Studies investigating jobseeker responses
| Study | Methodology | Sample | IV | DV | Key finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covin (1994) | Survey | Students from the USA | Family ownership (own FB; some else’s FB, no FB) | Preference to work in a family firm | While 147 of the participants have a high preference for working in a family business (FB), 72 indicate a low preference for working in a FB |
| Ceja and Tàpies (2009) | Survey | Students mainly from Spain | Family vs nonfamily firm | Various constructs | Participants perceive FB to be more nepotistic, to have difficulties in attracting talented managers and to be slower in innovation and internationalization processes |
| Botero et al. (2012) | Experiment | Students from Australia | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm |
| Botero (2014) | Experiment | Students from the USA and China | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm |
| Block et al. (2016) | Survey | 12,150 individuals from 40 countries (e.g. EU27, the USA, Russia, China). | Family business vs publicly listed company/private company not family owned | Preference to work in a family firm | Only 4,719 of the respondents (= 38.8%) would prefer working in a FB |
| Hauswald et al. (2016) | Conjoint experiment | Students from Germany | Family influence | Entering into long-term employment relationships with family firms | Communicating family influence is generally positively related to jobseekers’ willingness of entering into a long-term employment relationship. Certain personal values (value conservation, self-transcendence) and hostility of the environment reinforce this positive effect |
| Kahlert et al. (2017) | Experiment | Students from Germany | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm |
| Arijs et al. (2018) | Survey | Students from the USA and Belgium | FB employer brand image | Job pursuit intention | Participants of both countries perceived components of the family business employer brand image (compensation, advancement, security, trustworthy, innovative, dominance, thrifty, style) as neutral or positive, with several having a positive effect on job pursuit intentions |
| Block et al. (2019) | Survey | 12,746 individuals in 40 countries | Family business vs publicly listed company/private company not family owned | Preference to work in a family firm | Individuals’ preferences to work for a family firms are moderated by the institutional context. Family firms are preferred in labor markets with unregulated hiring and firing practices, centralized wage determination and low cooperation between labor and employer |
| Methodology | Sample | IV | DV | Key finding | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survey | Students from the USA | Family ownership (own FB; some else’s FB, no FB) | Preference to work in a family firm | While 147 of the participants have a high preference for working in a family business (FB), 72 indicate a low preference for working in a FB | |
| Survey | Students mainly from Spain | Family vs nonfamily firm | Various constructs | Participants perceive FB to be more nepotistic, to have difficulties in attracting talented managers and to be slower in innovation and internationalization processes | |
| Experiment | Students from Australia | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm | |
| Experiment | Students from the USA and China | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm | |
| Survey | 12,150 individuals from 40 countries (e.g. EU27, the USA, Russia, China). | Family business vs publicly listed company/private company not family owned | Preference to work in a family firm | Only 4,719 of the respondents (= 38.8%) would prefer working in a FB | |
| Conjoint experiment | Students from Germany | Family influence | Entering into long-term employment relationships with family firms | Communicating family influence is generally positively related to jobseekers’ willingness of entering into a long-term employment relationship. Certain personal values (value conservation, self-transcendence) and hostility of the environment reinforce this positive effect | |
| Experiment | Students from Germany | Family business status (revealed vs concealed) | Attractiveness to the company | Communicating FB did not influence jobseekers’ attractiveness to the firm | |
| Survey | Students from the USA and Belgium | FB employer brand image | Job pursuit intention | Participants of both countries perceived components of the family business employer brand image (compensation, advancement, security, trustworthy, innovative, dominance, thrifty, style) as neutral or positive, with several having a positive effect on job pursuit intentions | |
| Survey | 12,746 individuals in 40 countries | Family business vs publicly listed company/private company not family owned | Preference to work in a family firm | Individuals’ preferences to work for a family firms are moderated by the institutional context. Family firms are preferred in labor markets with unregulated hiring and firing practices, centralized wage determination and low cooperation between labor and employer |
Notes:
Table 2: This table aims to provide an overview about important empirical studies on jobseeker perceptions of FB. I acknowledge that additional studies may exist that mention associations toward family businesses. Those studies, however, often build on anecdotal evidence or focus on an internal employee rather than on an external jobseeker perspective
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.