International Journal of Family Business and
Management

Family owned and controlled businesses, which may be owned, controlled or operated by various family members, account for an enormous percentage of global employment, revenues and GDP. Although the majority of well-known companies are family owned, research indicates that unfortunately, only thirty percent of family businesses survive to the second generation. Therefore, successful transfer of the business to the next generation is an important issue for the family business literature. However, although succession is a vital issue for Family Owned Businesses (FOBs), the process is unfortunately very gender biased in most societies, with boys being generally favoured over girls so daughters are always excluded as candidates and other women are seldom considered as successors in family businesses. In many cases, especially in certain cultures, female members of the next generation are not even perceived as a viable option. Even in today’s rapidly changing business climate, primogeniture continues to dominate the value system of family businesses.

Primogeniture is an accepted approach to family business succession planning; daughters are only considered for family business succession when all descendants are female or the daughter is the first born. This study aims to identify the reasons behind the primogeniture in Turkish FOBs. The objectives of the study were to examine the key factors identified by the incumbents related with the primogeniture. In this research study, an interpretive methodology was adopted to explore, interpret and to understand meanings of knowledge. For this research, qualitative data were gathered via in-depth open-ended interviews with 20 male FOB owners who have at least one daughter and 20 daughters working at their FOB with their fathers. The questions were designed to measure different facets of FOB demographics and culture to understand their effects on the selection process within Turkish FOBs and gender norms in the context of FOB norms, which influence both family members and the business it.

This study investigated daughters’ succession in FOBs in Turkey, a developing country where women are less likely than men to engage in entrepreneurial activities and show that gendered norms are still considered when choosing the successor, in other word, primogeniture still dominates the family business succession process.

Keywords: Woman entrepreneurship; Primogeniture; Family Business; Gender; Culture;

FOBs play a dominant role in all economies Mazzola, Marchisio and Astrachan [1], Zahra [202 -204], Curimbaba, [34], Kontinen & Ojala, [101], Schuman, Stutz & Ward, [156], Adams, Manners, Astrachan and Mazzola [1], Pradham and Ranajee, [142], Kidwell, Hoy and Ibarreche, [98], Chua, Chrisman & Sharma, [27], Rosenblatt, Mik, Anderson & Johnson [148] and succession planning is considered as a key theme in the family business literature. In many countries, such commercial enterprises are the main drivers of economic activity, growth and sustainability Overbeke, Bilimoria & Somers, [135], Pearson, Carr & Shaw, [137], Miller, Steier & Le Breton-Miller, [121], Miller, Minichili & Corbetta, [120], Miller, [122], Wang, [192], Al-Dajani, Bika, Collins & Swail, [2]. Therefore, these businesses’ performance and sustainability is a vital issue for both the business itself and the wider economy.

Family businesses are unique institutions where two social units (i.e. families and businesses) are highly integrated Harveston, Davis & Lynden, [79] and in these unique institutions, traditional gender roles are often preserved Lee, Fitzgerald & Bartkus [107], Vadnjal & Zupan, [185], Moores & Barrett, [125], Nelson & Levesque, 2007, Curimbaba, [34]. In particular, there is a gender bias when it comes to choosing the successor Wang, [192]. It is, therefore, important to understand the gender differences occurring during the process of succession.

This is not the first study on gendered perceptions and cultural issues on Turkish FOBs. Karatas-Ozkan, Erdogan and Nicolopoulou (2011) and examined the key drivers, challenges and influences on Turkish women entrepreneurs who actively involved to family businesses. Ufuk and Ozgen [180] examined the interaction between the business and family life of female entrepreneurs in Turkish FOBs. Recently, Maden [116] examined the profile of women entrepreneurs in Turkey as a developing country. The current study, however, offers a different perspective on daughter succession implications from the perspective of stewardship, by drawing attention to the perspectives and interests of incumbents who works together with their daughters. We conducted a multi perspective investigation of the key factors and demographics of incumbents associated with primogeniture; education, location, age and generation and this study contributes to a more coherent understanding of Turkish FOBs’ succession process by examining the FOB owners’ approach to their daughters’ leadership challenge.

Our study offers unique insights on primogeniture and two research questions guided our investigation.

How are the key factors identified by the incumbents related to the primogeniture?

What are the similar and different demographic factors for incumbents related with their primogeniture approaches?

The current study investigates the succession processes involving the transition of leadership from father to daughter, focusing on the primogeniture and examines the factors influence the primogeniture in Turkish FOBs.

The succession process represents one of the most critical events in the family business lifecycle Bizri, [13] and a major part of the FOB research has been dedicated to the exploration of the issues associated with this critical event Bozer, Levin, & Santora, [14], Chrisman, Chua, Kellermanns, & Chang, [24].

Etymologically, the word succession comes from the Latin word ‘successionem’ meaning “a following, a coming into another’s place” Saxena, [154]. In the family business literature, the term succession refers to situations where both the incumbent, as the person who holds the top management position in a family business and who must relinquish that position before another family member can take over, who relinquishes managerial control, and the successor, who takes it over, are family members (i.e. related by blood or by law) De Massis, Chua, & Chrisman, [42]. Similarly, succession also refers to the success and sustainability of a family business over the long run Sorenson, Yu, Brigham, & Lumpkin, [169].

According to Sharma, Chrisman, Pablo & Chua [160], succession concerns the actions and events that lead to the transition of leadership from one family member to another in family firms. In order to explain these actions and events, Handler [77] asserts that succession is not simply a single step of handing over the baton. He says it is a multistage process over time, beginning before heirs even enter the business. Therefore, researchers tend to agree that succession is more a process than an event that should be planned carefully Handler, [77], Avloniti, Iatridou, Kaloupsis & Vozikis, [7], Duh, [47], Schlepphorst & Moog, [155], Cadieux, Lorraine & Hugron, [19], Pardo-del-Val, [136].

Although succession is a vital issue for FOBs, the process is unfortunately very gender biased in most societies, with boys being generally favoured over girls so daughters are always excluded as candidates and other women are seldom considered as successors in family businesses Wang, [192], Haberman & Danes, [73], Harveston, et al. [79], Dumas, [49], Glover, [67], Miller, et al. [121], Remery, Matser, & Hans Flören, [146], Vera & Dean, [188]. In many cases, especially in certain cultures, female members of the next generation are not even perceived as a viable option Wang, [192], Miller et al. [121], Vera & Dean, [188]. Even in today’s rapidly changing business climate, primogeniture continues to dominate the value system of family businesses Francis, [59], Vera & Dean, [188], Halkias, Thurman, Smith & Nasan [74]. Thus, while a son is generally expected to join the business, a daughter may only be given a chance, or not even invited Francis, [59].

Succession is a challenge to family businesses for a number of reasons, including the need to address the issue of intergenerational handover. Therefore, it must be considered more broadly than as just a process for identifying people with “the right stuff” Royer, Simons, Boyd & Rafferty, [149], Fiegener et al. [58]. The transfer of management decision authority within the family businesses is critical for the long-term viability of FOBs Danes, Lee, Amarapunkar, Stafford, Haynes, & Brewton, [36], Ward, [194] so succession is a vital stage for FOB survival Stavrou, [171].

Research on gender differences and business practices has focused on strategic management, entrepreneurs, managerial styles, firm bureaucracy, firm performance, and employment relationships Danes, Stafford & Loy, [37], Worthley, MacNab, Brislin, Ito & Rose, [199], Thiruvadi & Huang, [173]. Many researchers have investigated management and entrepreneurial styles by gender Barrett & Moores, [11], Moores & Barrett, [125], Sonfield & Lussier, [165].

This body of research has expanded in response to the growing proportion of women in the managerial, entrepreneurial and small business workforce, and their increasing rate of firm creation and small business ownership Sonfield & Lusier, [168].

Although there is a body of literature dealing with gender comparisons of management practices Poggesi, Mari & Vita [140], Moores & Barrett, [125], Pringle, [144], Glover & Kaplan, [66], Kyriakidou, [105] and another in the field of family business Curimbaba, [34], Vadnjal & Zupan, [184], Kontinen & Ojala, [100], Schuman, et al. [156], Adams, et al. [1], Pradhan & Ranajee [142], Zahra, [202], Kidwell, et al. [98], Chua et al. [27], Rosenblatt, et al. [148], Zahra, [204], only a few research studies Remery, et al. [146], Lee, et al. [107], Danes, et al. [37], Lussier & Sonfield, [113], Entwisle, Henderson, Short, Bouma & Fengying, [52], Hamilton, [75], Danes, et al. [37], Glover, [67], have focused on gender issues in family businesses.

Remery, et al. [146] analysed to what extent women are involved in the actual succession process in family firms and gender differences in terms of capabilities and ambition. They found few differences between male and female successors in the level of education, although female successors are more likely to be university educated than male successors. However, their results show that there is a clear gender difference regarding ownership; men strive more often for full ownership, whereas women opt for shared ownership, even when controlling for relevant variables such as the presence of children Remery, et al. [146]. Similarly, Lee, et al. [107] also find that the socialised gender perspective of the business owner is a key contextual construct. Studies investigating opportunities for women in family businesses reveal instances of (veiled or open) discrimination and present proposals to overcome these obstacles to make better use of women’s potential Curimbaba, [34], Lee, et al. [107], Remery et al. [146].

