Finds documents with both search terms in any word order, permitting "n" words as a maximum distance between them. Best choose between 15 and 30 (e.g. NEAR(recruit, professionals, 20)).
Finds documents with the search term in word versions or composites. The asterisk * marks whether you wish them BEFORE, BEHIND, or BEFORE and BEHIND the search term (e.g. lightweight*, *lightweight, *lightweight*).
Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.
Select sections of text to find matching patents with Artificial Intelligence.
powered by
Select sections of text to find additional relevant content using AI-assisted search.
powered by
(Link opens in a new window)
Abstract
The article investigates the impact of religious and secular beliefs on the management of family firms, particularly in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. It introduces the concept of 'dialogue capacity' to describe how family firms handle their beliefs and values in a business context. The study focuses on the secularization process and how family firms adapt to this environment, highlighting the unique challenges and strategies they employ. The research reveals three distinct classifications of family firms based on their dialogue capacity: religious-missionary, religious-pragmatic, and secular firms. Each classification demonstrates different approaches to integrating or separating religious and secular beliefs in their business practices. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding the sources of beliefs and values in family firms and their implications for business decisions. It concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for both academic research and practical applications in business management.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
Family firms (FFs) are characterized by their unique emphasis on specific beliefs and values (BaV). Although literature acknowledges the significance of BaV for firm behavior and management decisions, little is known about their religious and secular sources. Following secularization theory and post-secular society, the impact of religion in developed societies such as the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) remains ambiguous, challenged by both secularization and religious revival. We address this research gap by exploring the religious and secular sources of BaV through FFs’ dialogue capacity. Our qualitative-empirical study builds on semi-structured interviews with 21 large FFs from the DACH region, covering mostly family CEOs, and secondary data. Using an inductive approach, we identify FFs where religion remains significant, even as their dialogue capacity undergoes transformation. Secularization necessitates that religious sources to adapt to the secular business context. Thus, our findings do not conform to the open dialogue claimed by post-secular society. Additionally, the proposed dichotomous separation into a religious sphere and a secular sphere does not correspond to the actual landscape of FFs. Instead, three different shades of FFs emerge, which demonstrate unique dynamics in their dialogue capacity. This paper provides novel in-depth insights on BaV in FFs and is among the first empirical studies on secularization and post-secular society from a business perspective. Furthermore, it contributes a process model of FFs’ dialogue capacity and proposes avenues for further research.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction
Beliefs and values (BaV) are a fundamental aspect of societies and influence the behavior of individuals (e.g., Vasconcelos 2010; Parks-Leduc et al. 2015) and organizations (Fang et al. 2013; Malbašić et al. 2015; Tsai and Tsai 2022). In their global meaning, beliefs can be understood as deeply held assumptions (Krueger 2007; Connors and Halligan 2015), and values, building on these beliefs, as guiding principles in human behavior (Schwartz 1994). The business and management literature highlights their crucial importance in multiple aspects of firms (Chua et al. 2015; Forster and Fenwick 2015) such as their culture, governance, strategy, objectives, leadership, behavior towards stakeholders, ethical considerations and performance (Joyner and Payne 2002; Suar and Khuntia 2010; Schwartz 2013; Dempsey 2015; Fotaki et al. 2020; Tsai and Tsai 2022).
BaV are especially decisive when private owners are present (Donckels and Fröhlich 1991; Dyer 2003; Picone et al. 2021). This includes family firms (FFs), whose behavior is shaped by family influence (Chrisman et al. 2007; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2014). This defines this type of firm in this study (Allouche et al. 2008; Amann and Jaussaud 2012). Literature recognizes that the managerial decisions of FFs are shaped by their unique characteristics (Sirmon and Hitt 2003; Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2005; Xi et al. 2015), including non-financial aspects or goals that meet the owning family’s affective needs (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Chrisman et al. 2012; De Massis et al. 2018). This stresses that goals of the family can go beyond rational decision-making and take precedence over financial wealth (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Berrone et al. 2012). A distinguishing feature of FFs is their emphasis on BaV (Astrachan et al. 2002; García-Álvarez et al. 2002; Erdem and Gül Başer 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2011). Considering BaV to be the “key determinant of (…) family firm behavior” (Yuan and Wu 2018, p. 284) and “the core family firm specificities” (Rau et al. 2019, p. 195), several scholars call for research on FFs.
