Loading...
Chiefdoms and family firm regimes
Family owned and managed firms exhibit remarkable parallels to pre-industrial chiefdoms because the typical economic environment in which they exist limits them to a size and scale equivalent to that of a chiefdom. Using anthropological research this study inventories all known procedures of accommo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
1996
|
| LEADER | 01562nab a22001217a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | 160615b1996 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 | |a Rogers, Elizabeth D | ||
| 245 | |a Chiefdoms and family firm regimes |c variations on the same anthropological themes / Rogers, Eli | ||
| 260 | |c 1996 | ||
| 300 | |a 15 - 27 | ||
| 520 | |a Family owned and managed firms exhibit remarkable parallels to pre-industrial chiefdoms because the typical economic environment in which they exist limits them to a size and scale equivalent to that of a chiefdom. Using anthropological research this study inventories all known procedures of accommodating multiple heirs to the paramountcy of pre-industrial chiefdoms. It uses this exhaustive inventory to characterize the succession process in modern family owned and managed firms. The major theoretical concept adopted from anthropology is that of polity, defined as an autonomous system of institutional finance and organizational support (resource control and governance). Using terms such as polity helps us to recognize the universality of succession processes. Succession processes in family firms are less idiosyncratic than we once thought. Thus, we can fruitfully explore structural similarities between pre-industrial organizations and modern family firms using the considerable body of field research literature on chiefdoms (Goody, 1958; Barrett, 1965) which finds that every scheme to accommodate multiple successors falls into one of two categories: (a) personnel strategies and... | ||
| 773 | |a Family Business Review |d Mar | ||
| 999 | |c 43530 |d 43530 | ||