Unfortunately, as in their examination of gender role and job preferences, Kaufman and White (2015) state that gender is a stronger predictor of job values than other demographic characteristics and gender egalitarianism plays an important role in a family business like other businesses Lee, et al. [107]. Gender egalitarianism is defined as “the degree to which an organisation or a society minimises gender role differences while promoting gender equality” and emphasises societal norms regarding women’s and men’s roles Javidan, Bullough & Dible, [90], Powell, Francesca & Ling, [141]. Cultures that are higher in gender egalitarianism have a higher proportion of women in positions of authority, more female participation in the labour force, and less sex segregation in employment Powell et al. [141]. In gender egalitarian cultures, men and women have more freedom to participate in the workplace and in the family, which translates into higher incomes and higher business leadership positions for women Constantinidis & Nelson, [32]. Families with more egalitarian cultures and structures are more likely to display a demand for daughter successors Overbeke & Bilimoria, [134].

Not only in business, but also within families, the roles and patterns of behaviour are often gender specific Danes & Olson, [35]. Although sons and daughters are equally well educated, even in management and business, fathers are deeply concerned about whether daughters can effectively manage the demanding tasks associated with the company. Fathers also wish to ‘protect’ their daughters from the harsh world of having to deal with business management Lingas, [109]. Such studies refer to family culture and structure that exclude daughters Barnes, [10], Curimbaba, [34], Dumas, 1990; Hollander & Bukowits, [81]. Much research has explored gendered identity in management, generating considerable debate about why women’s position in business and society differs from that of men Barrett & Moores, [11], Pringle, [144], Glover & Kaplan, [66], Kyriakidou, [105].

Although, in 2002, Astrachan’s study (2003) state that women’s preference for management in FOB might lead to smoother succession, similarly, Vera and Dean [188] assert that daughters faced greater challenges than sons in the succession process, majority of studies indicate that women are often not considered as candidates for succession Remery, et al. [146], Glover, [67], Gherardi & Perrotta, [63], Al-Dajani, et al. [2]. The specific literature indicates that when a daughter takes over the family business, the acceptability of her position is under threat: she is the first to perceive that if a son is present, then he is the “natural” successor, and she is thus constructed as an “invisible” successor Gherardi & Perrotta, [63], Glover, [67], Remery, et al. [146]. Consequently, as discussed above, the owner and the candidate successor are two main characters of the succession process and the influence of the founder on this process are accepted as a critical factor by researchers Sonfield and Lussier, [113], Zahra, [204], Gao, Bai & Shi, [61]. As cited by Sonfield and Lussier [113] in a multi-generation family business a generational shadow, shed by the founder, may be cast over the organisation and the critical processes within it. The importance of the founder and the effect on the process will be examined in the previous chapter.

Researchers have examined the successful integration of offspring into a FOB, whether male specifically or not Miller et al. [121], Breton-Miller, et al. [15], Miller, et al. [120], Habbershon & Williams, [72], Habberman & Danes, [73], Chua, et al. [28]. Several studies Remery, et al. [146], Sonfield & Lussier, [167], Habberman& Danes, [73], Astrachan, [6], Dumas, [49] find that gender differences exist in FOB management succession. Historically, family business configurations focused on the male founder and his male heirs so that although mothers, wives, daughters, and female in-laws are often represented in family trees, they are included without job titles or salaries next to their names Lyman, et al. [115]. As Dumas [49] points out, it is necessary to study not only the sons in the context of family firm management but also the daughters.

Many family business studies Miller, et al. [121] Malinen, 2001; Bizri, [13] focus on sons as successors and their relationship with their fathers as owners. Unfortunately, in family businesses, succession is very much biased by gender with daughters being almost always excluded as candidates Wang, [192]. Hence, the FOB literature describes daughters as an untapped resource Dumas, [49], Lyman et al. [115], Francis, [59], underutilized resource Dumas, 1990; Dumas, [49], invisible partners Martinez Jimenez, [118], Humphreys, [87], temporary additions Martinez Jimenez, [118], noting how daughters’ abilities are generally underestimated, unrecognized, and subsequently under-utilized Wang, [192]. Humphreys, et al. [87] shows that women’s journey to FOB leadership relies on having the right skills and education to manage and lead their family firms. Wang [192] and Martinez Jimenez [118] suggest that, in the FOB succession process, daughters are almost always excluded as candidates due to an interaction of macro (socio cultural attitudes to women) and micro (individual and family) factors. However, according to Miller, et al. [121], this preference for accepting an inappropriate candidate while overlooking daughters as FOB successors may be a critical cause of succession failure, particularly for FOB survival beyond one or two generations. Recently, Glover [67] argues that this gender bias in family businesses may stem from broader societal attitudes and cultural expectations of their gendered roles in society.

The FOB literature generally focuses on obstacles and barriers facing women in FOBs, particularly invisibility and primogeniture Martinez Jimenez, [118], Wang, [192], Dumas, [50], Overbeke & Bilimoria, [134], Gilding, Gregory & Cosson, [64]. Women are rarely considered as a successor because of primogeniture, with the firstborn male child being expected to become the successor Martinez Jimenez, [118], Overbeke, et al. [134]. Various studies have examined primogeniture issues Ward, [194], Garcia-Alvarez, et al. [62], Francis, [59], Wang, [192], Humphreys, [87], demonstrating that the oldest son is seen as the primary successor candidate.

Primogeniture is an accepted approach to family business succession planning; daughters are only considered for family business succession when all descendants are female or the daughter is the first born Garcia-Alvarez, et al. [62], Curimbaba [34], Francis, [59], Hiebl [80] even finds that, in some cases, if there is no son in the family, the family business may be sold rather than passed on to the daughter. In family businesses, resistance to succession from incumbents is low, because even when children assume business leadership, they are expected to consult with their father and show him respect Yan & Sorenson, [200], Gupta & Levenburg, [71].

According to Philbrick and Fitzgerald, [139], barriers to daughter succession interact at both the macro (socio cultural) and micro (individual and family) levels. At the macro level, broad societal attitudes toward women and cultural expectations of their gendered roles in society and family are important barriers Ward, [193]. When daughters are involved in family businesses, the first concern is that the daughter’s assumed desire to become a mother and raise children while at the same time holding their position in the family business and working long hours may prevent them from raising a family, which can raise doubts about her own identity and conflict with societal expectations that she should produce offspring Cole, [30], Salganicoff, [152]. As Cole [30] notes, there is a belief that women in the family businesses continue to struggle with the traditional limitations imposed on them by others, with a general assumption that they need flexible schedules, have difficulty in reconciling private and professional spaces, struggle with child care, and are not always willing to advance in their careers Curimbaba, [34]. Masuo, Fong, Yanagida & Cabal [119] and Philbrick and Fitzgerald [139] also suggest that work-to-family conflict may be perceived by women as a lack of support from the organisation, making life particularly complex for women who manage both their family and a business.

As can be seen in this chapter, traditional cultural values and gender-based norms are dominant in family firms. Kizildag [99] stress this issue as in which traditional structures are strong and protected, female family members are kept out of the business. Beyond the traditional structure, parents feel a need to ‘protect’ their daughters (more than sons) and avoid placing them in the position of having to deal with the problems that come with managing a business Hollander & Bukowitz, [81]. Hence, Dumas [49] finds that daughters are typically brought into the family business to do “gender congruent” work, usually on a temporary basis. However, crises (e.g. health or economic problems) tend to increase the likelihood that families (and daughters themselves) consider the prospect of daughters working in the firm Dumas, [49].

The family firm is conceptualised as a dual system with the properties of both a family and a business Whiteside & Herz- Brown, [196], so most models developed to explain family businesses suggest a dual rather than a single system Stafford, et al. [170]. For instance, Donaldson [45] points out that agency theory is one-sided because it examines an individual’s moral and collective behaviour while ignoring worker loyalty, pride, and identification with the organisation’s mission and goals. Therefore, stewardship is considered as a capability of family businesses by the authors Le Breton Miller& Miller, [106]. Linking stewardship theory to family business, this study argues that stewardship FOB owners dominate the FOB culture and succession process by his/her stewardship culture.

Stewardship literature suggests moving from an agency relationship toward a stewardship relationship built on trust, alignment of goals, and organisational identification. Identification with an organisation and its values is strongly related to commitment in that individuals who consider themselves as belonging to an organisation are much more likely to form stewardship relationships than others that do not identify themselves with their organisation Toivonen & Toivonen, [174], which is strongly related to succession as well. As Handler [77] notes, the greater the commitment to family business perpetuation as a family value, the more likely it is that the individual will have a positive succession experience (except when the commitment is to business means rather than business ends). Vallejo [187] also suggests that the identification level of non-family employees positively and significantly influences the profitability and the survival or continuity of family-owned businesses. Thus, stewardship theory holds that people with a high level of identification with the in which they work are more likely to behave as stewards in their relationship with the principal than people with a lower level of identification Vallejo- Martos & Puentes-Poyatos, [186].

Family business ownership is probably the most dominant ownership structure found in many national contexts and a key characteristic that distinguishes the structure of family governance from that of non-family firms Chung & Chan, [29], Dow & McGuire, [46]. This leads family members to preserve and control their values and beliefs, and disseminate these to other family members Zahra, [204], Gupta & Levenburg, [71]. Studies also indicate that, in family businesses, family ownership and family leadership are key control mechanisms Gómez-Mejía, Nuñez-Nickel, & Gutierrez, [68], Jiang & Peng, [91], Villalonga& Amit, [189] for both succession process and the performance Lissoni, Pereira, Almeida & Serra, [111], Ward, [192] Additionally, family business owners’ succession intention will not only be solely affected by their wills but also by the institutional environment Zhou, Hu, Yao & Qin, [205] like culture, capital market characteristics and legal frameworks Dow & McGuire, [46].