Advertisement
BaV affect family, business, and management decisions (Discua Cruz 2013; Kellermanns 2013) by providing a basis for firm behavior (Sorenson 2013; Astrachan et al. 2020) and serving as a reference point for managerial decisions (Davis et al. 2010; Kotlar and De Massis 2013; Rau et al. 2019). Thus, a growing body of literature acknowledges that BaV shape a variety of distinct phenomenon of FFs, such as: their goals (Kotlar and Massis 2013), organizational behavior (Yuan and Wu 2018), ethical decision-making (Duh et al. 2010), corporate culture (Fletcher et al. 2012), corporate social responsibility (Mariani et al. 2023), temporal orientation (Pieper et al. 2020), longevity (Koiranen 2002), and identification (Elsbach and Pieper 2019). That said, religion is of great importance as a source of BaV (Pearce et al. 2010; Vishkin et al. 2020). Religion provides a foundational set of beliefs and moral guidelines that influence individuals’ decision-making (Daniel 2016; Vishkin et al. 2020). In FFs, where family members’ BaV are deeply intertwined with management decisions (Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2005; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Rau et al. 2019), religion can determine stable and enduring BaV on the business level that uniquely shape FFs (Dana 2010). Consequently, exploring the religious sources of BaV can advance our theorizing about BaV in FFs (Astrachan et al. 2020; Fathallah et al. 2020; Kavas et al. 2020).
Apart from the BaV-perspective, Fathallah et al. (2020, p. 648) postulate that researching religious FFs “provides an opportunity to understand the uniqueness, similarity, and heterogeneity of FFs.” Given FFs’ heterogeneity in research and business practice (Chua et al. 2012), exploring BaV significantly advances FF research (García-Álvarez and López-Sintas 2001; Chrisman et al. 2012; Debicki et al. 2016; Rau et al. 2019; Astrachan et al. 2020). In addition, the recent paper by Ernst et al. (2024, p. 1) concludes: “The extent and mechanisms through which religion intertwines with decision-making processes in family firms remain inadequately understood.” Such knowledge, however, would make a major contribution to the effective management of FFs. Thus, our research focuses on how FFs deal with their BaV and FFs’ ability to foster dialog about religious and secular sources in a business context (e.g., incorporating, transforming or separating the family’s religious and secular sources of BaV at the firm level), conceptualized as FFs’ “dialogue capacity”.
Importantly, the religious situation differs significantly around the world. Literature suggests that developed countries such as the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) face secularization and thus a decline in religious BaV (Casanova 2009, 2012). However, due to globalization, religious communities and traditions have recently gained a new unexpected importance in this region, where current migrant movements owing to war in Eastern Europe are causing the spectrum of religiosity to shift. This development demonstrates the relevance of religion for society and business, with the significance and impact of religion increasing strongly. Additionally, recent trends in Europe are stimulating reflection about the meaning of religion in the supposedly secularized everyday life of European societies (Berger 1999, 2017; Habermas 2006; Martin 2017). Considering the evolving religious landscape in the DACH region, FFs must adapt. However, in business literature, discussion is scarce. Moreover, prior studies on religion in FFs often originate from developing or emerging countries (e.g., Sabah et al. 2014; Bhatnagar et al. 2020; Fathallah et al. 2020; Kavas et al. 2020), whose religious situation differs fundamentally from developed countries (Casanova 2009; Berger 2012). Given that secularization argues that developed countries are distinguished by the separation of religion from the public sphere (Berger 2012; Casanova 2009, 2012), the significance of much of the existing evidence is limited. Instead, following the conceptual arguments of Berger (2012); Habermas (2001, 2006), it can be expected that FFs from the DACH region will increasingly act rationally and therefore rely on secular BaV. Additionally, FFs’ dialogue capacity may be challenged by a religious revival. Thus, whether and how religious sources influence BaV within rationally operating FFs in a secular business context such as the DACH region remains unresolved.
