Strategic decision-making processes in family businesses: The founding shareholder’s power play
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".