Most of the literature on family business shows that founders intend to continues their business through next-generation family members: children first, followed by other family members Hartel, Bozer & Levin, [78], Garcia-Alvarez, et al. [62]. However, family members often hold all the key leadership positions, often chair the board of directors or serve as board members to control their family firms, frequently preventing non-family members from taking key leadership positions Lipman, [110], Chu, [26]. Therefore, non-family members are unlikely to hold leadership positions in FOBs Ward, [192]. Thus, family descendants are the first option for a founder’s succession Garcia-Alvarez, et al. [62].

Similarly, family-firm founders exhibit stronger requirements for control and are less likely to delegate power so family firms tend to be centralised and controlled by the founder’s beliefs Brice & Jones, [16]. Uhlaner, Hoy, Eddleston and Kellermanns [181] use the term ‘‘family management’’ to contrast with ‘‘professional management”. Although some studies find that, in family businesses, family ownership and family leadership are key control mechanisms Gómez-Mejía, et al., [68], Jiang & Peng, [91], Villalonga & Amit, [189], recently, family business groups are starting to introduce diversity of ownership and management configurations Chung & Chan, [29]. This issue was examined by Villalonga and Amit [189] and their results show that founding families retain control and give the firm a competitive advantage, whereas non-founding families and individuals seem to act exclusively in their own interest. According to Huang, Ding and Kao [85], family firms are also less likely to seek external sources of information due to the strong social ties within the organisation, which supports Chung and Chan [29]. Miller, et al. [120] investigated the choice between a family business owned leader or non-family owned, finding that family member leaders do better than non-family leaders when firms are smaller and family ownership is more concentrated; however, they perform less well than non-family leaders when firms are larger and family ownership is more diffuse.

Some family businesses suffer from a lack of human resources because parents tend to offer investment opportunities to their children Lubatkin, Ling & Schulze, [112], even if they have insufficient skills for international entrepreneurship and even though hiring the right person is accepted as one of the most important functions of human resource management Busser, [17], Collings & Wood, [31]. However, in terms of ownership and management, there is significant evidence that family businesses are quite reluctant to accept non-family ownership Vadnjal & Zupan, [185]. In minority-owned family firms, however, the preference for hiring family members may be culturally rooted and not based on business needs alone Shinnar, Cho & Rogoff, [163].

One of the main reasons for choosing this daughters’ succession process as a research issue is that in FOBs, successor selection is very much biased by gender, with daughters being usually excluded as candidates Wang, [192]. Therefore, an interpretivist and social constructivist philosophies are used to assess FOB members’ own perceptions that they construct, in order to able to examine daughter succession process.

From an interpretivist perspective, the social world of management and business is too complex to be formulated in natural science theories and laws Walliman, [191]. Interpretivism also argues that are many truths and meanings of a simple fact, with several factors affecting the nature of individuals, such as differences in individual living standards, social and cultural environment, or personality and family groups Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, [153], Johnson & Christensen, [92]. As mentioned earlier, the literature suggests that succession encompasses many activities. These include training the successor from childhood onwards Sharma, Chrisman & Chua, [159], getting information about the family and business, becoming familiar with family culture Cabrera-Suarez, et al. [18], and selecting and training the successor in appropriate skills and experience to lead the organisation into its next phase Dyck, Starke, Mischke, & Mauws, [51]. Social constructivism and interpretive research must begin with the assumption that access to reality passes through social constructions such as language and shared meanings Wilkinson & Birmingham, [198]. Both perspectives hold that reality is unique to each individual and to the manner in which each individual, given their own unique set of circumstances and life experiences, constructs, experiences, and/or interprets their world Quinlan, [145].

This research adopts a qualitative approach since this approach is generally most suited to gaining an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon or situation under study Huff & Smith, [86]. Following an interpretivist philosophy as part of the social constructivist perspective, this action research data is collected either in collaboration with the research participants, namely the FOB owners and daughters, or by the participants themselves in order to understand the cultural context and to bring about direct and immediate practical change in the context of the research Andrews, [3].

This study collected data from family businesses through semi-structured interviews with each company’s owner and daughter. While structured interviews have a formalised set of questions, semi-structured interviews are flexible, allowing the interviewer to raise new questions during the interview according to the interviewee’s responses Shaw & Gould, [162]. As defined by Kvale and Brinkman [104], a semi-structured qualitative research interview aims at obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena. In this study, semi-structured qualitative research interviews were used to obtain the FOB owner’s opinions about selecting his daughter as a successor in order to interpret their considerations on FOB succession. In general, a frequent form of participant engagement in the semi-structured interview is intended to achieve clarification and understanding, and engaging for clarification ensures, as much as possible, accurate interpretation Galletta, [60].

For the purposes of this study, family-owned and managed organisations were defined as those where 51% or more of the business was controlled by the family, decisions about management or ownership were influenced by family members, and two or more members of the immediate family (i.e. father, mother, daughter or son) were employed and actively participating in the firm’s management Dumas, [49]. While FOB researchers use various forms of this definition, the common factor is that the FOBs are managed and controlled by family members.

In individual interviews, 20 fathers and daughters told their succession stories. The interviews were designed to allow participants to reflect and select content relevant to themselves and their experiences. The researcher conducted the interviews on a one-to-one basis. The language spoken was Turkish, the main language of the researcher and all interview partners. Interviews varied in length from 50 to 60 minutes, depending on the length of the participants’ explanations. The sets of open-ended, semistructured interview questions were prepared by the researchers to understand the participants’ opinions about succession under the influence of Turkish national culture.

From each company, the first target group of interview partners were female successor candidates who were actively involved in their family’s business. The second group of interview partners were the fathers of first target group who are still actively working in the business. The qualitative design of this research presented the voices of fathers and daughters as family business incumbents and successors respectively. The interviews were designed to allow participants to reflect and select content relevant to themselves and their experiences. The researcher conducted the interviews on a one-to-one basis during spring 2015. The language spoken was Turkish, the main language of the researcher and all interview partners. Interviews varied in length from 50 to 60 minutes, depending on the length of the participants’ explanations.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how are the key factors identified by the incumbents related to the primogeniture and demographic factors for incumbents related with their primogeniture approach in Turkish FOBs

In order to capture the FOB’s personal approach to selecting a daughter as a successor FOB owner (O) was asked a couple of questions. First, they were asked “Is there a certain successor for the leadership of the company? If succession is expected, has a date been set or announced?”

We classified answers as a “Certain Successor” under the six subheadings; (1) Daughter, even though she has an eldest brother, (2) Daughter, as an eldest child, (3) Daughter, since there is no other option, (4) Son, as an eldest kid, (5) Son, even though he has an eldest sister, (6) Son in law.

As an overall analysis, only four FOB owners (O4, O10, O15, O19), who has an eldest son, show to much desire for to leave their business to their sons but, since their boys’ decide to choose another carrier, and due to sector (jewellery and pastry) and their sons’ low interest, daughters were chosen as a successor.

Six FOB owners decided to leave their business to their daughter without any doubt, however they do have only daughters and they do not have any other choice. Therefore, these results do not help to identify owners’ approach about primogeniture.

On the other hand, when we look at the responds of other FOB owners, who has eldest son, want to hand over his business to their son. Three owners even though they have an eldest daughter, want to hand over his business to their son. They both stated that even though they both have daughters, they desired to make their son a new leader after them. At one company, even though the daughter is the eldest child, she was not considered a viable successor by her father because the business is in farming.

Surprisingly, in one case, even though he has three daughters want to leave their business to his biggest son in law. In three cases

FOB owners think their daughter will be able to manage their organisations, however, they think their business sector (Supermarket, construction, sunflower oil) is not suitable for daughters.

As an overall consideration of the first question; FOB owners’ selected successors and reasons are shown below table 1.

As an overall analysis; if the owner has an eldest son they do not think to give any chance to their daughters. According to primogeniture; daughters are only considered for family business succession when all descendants are female or the daughter is the first born. Results showed that daughters were generally preferred as a successor when all descendants are female or firstborn son do not consider taking over the business. On the other hand, when we look at the results, one of the most interesting decision was given by the owners was to hand over his business to his son, even though they have an eldest daughter.

In another question FOB owners were asked, “Whether gender makes any difference when evaluating the successor and how?”

Like previous quotes, the majority of FOB owners think the business life is not suitable for a woman. As an overall consideration of the question 2, eleven out of twelve FOB owners state that gender is an important factor for choosing a successor, because some of them state the importance of the sector and some mentioned the regional cultural characteristics. On the other hand, nine interview partners did not agree with evaluating gender while considering their successor, instead stating that they just look at talent.

According to interview results, FOBs demographics who did not agree with evaluating gender while considering their successor as follows table 2.

According to Dyer 1986 there is a temporal sequence of patterns throughout the succession process: a path starting out with a paternalistic culture during the founder’s reign, becoming a laissez-faire culture or possibly a participative culture when the second generation takes over the firm’s management, ending with a professional culture in the third and subsequent generations. However, Casimiro and Chambel 2014and Yang 2015 point out that Dyer’s cultural patterns do not generalise to every family business, although the family business literature repeatedly stresses that the paternalistic culture is mostly seen in first-generation family businesses.

The current study examined the family business owners’ leadership characteristics, through interviews with FOB owners and daughters to provide deep insights about their assumptions and related succession stories.

According to the results, in contrast to current assumptions, Turkish family businesses, especially new generations tend to adopt a laissez-faire culture rather than paternalistic. Whereas previous researchers suggested that some cultural patterns are related to specific generations, this study finds that FOB cultural patterns and leadership characteristics are more related to the owners’ educational level, age, and the environment where they grew up and set up their business than to which FOB generation they are. Results show that, majority of the FOB owners who did not consider gender while choosing the successor are first generation entrepreneurs.