Even though the significance of BaV in FFs has been widely acknowledged (Astrachan et al. 2002; García-Álvarez et al. 2002; Erdem and Gül Başer 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2011), there is, to the best of our knowledge, no work that investigates FFs’ dialogue capacity. Instead, much of the literature deals with BaV in a one-sided manner, focusing only on certain managerial outcomes (e.g., Marques et al. 2014; Tsai and Tsai 2022). García-Álvarez and López-Sintas (2001, p. 210) also note that “authors often merely mention values and then turn to other related factors.” Thereby, BaV are taken for granted and little is known about their religious and secular sources. This aligns with recent studies such as Barbera et al. (2020), who also note that the process of how religious BaV transfer to the firm level is poorly understood. Recognizing that the specific character and thus managerial implications of BaV stem solely from their religious and secular sources (Chrisman et al. 2003; Sorenson 2013; Eze et al. 2021), this underscores a significant research gap. Examining how FFs deal with the sources of their BaV promises to enhance the way we theorize about FFs. Thus, building upon these introductory considerations, we aim to gain a better understanding of religious and secular sources within FFs’ dialogue capacity in the DACH region. We focus on Christianity, due to its strong historical roots and continued status as the dominant religion despite secularization. Thus, we pursue the following research question: How do religious (Christian) and secular sources influence the dialogue capacity of FFs?
Advertisement
In summary, this paper makes four important contributions to the literature. First, initially for the FF literature, this study empirically examines secularization theory (Berger 1977, 2012) and post-secular society (Habermas 2006, 2010) in the context of business. Additionally, by analyzing FFs from the DACH region, this research extends FF literature by providing in-depth insights on religion to the unique context of developed countries. Indeed, several scholars have called for studies exploring the relevance of religion in business research (Discua Cruz 2013; Kellermanns 2013; Paterson et al. 2013). Second, by comprehensively investigating the sources of BaV, this study identifies FFs where religion is still significant. However, FFs’ dialogue capacity faces challenges and adapts to the secular business context. Thus, only FFs that are more SEW-oriented through a family focus continue to rely on religious sources at the firm level. Third, this paper contributes to the field by adopting a differentiated approach, thereby revealing that secularization is divisive. Thus, our study extends prior work that has traditionally focused on a dichotomy of religion by showing that religious and secular sources can exist in different shades. The findings lead us to distinguish the dialogue capacity for three classifications of FFs (secular FFs, religious-pragmatic FFs, religious-missionary FFs). Fourth, given these classifications, this study shows that FFs in the DACH region do not correspond to Habermas’ (2006, 2010) claims about open dialogue between religion and secularization. Instead, even if religious BaV are maintained at the firm level (religious-missionary FFs), the secular business context exerts pressure to change their dialogue capacity.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section two explains the underlying theoretical background and section three describes the state of the art. Sections four and five present our empirical methodology and findings. Section six offers a discussion along with theoretical contributions, practical implications as well as limitations and opportunities for further research. Finally, section seven concludes the paper.
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Sources, beliefs, and values in family firms
2.1.1 Definitions
FFs, defined by a dimensional understanding of the high family influence on ownership, management and control (Allouche et al. 2008; Amann and Jaussaud 2012), share several distinct characteristics (Sirmon and Hitt 2003; Miller and Breton-Miller 2005). FFs are shaped by their unique emphasis on SEW, namely, the non-financial aspects or goals that meet the owning family’s affective needs (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Berrone et al. 2010, 2012). Thus, FFs do not aim exclusively to maximize financial wealth but rather use non-financial aspects as their primary reference point (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Berrone et al. 2012). This SEW approach is a major research stream in FF literature (Xi et al. 2015; Anwar et al. 2023) and has the potential to explain FFs’ characteristics and complexity (Berrone et al. 2012; Martínez Romero and Rojo Ramírez 2017). Since family and business are especially connected (Miller and Breton-Miller 2005; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007) and have strong emotional ties (Zellweger and Astrachan 2008), FFs strive to meet the non-financial goals of the owning family (Zellweger and Dehlen 2012; Zellweger et al. 2013). Consequently, their managerial decisions are shaped by the BaV of the family (García-Álvarez and López-Sintas 2001; Chrisman et al. 2012; Debicki et al. 2016; Rau et al. 2019).
Many disciplines study BaV from different perspectives (e.g., management and business, psychology). Different definitions of BaV have thus emerged (e.g., Kluckhohn 1951; Rokeach 1973; Schwartz 1994), with no consensus yet reached (Meglino and Ravlin 1998; Narasimhan et al. 2010). For this research, a precise delimitation is necessary and we distinguish (a) religious and secular sources, (b) beliefs, (c) values at the family level, and (d) values at the business level.
