Synoptic representation of the case study evidence
| Investigated features | Main findings (factors hindering business succession planning) | Companies presenting this evidence (companies listed by letter references defined in Table 1) |
|---|---|---|
| Shared attitudes of the involved generations towards business transmission planning | Shared desire for business continuity, but different opinions about how to manage the founders' role after succession | All, with the exception of firm J |
| Avoidance of intergenerational conflict as far as possible | All | |
| Systematic procrastination of business succession to an uncertain future | All, with the exception of firm C | |
| Cultural, value and social factors influencing the attitudes towards business transmission planning | Shared ethical dimension: strong commitment to the business continuity, but at the same time conflicts with the personal aspirations of the next generation | Firms C, E, F, H and J |
| If the daughter is involved, the attitude is influenced by gender stereotypes | Firms A, H, I, J | |
| Shared perceived efficacy of the next generations towards business transmission | Disagreement on the level of effectiveness and competence of the next generation | All, with the exception of firms D and J |
| The sons often declared a high self-efficacy level, in comparison with the daughters | All, with the exception of B and G | |
| Nothing is done to encourage the development of the sense of self-efficacy: neither mentoring nor vicarious experiences | Firms A, C, F, I |
| Investigated features | Main findings (factors hindering business succession planning) | Companies presenting this evidence (companies listed by letter references defined in |
|---|---|---|
| Shared attitudes of the involved generations towards business transmission planning | Shared desire for business continuity, but different opinions about how to manage the founders' role after succession | All, with the exception of firm J |
| Avoidance of intergenerational conflict as far as possible | All | |
| Systematic procrastination of business succession to an uncertain future | All, with the exception of firm C | |
| Cultural, value and social factors influencing the attitudes towards business transmission planning | Shared ethical dimension: strong commitment to the business continuity, but at the same time conflicts with the personal aspirations of the next generation | Firms C, E, F, H and J |
| If the daughter is involved, the attitude is influenced by gender stereotypes | Firms A, H, I, J | |
| Shared perceived efficacy of the next generations towards business transmission | Disagreement on the level of effectiveness and competence of the next generation | All, with the exception of firms D and J |
| The sons often declared a high self-efficacy level, in comparison with the daughters | All, with the exception of B and G | |
| Nothing is done to encourage the development of the sense of self-efficacy: neither mentoring nor vicarious experiences | Firms A, C, F, I |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.