As another question, in order to understand more in terms of gendered assumptions, FOB owners were asked “If you had an older son, would you have chosen your daughter as the successor? Why?”

To able to evaluating FOB owners’ gendered norms, when we look at the quotes; the majority (14 out of 20) leaders agree upon to not to choose their daughter as a successor if he has an eldest son. O2 and O12 think it is a succession rule and they don’t do it. O12 also stressed the importance of the sector. O4, O10 and O15, even though they will hand over their businesses to their daughters, they don’t think it is fair and added, if their sons accepted to be the next leader, they wouldn’t have chosen their daughters as a successor. Moreover, O10, O11 and O19 stated that not only them no one would choose their youngest daughter if she has an eldest son.

Rest of six owners agree upon the importance of the capabilities and performance, they think that the gender is not important for choosing a successor. They think, they would choose their youngest daughter as a successor, if she has sufficient characteristics, experience and talent.

In order to able to understand the demographics of the leaders who would choose their youngest daughter as a successor, if she has sufficient characteristics, we analysed their demographics below in table 3.

Interestingly, interview results show that all the owners who would choose their youngest daughter as a next leader if she has sufficient characteristics and experience are the first generation of their businesses. As an indicator, their education level is considerable higher than that never choose his daughter as a next leader if he had an older son.

Finally, 20 FOB owners were asked “Do you think Turkey is a favourable country for woman managers? Why?”

When asked to evaluate Turkey as a favourable country for women managers, 4 out of 20 fathers stressed location and think in some regions business life is not easy for a woman. On the other hand, 9 FOB owners think Turkey is a very favourable country for woman entrepreneurs. Demographics of these two different groups are shown in table 4 and table 5.

Results show that, FOBs in large and modern cities, like Istanbul, Izmir (In Aegean Region) think Turkey is a favourable city for woman entrepreneurs. On the other hand, FOBs, in Central Anatolia and Northern Region on Turkey tend to think it is not favourable for woman entrepreneurs. One of the other demographic factors that affecting this assumption can be seen as education. Interview results show how the education level of FOB owner may be relevant characteristics determining their vision.

One of the family-specific factors affecting succession is motivation from the family. The literature emphasises the importance of education and experience for daughters to gain leadership positions Kaslow, 2006; Dumas, [49], Vera and Dean, [188], Wang, [192] and Gallo and Point (1994) find that the most successful international family firms are those whose successors have education and work experience outside their home country as well as outside their company. In several cases in this study, the daughters reported that they were encouraged by their family to gain education and experience. This generally had an important facilitating effect on succession.

The reflective, semi-structured interviews allowed the daughter participants to share, in their own words, their perceptions and understandings of their experiences that led to their current positions of leadership in their family businesses. FOB owners’ daughters (D) asked, “What kind of work experience do you have? Did you work outside the family business? If yes, why did you leave? What do you bring to the family business as a result of this work? Did the family business encourage you in outside work experience? Why or why not?” Participants were encouraged to say as much as they wanted before further probing questions were asked.

In a number of cases in this study, the daughters reported that they were encouraged by their family to gain education and experience. Some (D3, D19) reported that they have an outside experience even though they were not encouraged, while some (D17, D20) reported they don’t have, even though, they were encouraged. Such daughters, who represent 50% of the sample, as can be seen on the table, have very well-educated families table 6.

On the other hand, ten participants reported that they were not encouraged by their families to gain outside experience. As can be mentioned in literature review section paternalism occurs in a hierarchical relationship between a “superior” and “subordinate” who occupy different roles and the role of the “superior” is provide care, protection and guidance to the “subordinate” in both work and non-work domains Mussolino & Calabro, 2014. In a broad sense, in the FOB context, paternalist FOB owners seem to protect daughters not only from the outside experience but also working life. Additionally, as can be seen at Table, 70% of daughters’ who hasn’t got any outside experience works in FOBs, the only one has a university graduated father, rest of those 70%’s father is graduated from high school and lower. When we look at those 70%’s mothers’ education, the highest degree is high school graduation table 7.

Family characteristics influence the successor’s development because they affect the quality of the relationship between predecessor and successor, and the level of family commitment to the business. This section has shown that uneducated family business owners do not tend to send their daughters another company to gain outside experience whereas educated families support and encourage their daughters to do this.

In 12 cases, either under their family’s influence or through their own decision, early commitment during childhood or as the basis of their educational choice was reported as a motivation factor by the daughters. During interviews conducted for this study, daughters who work at their family business made the statements that demonstrate the research approach and provide an induction for the topic the study will investigate. Quotes demonstrating early commitment attributes in twelve interview partners can be found below.

Table 8 gives an overview of the early committed daughters’ motivation issues. In a number of cases, there was a clear interest in the activities of the family business. Additionally, some reported a general interest in the business, which influences their decisions.

Six interview partners also expressed the feeling a connection between employees. Interview partners D1, D3, D5, D7, and D13 reported feeling the father’s wish early for the child to join the family business. D5 reported having felt a sense of responsibility and obligation to the family. D4 made their decision rather early, as their decisions also depended on their older brother’s decision. D11 mentioned the need to combine work and childcare demands as reasons for considering joining the family business. D11 stressed the financial issue as a motivation factor and having more holidays was also stressed by D5 as a pushing factor to the business. The comments of D3, D6, and D9 demonstrated their great respect for their fathers’ sacrifice for the business, highlighting the importance of their fathers’ efforts to enable them to run the businesses, and his necessity to push them to work there table 8

As the leaders of the family business and the person to choose their successors, fathers’ assessments of their daughters’ capabilities may influence their decision to appoint a daughter as a successor (Overbeke et al., 2015). In many cases, the daughters in this study mentioned that their father’s decision was important and was aware of the importance of their relationship with their father to be selected, as the following comments demonstrate.

“We have a very close relationship with him. He always respects my work and appreciates my effort. I am happy about the relationship between us.” (D1)

“He is the Chairman of the Board and the main decision maker. I am dealing with Human Resources and Brand Management. We have generational gaps as do all daughters and fathers but we are working in harmony. He is quite a paternalistic father in the business. He wants to control everything that has been done.” (D2)

“He is respectful and encouraging but it was also hard to earn it. He wants me to decide on lots of things but sometimes I need support.” (D5)

“I am happy that I have worked together with my father because I am a real daddy’s little girl and to me, my father was always my security blanket. I am happy about it.” (D7)

“I am always my father’s little girl and I gave up insisting on changing it. Because of his attitude, employees never see me as an ordinary employee. I am everybody’s little sappy staff. I don’t care at the moment but I don’t know what I will feel when I am getting older.” (D14)

“I am very happy about our relationship. He is always the same, whether at home or at the factory.” (D17)

A cooperative relationship between father and daughter is seen as beneficial for the succession process. However, this relationship can be harmed by conflict or leave the successor unspecified. As well as the relationship with the incumbent, a positive relationship between daughter and brother can help the daughter take over. For example, even though D13 has not yet been named as the successor, she implies that her good relationship with her twin brother also strengthens her relationship with her father:

“We don’t talk of those kinds of things in our business and my father always says he will leave this business to us. He always wants us to work on ourselves. He says, the more we improve this business, the more we will be happy and comfortable. We do everything with my brother and I think we will run it together without indicating that one is more responsible than the other.” In a couple of cases, however, conflict reported between cousins was found to harm the daughter’s succession chances.

Additionally, this study shows that traditional patriarchal family leaders cannot establish a close relationship with their daughters and fail to consider their daughters as a successor. This was found to be relevant in four succession cases.

The following accounts illustrate these daughters’ descriptions of their relationship with their father.

“He is the Chairman of the Board and the main decision maker. I am dealing with Human resources and Brand Management. We have generational gaps as do all daughters and fathers but we are working in harmony. He is quite a paternalistic father in the business. He wants to control everything that has been done. I want him to be more relaxed, more objective and to give us more freedom when demonstrating ourselves.” (D2)

“He is two completely different guys at home and at the factory. To be honest, I do not want to meet him with someone else.” (D16)

“We are a very strong patriarchal family. Our father didn’t carry us on his shoulders when we were kids. He didn’t use to kiss us when family members were around. We have to show respect to our family elders. I cannot blame my father because he grew up in a more paternalistic family. He is better now, but I really used to be scared of him when I first started to work.” (D18)
“He didn’t support me when I wanted to work in our business. As I said before, I had very different and bad experiences. My father knew that I was really interested in continuing to lead the company and I was also interested in a complete takeover of the business; that’s why we couldn’t establish an ordinary relationship. But now he really appreciates me a lot.” (D19)

The owner of Company 2 had not specified his successor when the interview took place, and there was serious conflict between the cousins. Similarly, at Company 16, even though D16 is the eldest child, she was not considered a viable successor by her father because the business is in farming. Company 19’s owner also tried to direct his daughter away from their family business as he wanted to hand over the business to his son However, the latter’s lack of interest gave the daughter an opportunity, who seems to work with great enthusiasm despite knowing that she has no chance of taking over the business. Results also show that family members’ relationships and the relationship with the father motivate daughters to work in their father’s FOB.

Unlike the psychological factors, which are closely linked to the conception of the model of man, situational factors focus more on aspects characterising the environment of the organisation in which the steward relationship occurs? The most important factors of this type are management philosophy and organisational culture [186]. The underlying assumptions about the model of man espoused by the founder undergird managerial philosophies that influence organisational structures and policies Hayek, et al. 2015. For instance, the founder who adopts an agency philosophy assumes that individuals within the organisation are self-interested whereas the founder who embraces the stewardship perspective maintains that individuals are trustworthy, intrinsically motivated, and stewards.

