Strategic decision-making processes in family businesses: The founding shareholder’s power play
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes to understand strategic decision-making within family businesses (FBs), with particular emphasis on the role of the different stakeholders in this decision-making. For this, we carried out a qualitative casuistic study. The convenience sampling method enabled us to constitute a sample of eight cases of FBs, with which we conducted semi-structured interviews. Thematic data analysis was made with the content of these interviews. The results obtained show that the decision-making process is not identical within the FBs. However, it remains a power play controlled directly and at different levels by the founding shareholder and indirectly by the members of his nuclear family. This process differs from the model of Fama (1980) and Fama and Jensen (1983) either by the size of the process and the intertwining of roles (Model 1) or by the level of involvement of the nuclear family in the process (Model 2). This article highlights the permanent involvement, formal and/or informal, of the family in the decision-making process and the need to encourage the establishment of a code of governance specific to these FBs
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it