
Only 8% during its peak period from ages 45–54 (Umberson 2006).
69% of adults speak to their mother daily (Connidis, 2001).

Simultaneous (co-existing) positive and negative feelings & views (Luescher & Pillemer 1998, Connidis & McMullin 2002).
Intergenerational ambivalence emerges in response to tensions between interdependence or support between generations & autonomy of individual family members.
More stress & conflict = more ambivalence.

Trads (1928-1944)
- Value authority and a top-down management approach; hard-working: 'make do or do without'.
Boomers (1945-1964)
- Expect some degree of deference to their opinions; workaholics.
Gen X (1965-1979)
- Comfortable with authority, will work as hard as is needed; importance of work-life balance.
Gen Y (1980-1994)
- Respect must be earned; technologically savvy; goal and achievement-oriented.
Gen Z (1995-2009)
- Many traits still to emerge; digital natives, fast decision-makers, highly connected.
Gen Alpha (2010-2014)

Gen Alpha: not with 2 bio-parents, urban & transitory, $$$-inequality, diverse
Balance, diversity, lack of loyalty to an organization, global mindset
Anti-war, anti-government, equal rights, involvement, personal gratification
Achievement, fun, civic duty, sociability, self-confidence
Adherence to rules, discipline, family focus, hard work, trust in government and established norms

1st – 2nd – 3rd Generation Family Firms (Sonnefield & Lussier, 2004)
Differences & overlaps between issues of family firm generations v. stages
1GFF do less succession planning than 2G and 3GFF
No differences between 1G, 2G, & 3GFF with regard to the influence of the firm’s founder
1GFF had the highest use of equity versus debt financing
Fewer 1GFF firms using the corporation form of ownership
Force of “familiness” & system of the family are stronger, even in subsequent generations than mainstream

72% of respondents indicated that there are real differences between older and younger generations and how they approach work.
12% indicated these differences sometimes/often pose challenges.
16% indicated there are real differences, but they never pose challenges.

Failure due to inappropriate relationship between an organization’s past and its present:
- Attachment to the past (conservative)
- Wholesale rejection of it (rebellious)
- Incongruous blending of past and present (wavering)
Personal and emotional factors determine who the next leader will be, especially in father-to-son successions.
Large age & experience gap (often 25–30 years), immaturity of the successor, & emotion-fraught parental relationships make dysfunctional reactions of submission and rebellion more likely (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Kimhi, 1997).

How have the people of your family influenced your career choices and vocational aspirations?
Catalogue the members of your family by intergenerational categories and come up with scripts to influence them about seeing your point of view on a contentious topic.