Stewardship relationships can only arise when the necessary situational factors and structures related to the organisation are in place, and when the individuals involved have appropriate psychological profiles Toivonen & Toivonen, [174].

Companies try to create what they regard as the optimal conditions to produce goods or deliver services. However, local conditions, particularly industrial relations and legal arrangements, may prevent companies freely determining their companies’ working and employment conditions Schief, 2010. Although a wide variety of barriers has been examined in the literature on daughters’ succession, the importance of a FOB’s location has been ignored.

For example, Kimelberg and Williams 2013 studied the importance of business location factors but not the family business or daughters’ exclusion. In many cases in the current study, the daughters considered the location of the family business unsuitable in terms of quality of life. Kimelberg and Williams 2013 define the quality of life factors as including the cost of housing, desirable natural resources, convenient transport options, and amenities, ranging from restaurants and nightlife to cultural and sporting events. Because of their quality of life expectations, in some cases, daughters viewed the family business’s location as a major barrier to their succession.

D3, for example, stated, “I wanted to stay in Istanbul, but our factory was bigger than the one I worked for and I thought I could improve myself and our business by working for us. Additionally, my salary wasn’t enough for life in Istanbul. I am back to xx (The city where their factory is located in central Anatolia).” Like other successors, the new generation of Turkish entrepreneurs prefer a large metropolis, like Istanbul, over smaller cities. However, even though D3 had tried to live in Istanbul, she had finally decided to return to her family’s business area although she intended to leave the small city because she did not want to spend her life there. In another case, D10 stressed that location was a main concern for her succession “I am working in our family business but we are in different cities. I manage our headquarters and I am responsible for customer relations and HR staff with other responsibilities. The sustainability of our business depends on finding a very successful manager in place of my father because I can’t live in that city. This is my biggest concern and I am sure it will be the problem when the succession occurs.” Similarly, D19 stated (Appendix 2: Question 7), “The shop I own is in Istanbul. Our first shop and workshop is in another city. Luckily my father hasn’t been thinking to leave yet, but if he resigns, I think the employees who work there will be upset by his absence.” When asked for her advice to other daughters engaged in succession, D10 again stressed location “If they are not living in the same city of their factory, they should know that it will be very difficult.” One father wanting to hand over the business to his son also mentioned this factor.

When asked whether gender makes any difference when evaluating the successor, he responded, “It is very important for our culture, especially in the Black Sea region. Every father wants to leave his business to his sons. But, unfortunately, my son did not do it, did not work in this sector. He graduated in the US, and it affected his lifestyle very much; and when he came back, he couldn’t cope with Turkish business life, especially in our sector. But, as I said, gender is very important for even choosing the manager.” As shown in this case, sometimes location may help rather than hinder the daughters.

When asked to evaluate Turkey as a favourable country for women managers, one father, O4, stressed location, “Especially here (The city where they operate is in northeast Turkey); that’s why my daughter prefers to stay in Istanbul. Istanbul is a more European city; people are used to seeing women in business life. My daughter spent 7 years in Europe and she is very familiar with its culture. Therefore, she doesn’t care what people think about her. But here it is very important and she won’t be able to live that life here.” O10 and O16 also mentioned location: “I cannot generalise it. When my daughter comes here (the northern Turkish city where O10’s business is situated), she says she is not as comfortable as she is in Istanbul. People concentrate on their family life more here, rather than their business life, especially women. They don’t prefer to work even though they have a university degree. Istanbul is different, but in this region, it is not easy for a woman.”

“Our factory is very close to Istanbul and my daughter lives in Istanbul and goes to our office every day regularly and sometimes comes here to our (O16’s) factory (based very close to Istanbul in a small city on the European side). She says she is more comfortable in Istanbul. I mean, I cannot say the whole of Turkey is favourable to women leaders, but I can say Istanbul is suitable for them.”

In this study, 4 of 20 (D4, D10, D16 and D19) successor daughters live in a different city to that of their family business. In two cases (D4, D10), having an education abroad is a key reason for their preferences. Both of these interview partners indicated the importance of “quality of life” that they cannot find where the family business is. Similarly, D16 finds her hometown and the location of their factory area very conservative compared to Istanbul. In short, the location of the business should be considered as an important factor in daughters’ succession process since expectations about the quality of life for the new generation of Turkish women may facilitate or hinder FOB succession.

The aim of the current study was to better understand daughter succession and the succession decision process in Turkish FOBs from the perspectives of the incumbent, using the principles of stewardship theory. This study examined the nature of such family businesses in an attempt to explain why some family businesses in Turkey accept daughters as a successor easily and others do so with difficulty.

The conceptual framework of the study presented key drivers and challenges identified in the extant literature and introduced issues of succession, drivers, contributions, and challenges in selecting daughters’ as a successor. Drawing on empirical material collected through semi-structured interviews with participant FOB owners and daughters, the study highlighted the importance of FOB owners’ demographics in the daughter succession process in Turkish FOBs.

The current analysis revealed several gendered assumptions stemming from the business culture. The succession process, especially a daughter’s succession, was deeply influenced by the owner’s gendered attitudes. It comes as no surprise that several incumbent FOB owners declared that gender is an important factor in selecting a successor. Majority of FOB owners, who were all male, acknowledged the importance of gender while evaluating the successor selection process. They stressed the difficulties of being a woman in business life, seeing marriage and motherhood as barriers to women’s employment, and assuming that business life in Turkey is a man’s world. Additionally, some owners considered the business sector of their company as a barrier for women, claiming that, as well as gender being an important factor for evaluating the successor, the company’s business sector also plays an important role.

The most important and interesting result is that some owners did not agree with evaluating gender while considering their successor, claiming that they just look at talent. This appears to be related to their educational backgrounds rather than cultural norms because two of them had PhDs, two had master degrees while the other four had all graduated from universities.

This study show that gendered norms are still considered when choosing the successor, in other word, primogeniture still dominates the family business succession process. Daughters, if they have an elder brother who does not choose another career, are not considered for leadership roles in a family business. However, in some cases, it was observed that when first-born sons reject the family business as a career option, daughters are considered as a successor. Additionally, sometimes, the sector that the family operates in is considered unsuitable for a man by the son so it opens up daughter’s succession path. However, a majority of owners tend to make their sons their next leader. In terms of entrepreneurship characteristics, research indicates that some cultures are more supportive of entrepreneurship activities. For instance, entrepreneurship tends to be lower in collectivist cultures, in which group thinking may outweigh individual initiative so few individuals would put their entrepreneurial ambitions into action. This research’s interview results show that first generation family business culture leaders more easily accept a daughter as a successor without considering gender as a critical factor. This is because the founder of the family business often displays characteristics of an entrepreneurial personality.

The interviews with the fathers also demonstrated that their first concern about their daughter’s succession stems from their guardian instinct, thinking that business life is unsuitable for their daughters. While a majority of fathers think that Turkey is an unfavourable country for working women, a majority also emphasise that the region within Turkey also matters. While major cities like Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, or western Turkey more generally, are suitable for women in business life, Anatolia and northern Turkey are considered unfavourable to women by both daughters and fathers. Regarding FOB employees’ views, this study demonstrates that there is no general trend across FOBs in Turkey. Even within the same city or region, the employees from separate FOBs had different attitudes regarding the daughter’s succession.

In preparing for fieldwork, an interesting finding was that whereas all the women contacted for an interview agreed to participate, it was difficult to persuade fathers to do so, which highlights a generational difference regarding FOB privacy. Similarly, most FOB owners did not give information about their FOB’s rules. Even though they were assured of keeping the information safe, they feel their FOB like their own family and privacy is considered as their safety. This study confirms that a majority of Turkish families are still paternalistic, especially regarding their daughters, both within the family and in their family business. While education, work experience, interpersonal relations, foreign language skills, and family ties are push factors for the fathers, work experience, recognition by employees, and interpersonal relations are push factors for the daughters. On the other hand, sector and location maybe both pull and push factor for daughters, depending on the circumstances.

Regarding entrepreneurship for the new generation of Turkish women, a majority of the fathers believe there are no limits to what their daughters can achieve in business life. Due to being well-prepared, educated, and experienced, Turkish women entrepreneurs no longer feel any differences from their male counterparts in business life. However, even though FOB owner and family accept their daughters’ capacities and capabilities for managing the organisation, the majority of them agree with Turkey’s paternalistic environment, as well as cultural factors for accepting daughters as an entrepreneur.

This study investigated daughters’ succession in FOBs in Turkey, a developing country where women are less likely than men to engage in entrepreneurial activities.

1. Adams  A F, Manners G E, Astrachan J H, Mazzola P. The importance of integrated goal setting: The application of cost-of-capital concepts to private firms. Family Business Review. 2004; 17(4): 287-302. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2004.00019.x
2. A l Dajani H, Bika Z, Collins L, Swail J. Gender and family business: New theoretical directions. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship. 2014; 6(3): 218-230. doi:10.1108/IJGE-11-2013-0069
3. Andrews T. What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal. 2012.
4. Anshu, M. women in family business. International Journal of Computer Science and Management Studies. 2012; 12(2): 34-40.
5. Arregle J, Hitt M A, Sirmon D G, Very P. The development of organisational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies. 2007; 44(1): 73-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x
6. Astrachan J H. Commentary on the special issue: The emergence of a field. Journal of Business Venturing. 2003; 18(5): 567-572. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00010-7
7. Avloniti A, Iatridou A, Kaloupsis I, Vozikis G S. Sibling rivalry: Implications for the family business succession process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2014; 10(4): 661-678. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0271-6
8. Ayranci E. Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research. Business and Economic Horizons. 2010; 3(3): 83-104.
9. Ayranci E, Gurbuz T. Considering glass ceiling in turkey: Ideas of executives in education sector regarding women in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Studies. 2012; 2(4): 124-151. doi: 10.5296/ijhrs.v2i4.2583
10. Barnes L. Incongruent hierarchies: Daughters and younger sons as company CEOs. Family Business Review. 1988; 1(1): 9-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1988.00009.x
11. Barrett M, Moores K. Spotlights and shadows: Preliminary findings about the experiences of women in family business leadership roles. Journal of Management & Organisation. 2009; 15(3): 363-377. doi:10.5172/jmo.15.3.363
12. Bennett R, Dann, S. Like mother like daughter? A study of the impact of age on entrepreneurial women in australia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2000.
13. Bizri R. Succession in the family business: Drivers and pathways. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior& Research. 2016; 22(1): 133-154. doi:10.1108/IJEBR-01-2015-0020
14. Bozer G, Levin L, Santora J C. Succession in family business: Multi-source perspectives. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2017; 24(4): 753-774. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-10-2016-0163
15. Breton Miller I L, Miller D, Steier L P. Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2004; 28(4): 305-328. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00047.x
16. Brice W D, Jones W D. The cultural foundations of family business management: Evidence from ukraine. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics. 2008.
17. Busser J A. Hiring the right person. JOPERD--the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 1996.
18. Cabrera Suárez M K, de la Cruz Déniz Déniz M, Martín-Santana J D. Familiness and market orientation: A stakeholder approach. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2011; 2(1): 34-42. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2011.01.001
19. Cadieux L, Lorrain J, Hugron P. Succession in women-owned family businesses: A case study. Family Business Review. 2002; 15(1): 17-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00017.x
20. Caliskan N, Icke T. Turkish corporate governance principles and its implications for ISE corporate governance index companies. Journal of Accounting and Finance. 2011.
21. Cardona F, Raffaelli D. ACCOUNTS OF INTERVENTIONS: Turbulent family and organisational dynamics in the context of succession in a family business: A joint intervention to contain and work through destructive oedipal forces 1. Organisational and Social Dynamics. 2016.
22. Cetin S, Gayipov Y, Akgemci T. Problems and solutions in human resources management of family business: A research in konya city. Postmodern Openings. 2016; 7(1): 79-105. doi:10.18662/po/2016.0701.06
23. Chrisman J J, Bauerschmidt A, Hofer C W. The determinants of new venture perfomance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 1998; 23(1): 5-29. doi: 10.1177/104225879802300101
24. Chrisman J J, Chua J H, Kellermanns F W, Chang, E P C. Are family managers agents or stewards? an exploratory study in privately held family firms. Journal of Business Research. 2007; 60(10): 1030-1038. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.011
25. Chrisman J J, Chua J H, Sharma P, Yoder T R. Guiding family businesses through the succession process. The CPA Journal. 2009.
26. Chu W. “Family ownership and firm performance: influence of family management, family control, and firm size”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2011; 28(4): 833-851. doi: 10.1007/s10490-009-9180-1
27. Chua J H, Chrisman J J, Sharma P. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 1999; 23(4): 19-39. doi: 10.1177/104225879902300402
28. Chua J H, Chrisman J J, Steier L P. Extending the theoretical horizons of family business research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2003; 27(4): 331-338. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.00012
29. Chung H M, Chan S T. Ownership structure, family leadership, and performance of affiliate firms in large family business group. Asia Pac J Management. 2012; 29(2): 303-329. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9281-5 
30. Cole G A. Personnel management: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London: Letts Educational. 1997
31. Collings D G, Wood G. Human resource management: A critical approach. London: Routledge. 2009
32. Constantinidis, C, Nelson T. Integrating succession and gender issues from the perspective of the daughter of family enterprise: A cross-national investigation. Management International. 2009; 14(1): 43-54. doi: 10.7202/039138ar
33. Cowan P M, Milne P D. The family business history: A catalyst to a successful succession plan--plan II: Researching and writing the history. CPA Consultant. 2001.
34. Curimbaba, F. The dynamics of women's roles as family business managers. Family Business Review. 2002.
35. Danes S M, Olson P D. Women's role involvement in family businesses, business tensions, and business success. Family Business Review. 2003; 16(1): 53-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2003.00053.x
36. Danes S M, Lee J, Amarapunkar S, Stafford K, Haynes G, Brewton K E. determinants of family business resilience after a natural disaster by gender of business owner. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 2009; 14(4): 333-354. doi:10.1142/S1084946709001351
37. Danes S M, Stafford K, Loy J T. Family business performance: The effects of gender and management. Journal of Business Researc. 2007; 60(10): 1058-1069. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.013
38. Davidson M J, Cooper C L. Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman manager. Paul Chapman Publishing:LONDON. 1992
39. Davidson M J. Women in management worldwide : Progress and prospects (2nd ed.) Taylor and Francis. 2016
40. Davidson M, Burke R J. Women in management worldwide: Progress and prospects. Farnham: Gower. 2011
41. Davis J H, Allen M R, Hayes H D. Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2010; 34(6): 1093-1116. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00415.x
42. De Massis A, Chua J H, Chrisman J J. Factors preventing intra-family succession. Family Business Review. 2008; 21(2): 183-199. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00118.x
43. DeMatteo L A. From hierarchy to unity between men and women managers. Women in Management Review. 1994; 9(7): 21-28. doi:10.1108/09649429410069944
44. Demir C, AyyildizUnnu N A, Erturk E. Diagnosing the organisational culture of a turkish pharmaceutical company based on the competing values framework. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2011; 12(1): 197-217. doi:10.3846/16111699.2011.555451
45. Donaldson L. The ethereal hand: Organisational economics and management theory. The Academy of Management Review. 1990; 15(3): 369-381. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.4308806
46. Dow S, McGuire J. Family matters? A Cross‐National analysis of the performance implications of family ownership. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2016; 24(6): 584-598. doi:10.1111/corg.12155
47. Duh M. Family business succession as knowledge creation process.Kybernetes. 2014; 43(5): 699-714. doi:10.1108/K-08-2013-0172
48. Dumas C. Understanding of father-daughter and father-son dyads in family-owned businesses. Family Business Review. 1989; 2(1): 31-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1989.00031.x
49. Dumas C. Integrating the daughter into family business management. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 1992; 16(4): 41-56. doi: 10.1177/104225879201600403
50. Dumas C. Women's pathways to participation and leadership in the family-owned firm. Family Business Review. 1998; 11(3): 219-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1998.00219.x
51. Dyck B Starke F A, Mischke G A, Mauws M. Passing the baton: The importance of sequence, timing, technique and communication in executive succession. Journal of Business Venturing. 2002; 17(2): 143-162. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00056-2
52. Entwisle B, Henderson G E, Short S E Bouma J, Fengying Z. Gender and family businesses in rural china. American Sociological Review. 1995; 60(1): 36-57. doi: 10.2307/2096344
53. European Commission Country Report (2016), Gender Equality, Retrieved from.
54.  European Family Business (2016), Hidden growth within family businesses Retrieved from
55. EY (Earnst and Young) Global Family Business Survey (2015), ttp://familybusinessblog.ey.com/2014/07/14/family-business-booms-in-turkey/
56. Fairlie R W, Robb A M. Gender differences in business performance: Evidence from the characteristics of business owners survey. Small Business Economics. 2009; 33(4): 375-395. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9207-5
57. Fattoum S, Byrne J. The role of gender in family firm succession: Case studies from france. ICSB World Conference Proceeding. 2011.
58. Fiegener M K, Brown B M, Prince R A, File K M. Passing on strategic vision: Favored modes of successor preparation by CEOs of family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Small Business Management. 1996; 34(3): 15-26.
59. Francis A E. The Daughter Also Rises, 1st Ed. Rudi Publishing; San Francisco. 1999
60. Galletta A. Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York: New York University Press. 2013. doi: 10.18574/nyu/9780814732939.001.0001
61. Gao F Y, Bai S, Shi K. The effects of transformational leadership in chinese family business how should family business lead their family employees? International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance. 2011; 2(3): 218-224. doi:10.7763/IJTEF.2011.V2.106
62. Garcia-Alvarez E, López-Sintas J, SaldañaGonzalvo P. Socialization patterns of successors in first- to second-generation family businesses. Family Business Review. 2002; 15(3): 189-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00189.x
63. Gherardi S, Perrotta M. Daughters taking over the family business: Their justification work within a dual regime of engagement. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship. 2016; 8(1): 28-47. doi: 10.1108/IJGE-11-2014-0044
64. Gilding M, Gregory S, Cosson B. Motives and outcomes in family business succession planning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2015; 39(2): 299-312. doi:10.1111/etap.12040
65. Global Gender Gap Report (2016). Retrieved from. 
66. Glover, D., & Kaplan, C. (2009). Genders. London: Routledge.
67. Glover J L. Gender, power, and succession in family farm business. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship. 2014; 6(3): 276-295. doi:10.1108/IJGE-01-2012-0006
68. Gomez-Mejia L R, Nuñez-Nickel M, Gutierrez I. The role of family ties in agency contracts. The Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44(1), 81-95. doi:10.2307/3069338
69. Grusec J E. Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of robert sears and albert bandura. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28(5): 776-786. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.28.5.776
70. Gunduz Hosgor A, Smits J. Variation in labor market participation of married women in turkey. Women's Studies International Forum. 2008; 31(2): 104-117. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2008.03.003
71. Gupta V, Levenburg N. Cultures, ideologies and family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management. 2012; 2(1): 57-75. doi:10.1108/20436231211216420
72. Habbershon T, Williams M L. A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Revie. 1999; 12 (1): 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00001.x
73. Haberman H, Danes S M. Father-daughter and father-son family business management transfer comparison: Family FIRO model application. Family Business Review. 2007; 20(2): 163-184. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00088.x
74. Halkias D, Thurman P W, Smith C, Nason R S. Father-Daughter Succession in Family Business. GOWER- England-US. 2011.
75. Hamilton E. Entrepreneurship across generations: Narrative, gender and learning in family business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2013.
76. Handler W C. Key interpersonal relationships of next-generation family members in family firms. Journal of Small Business Management. 1991.
77. Handler W C. Succession in family business: A review of the research.Family Business Review. 1994; 7(2): 2133-157. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1994.00133.x
78. Hartel C E, Bozer G, Levin L. Family business leadership transition: How an adaptation of executive coaching may help. Journal of Management & Organisation. 2009; 15(3), 378-391. doi:10.1017/S1833367200002686
79. Harveston P D, Davis P S, Lynden J A. Succession planning in family business: the impact of owner gender. Family Business Review. 1997; 10(4): 373–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00373.x
80. Hiebl M R W. Family involvement and organizational ambidexterity in later-generation family businesses: A framework for further investigation. Management Decision. 2015; 53(5): doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2014-0191
81. Hollander B S, Bukowitz W R. Women, family culture and family Business, Family Business Review. 1990; 3(2): 139-151. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1990.00139.x
82. House of Common Statistics (2016), Retrieved from,  http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06152
83. http://tusiad.org/tr/basin-bultenleri/item/9549-tusiad-ve-turkiye-aile-isletmeleri-dernegi-taider-aile-sirketlerinde-surdurulebilirlik-konusunu-ele-alacak
84. https://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey
85. Huang Y, Ding H, Kao M. Salient stakeholder voices: Family business and green innovation adoption. Journal of Management & Organisatio. 2009; 15(3): 309-326. doi: 10.1017/S1833367200002649
86. Huff L C, Smith S M. Cross-cultural business research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Research. 2008; 61(3): 179-182. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.001
87. Humphreys J H, Pane Haden S, Hayek M, Einstein J, Fertig J, Paczkowski et al. Entrepreneurial stewardship and implicit CSR: The responsible leadership of lilliansheddMcMurry. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 2013; 18(3): 25-50. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2012.111
88. Humphreys M M C. Daughter succession: A predominance of human issues. Journal of Family Business Management. 2013; 3(1): 24-44. doi:10.1108/20436231311326472
89. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, 2013
90. Javidan M, Bullough A, Dibble R. mind the gap: Gender differences in global leadership self-efficacies. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 2016; 30(1): 59. doi: 10.5465/amp.2015.0035
91. Jiang Y, Peng M W. Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies. 2010; 47(2): 253-273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00890.x
92. Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (Fifth ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications. 2014.
93. Karaevli A, Yurtoglu B B. Founding family effects on business group growth: Longitudinal evidence from Turkey, (1925-2012). Long Range Planning. 2017; 51(6): 831-864. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.003
94. Kaufman G, White D. What makes a “Good job”? gender role attitudes and job preferences in sweden. Gender Issues. 2015; 32(4): 279-294. doi:10.1007/s12147-015-9145-2
95. Kaymaz K, Demircan H, Eroğlu U. the reasons and effects of perceived conflict on the performance of professional managers in turkish family businesses. Is, Güc: EndüstriIliskileriVeInsanKaynaklariDergisi. 2016; 18(4): 203-219. doi:10.1177/1470595811399189
96. Keles H N, Ozkan T K, Bezirci M. A study on the effects of nepotism, favoritism and cronyism on organisational trust in the auditing process in family businesses in turkey. The International Business & Economics Research Journal. 2011; 10(9): 9-16. doi: 10.19030/iber.v10i9.5622
97. Keyt A. Myths and mortals: Family business leadership and succession planning. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. 2015; 5(2): doi:10.1108/JFBM-07-2015-0026
98. Kidwell R E, Hoy F, Ibarreche S. “Ethnic” family business or just family business? human resource practices in the ethnic family firm. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2012; 3(1): 12-17. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.01.004
99. Kizildag D. Silence of female family members in family firms. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2013
100. Kontinen T, Ojala A. The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2010; 1(2): 97-107. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.04.001
101. Kontinen T, Ojala A. Internationalization pathways among family-owned SMEs. International Marketing Review. 2012; 29(5): 496-518. doi: 10.1108/02651331211260359
102. Kozan M K, Oksoy D, Ozsoy O. Growth plans of small businesses in turkey: Individual and environmental influences. Journal of Small Business Management. 2006; 44(1): 114-129. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00157.x
103. Kula V, Tatoglu E. Board process attributes and company performance of family-owned businesses in turkey. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 2006; 6(5): 624-634. doi:10.1108/14720700610706108
104. Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA;London;: SAGE. 2009
105. Kyriakidou O. Gender, management and leadership. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2011; 31(1): 4-9. doi:10.1108/02610151211201296
106. Le Breton Miller I, Miller D. The paradox of resource vulnerability: Considerations for organizational curatorship. Strategic Management Journal. 2015; 36(3): 397-415. Doi: 10.1002/smj.2220
107. Lee Y G, Fitzgerald M A, Bartkus K R. Adjustment strategy use in minority family businesses: Differences across gender. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015. doi:10.1007/s10834-015-9478-8
108. Li Y. An empirical study on the succession performance of family business. Management & Engineering. 2015; (21): 66-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5503/J.ME.2015.21.011
109. Lingas K. Family businesses and the gender of entrepreneurship. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2013; 2(1): 1-7. doi:10.1186/2192-5372-2-4
110. Lipman F D. The family business guide: Everything you need to know to manage your business from legal planning to business strategies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2010.
111. Lissoni J, Pereira M F, Almeida M I R, Serra F R. Family business: How family and ownership shapes business professionalization/Empresasfamiliares: Como a família e a propriedademodelam a profissionalização do negócio/Empresasfamiliares: Cómo la familia y la propiedadmodelan la profesionalizacióndelnegocio. RevistaBrasileira De Gestão De Negócios. 2010; 12(37): 464-479.
112. Lubatkin M H, Ling Y, Schulze W S. An organisational Justice‐Based view of Self‐Control and agency costs in family firms. Journal of Management Studies. 2007; 44(6): 955-971. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00673.x
113. Lussier R N, Sonfield M C. founder influence in family businesses: Analyzing combined data from six diverse countries. Journal of Small Business Strategy. 2009.
114. Lussier R N, Sonfield M C. “Micro” versus “small” family businesses: A multinational analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2015; 22(3): 380-396. doi:10.1108/JSBED-02-2015-0029
115. Lyman A, Salganicoff M, Hollander B. Women in family business: An untapped resource. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal. 1985; 50(1): 46.
116. Maden C. A gendered lens on entrepreneurship: Women entrepreneurship in turkey. Gender in Management. 2015; 30(4): 312-331.  doi: 10.1108/GM-11-2013-0131
117. Marshall J. Women managers moving on: Exploring career and life choices. Routledge. 1995.
118. Martinez Jimenez R. “Research on Women in Family Firms: Current Status and Future Directions”, Family Business Review. 2009; 22(1): 53-64. doi: 10.1177/0894486508328813
119. Masuo D, Fong G, Yanagida J, Cabal C. Factors associated with business and family success: A comparison of single manager and dual manager family business households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2001; 22(1): 55-73. doi:10.1023/A:1009492604067
120. Miller D, Minichilli A, Corbetta G. Is family leadership always beneficial? Strategic Management Journal. 2013; 34(5): 553-571. doi:10.1002/smj.2024
121. Miller D, Steier L, Le Breton Miller I. Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing. 2003; 18(4): 513-531. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00058-2
122. Miller S P. Next-generation leadership development in family businesses: The critical roles of shared vision and family climate. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5: 1335. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01335
123. Mitter C, Duller C, Feldbauer Durstmüller B, Kraus S. Internationalization of family firms: The effect of ownership and governance. Review of Managerial Science. 2014; 8(1): 1-28. doi:10.1007/s11846-012-0093-x
124. Moore, F. (2004). Class, gender and the family business SAGE Publications.
125. Moores K, Barrett M A. Learning family business: Paradoxes and Pathways. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. 2002.
126. Morris M H, Williams R O, Allen J A, Avila R A. Correlates of success in family business transitions. Journal of Business Venturing. 1997; 12(5): 385-401. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)000104
127. Morris M H, Williams R W, Nel D. Factors influencing family business succession. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. 1996; 2(3): 68-81. doi:10.1108/13552559610153261
128. OECD Better Life Index (2016), Retrieved from
129. OECD Economic Survey (July, 2016), Retrieved from
130. OECD Employment Outlook (2016), Retrieved from
131. OECD Employment Outlook (2017), Retrieved from
132. Olson P D, Zuiker V S, Danes S M, Stafford K, Heck R K Z, Duncan K A. The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing. 2003; 18(5): 639-666. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)000144
133. Otten Pappas D. The female perspective on family business successor commitment. Journal of Family Business Management. 2013; 3(1): 8-23. doi:10.1108/20436231311326463
134. Overbeke K K, Bilimoria D. The dearth of daughter successors in family businesses: Gendered norms, blindness to possibility, and invisibility. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2013; 4(3): 201-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.07.002
135. Overbeke K K, Bilimoria D, Somers T. Shared vision between fathers and daughters in family businesses: The determining factor that transforms daughters into successors. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00625
136. Pardo del val M. Succession in family firms from a multistaged perspective. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journa. 2009; 5(2): 165-179. doi: 10.1007/s11365-008-0092-1
137. Pearson A W, Carr J C, Shaw J C. Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2008; 32(6): 949-969. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x
138. Pekdemir I, Kocoglu M, Gurkan G C. The effects of harmony of family, distributive justice, and role ambiguity on family member impediment: The mediating role of relationship conflict as an example of developing country turkey. Asian Social Science. 2013; 9(9): doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n9p131
139. Philbrick C A, Fitzgerald M A. Women in business-owning families: A comparison of roles, responsibilities and predictors of family functionality. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2007; 28(4): 618-634. doi: 10.1007/s10834-007-9084-5
140. Poggesi S, Mari M, Vita L D. What's new in female entrepreneurship research? answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2016; 12(3): 735. doi:10.1007/s11365-015-0364-5
141. Powell G N, Francesco A M, Ling, Y. Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organisational Behavior. 2009; 30(5): 597-616. doi:10.1002/job.568
142. Pradhan S Ranajee. Value creation by family-owned businesses: A literature review. IUP Journal of Business Strategy. 2012; 9(4): 35-45.
143. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Doing Business in Turkey Report (2016), Retrieved from.
144. Pringle J K. Gender in management: Theorizing gender as heterogender. British Journal of Management. 2008; 19(s1): 110-119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00576.x
145. Quinlan C. Business research methods. Andover: Cengage Learning. 2011.
146. Remery C, Matser I, Floren R H. Successors in Dutch family businesses: gender differences", Journal of Family Business Management. 2014; 4(1): 79-91. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-09-2013-0021
147. Riccucci N M. Cultural diversity programs to prepare for work force 2000: What's gone wrong? Public Personnel Management. 1997; 26(1): 35-41. doi: 10.1177/009102609702600104
148. Rosenblatt P C, de Mik L, Anderson R M, Johnson P A. The family in business. San Francisco;Jossey-Bass. 1985.
149. Royer S, Simons R, Boyd B, Rafferty A. Promoting family: A contingency model of family business succession. Family Business Review. 2008; 21(1): 15-30. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00108.x
150. Ruijs, A, Leather S, Lodge C. Women managers in education - a worldwide progress report. Staff College. 1993.
151. Sales, M J. Succession planning in the family business. Small Business Reports. 1990.
152. Salganicoff M. "Women in family business: Challenges and Opportunities", Family Business Review. 1990; 3 (2): 125-138.
153. Saunders M, Lewis P & Thornhill A. Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education. 2012.
154. Saxena  A. Trans generational succession in business groups in india.  Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2013; 30(3): 769-789. 
155. Schlepphorst S & Moog P. Left in the dark: Family successors’ requirement profiles in the family business succession process. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.08.004
156. Schuman A, Stutz S & Ward J L. Family business as paradox. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2010
157. Selekler-Goksen N N & YildirimÖktem Ö. Countervailing institutional forces: Corporate governance in turkish family business groups. Journal of Management & Governance. 2009; 13(3): 193-213. doi:10.1007/s10997-009-9083-z
158. Sharma P. An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review. 2004; 17(1): 1-36
159. Sharma P, Chrisman J J & Chua J H. Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing. 2003; 18(5): 667-687. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00015-6
160. Sharma P, Chrisman J J, Pablo A. L & Chua J H. Determinants of initial satisfaction with the succession process in family firms: A conceptual model. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 2001; 25(3): 17
161. Sharma P, De Massis A & Gagne M. Family business: A fertile ground for research on time, teams and positive organisational study. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology. 2014; 23(5): 674-679. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.900046
162. Shaw I & Gould N. Qualitative research in social work. London: SAGE. 2001
163. Shinnar R S, Cho S & Rogoff E G. Outcomes of family involvement in minority owned family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2013; 4(1): 22-33. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.12.001
164. Simsek M. being a woman in turkey: An application. Economics, Management and Financial Markets. 2014; 9(4): 419
165. Sonfield M C & Lussier R N. Family-member and non-family-member managers in family businesses. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2009; 16(2): 196-209. doi:10.1108/14626000910956010
166. Sonfield M C & Lussier R N. Gender in family business ownership and management: A six-country analysis. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship. 2009; 1(2): 96-117. doi:10.1108/17566260910969661
167. Sonfield M C & Lussier R N. Gender in family business management: A multinational analysis. Journal of Family Business Management. 2012; 2(2): 110. doi:10.1108/20436231211261862
168. Sonfield M & Lussier R N. The influence of the entrepreneur's education level on strategic decision making. Journal of Small Business Strategy. 2014; 24(1): 19
169. Sorenson R, Yu A, Brigham K H & Lumpkin G T. The landscape of family business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 2013. doi:10.4337/9781782547549
170. Stafford K, Duncan K A, Danes, SM &Winter, M. A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review. 1999; 12(3): 197-208.
171. Stavrou E T. Succession in family businesses: Exploring the effects of demographic factors on offspring intentions to join and take over the business. Journal of Small Business Management.1999; 37(3): 43
172. The World Bank. 2018
173. Thiruvadi S & Huang H. Audit committee gender differences and earnings management. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 2011; 26(7): 483-498. doi:10.1108/17542411111175469
174. Toivonen A & Toivonen P U. The transformative effect of top management governance choices on project team identity and relationship with the organisation - an agency and stewardship approach. International Journal of Project Management. 2014; 32(8): 1358.
175. Turkish Statistical Institute Data. 2017
176. Turkish Statistical Institute Report. 2015
177. Turkish Statistical Institute, Income and Living Conditions Survey. 2015
178. TUSIAD (Turkish Industry & Business Association). 2016.
179. Tuzun I. K, Takay B. A, Batum U, & Ciftci S. A research on women entrepreneurship in turkey. International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship, 2015; 967.
180. Ufuk, H & Ozgen O. The profile of women entrepreneurs: a sample from Turkey. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2001; 25: 299–308. doi: 10.1046/j.1470-6431.2001.00197.x
181. Uhlaner L M, Hoy F, Eddleston K A & Kellermanns F W. The entrepreneuringfamily: A new paradigm for family business research. Small Business Economics. 2012; 38(1): 1-11. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9263-x
182. Unnu N. A. A &Kesken J. Diagnosing the effects of leader-member exchange quality on performance in the context of organisational culture: A case from turkish family-owned businesses. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2014; 15(1): 174-195. doi:10.3846/16111699.2011.653983
183. US Bureau of Labour Statistics. 2015. Retrieved from.
184. Vadnjal J &Zupan B. The role of women in family businesses. Economic and Business Review. 2010; 11(2); 159-177
185. Vadnjal J &Zupan B. Family business as a career opportunity for women. South East European Journal of Economics and Business. 2011; 6(2): 23-32. doi:10.2478/v10033-011-0013-z
186. Vallejo-Martos M C & Puentes-Poyatos R. Family firms as incubators for ethical behavior: An exploratory study from the perspective of stewardship theory. Journal of Management & Organisation. 2014; 20(6): 784-807. doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.55
187. Vallejo M C. The effects of commitment of non-family employees of family firms from the perspective of stewardship theory. Journal of Business Ethics. 2009; 87(3): 379-390. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9926-6
188. Vera C F & Dean M A. An examination of the challenges daughters face in family business succession. Family Business Review. 2005; 18(4): 321-345. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00051.x
189. Villalonga B & Amit R. How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics. 2006; 80(2): 385-417. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.005
190. Villalonga, B & Amit R. Family control of firms and industries. Financial Management. 2010; 39(3): 863-904. doi:10.1111/j.1755-053X.2010.01098.x
191. Walliman  N. S. R. Research methods: The basics. London: Routledge. 2011
192. Wang C. Daughter exclusion in family business succession: A review of the literature. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2010; 31(4): 475-484. doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9230-3
193. Ward J L. How family values and vision drive business strategy and Continuity/Cómolosvalores y la vision de las familiasdirigen la estrategia y la continuidad de la empresa.Universia Business Review 2011; (32): 26
194. Ward J L. keeping the family business healthy: How to plan continuing growth, profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. 1997
195. Ward J L. Keeping the family business healthy; How to plan continuing growth, profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. 1997
196. Whiteside, M. F &Herz-Brown F. Drawbacks of a dual systems approach to family firms: Can we expand our thinking? Family Business Review. 1991; 4: 383-395
197. Wiecek-Janka E, Mierzwiak R &Kijewska J. The analysis of barriers in succession processes of family business with the use of grey incidence analysis (polish perspective). NaseGospodarstvo. 2016; 62(2): 33-41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ngoe-2016-0010
198. Wilkinson D & Birmingham P. Using research instruments: A guide for researchers. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 2003; doi:10.4324/9780203422991
199. Worthley R, MacNab B, Brislin R, Ito K & Rose E. L. Workforce motivation in japan: An examination of gender differences and management perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2009; 20(7): 1503-1520. doi:10.1080/09585190902983421
200. Yan J & Sorenson R. The effect of Confucian values on succession in family business. Family Business Review. 2006; 19(3): 235-250
201. Yenilmez, M. I. The endurance of family businesses: A global overview by palomafernándezpérez and andreacolli. Journal of Women & Aging. 2015; 27(2):188
202. Zahra S. A. International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing. 2003; 18(4): 495-512. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00057-0
203. Zahra S. A. Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review. 2005; 18(1): 23-40
204. Zahra S. A. Organisational learning and entrepreneurship in family firms: Exploring the moderating effect of ownership and cohesion. Small Business Economics. 2012; 38(1): 51-65. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9266-7
205. Zhou Y, Hu Q, Yao J & Qin X. The determinants of family business owners intrafamily succession intention: An interplay between business owners and institutional environment. Chinese Management Studies. 2016; 10(4): 710-725. doi:10.1108/CMS-03-2016-0063