First, we delineate beliefs. Krueger (2007, p. 124) provides a working definition of beliefs as “deeply held strong assumptions that underpin our sensemaking and our decision making.” From a functional perspective (Abelson and Prentice 1989), “beliefs provide a consistent and coherent representation of a subject’s world and (…) can be formed through direct experience or by accepting information from a trusted or authoritative source” (Connors and Halligan 2015, p. 3). Beliefs can be traced back to religious sources (e.g., reference to the Bible) as well as secular sources (e.g., reference to humanism). Significantly, only referring to specific sources gives a belief a religious or secular character (Chrisman et al. 2003; Sorenson 2013; Eze et al. 2021). Although beliefs may be influenced by multiple religious and secular sources, on a meta-level, either the former or the latter may be dominating. Thus, it is worth questioning whether and how FFs deal with these religious and secular sources.
Subsequently, the beliefs of individuals shape their values (Schwartz 1994; Vishkin et al. 2020). Schwartz’s theory of value systems (Schwartz 1994) is one of the most-cited, which modifies and unifies existing and widespread definitions (Kluckhohn 1951; Rokeach 1973). Thus, values are “desirable, transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity” (Schwartz 1994, p. 21). Due to its conciseness, the definition is often used in empirical studies in management research (Forster and Fenwick 2015; Rau et al. 2019; Ruf et al. 2021). Applied to FFs, the values embodied by individual family members collectively shape the values of the owning family. To investigate FFs’ dialogue capacity—which we conceptualized as how FFs deal with their BaV and, more specifically, the ability of FFs to foster dialogue about religious and secular sources in a business context—this research employs a key informant approach. We emphasize family members who not only best exemplify their family’s values but also wield substantial influence on their FF’s management. This entails a focus on individuals such as the family chief executive officer (CEO), who serves as a key representative of both the family and the firm.
Furthermore, the family’s values are often rooted in the founders’ values and passed down through the generations (e.g., Sorenson 2013; Balog et al. 2014). That said, recognizing that prior studies indicate that values tend to be homogeneous within a family (e.g., Sorenson 2013; Balog et al. 2014) and heterogeneous between families (e.g., Rau et al. 2019; Fathallah et al. 2020), this research focuses on a cross-case analysis of FFs. Acknowledging prior literature (Chrisman et al. 2003; Parada and Viladás 2010; Fathallah et al. 2020), our analysis differentiates between (a) the values of the family and (b) the values of the firm. Literature suggests that values at the business level are largely embedded in family values (e.g., García-Álvarez and López-Sintas 2001; Aronoff 2004; Chrisman et al. 2012).
2.1.2 Religious beliefs and values
Early sources demonstrated the significant influence of religion on economic systems (e.g., Weber 1905). However, even in religious sciences, defining religion is one of the most comprehensive tasks (Horton 1960; Buren et al. 2020). Definition attempts can be identified by substantive and functionalist approaches. Since we investigate the function of religion in the BaV in FFs, we build on a functionalistic perspective of religion; following Schilbrack (2013, p. 298), “Functionalist (…) approaches to religion focus on what people get out of participating in a religion, the benefit or consequences of religious belief, practice, and belonging.” According to this consideration, Geertz (1973, p. 90) defines religion at the level of its impact and function within society, emphasizing the shaping of human behavior: religion is “(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [sic] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” Thus, religion can be understood as a “specific philosophical system of beliefs” (Pearce et al. 2010, p. 225). Consequently, the social function of religion is that it provides a value system (Daniel 2016; Vishkin et al. 2020), which also applies to FFs as a subsystem of society (Dana 2010).
Based on the definitions provided, we exemplify the justification of BaV through religious sources: The Bible manifests the belief that all people are brothers and sisters. Based on this, the value of equality can be derived at the family level. This value is usually intrafamilial and exclusive, but is extended to all people (e.g., stakeholders of the FF). Further, it can be linked to the business level and demonstrated by modeling equal treatment. While the resulting value (e.g., equality) is not religious per se, the justification structure must be analyzed as such.
2.1.3 Secular beliefs and values
The historical meaning of the originally Latin term “secular” is something like a fixed period of time or an age. Thus, “secular” or “secularism” did not originally refer to religion. Later, in medieval times, the Christian Latin saeculum was used to distinguish the temporal age of the world from the eternal realm of God (Zuckerman and Shook 2017). In the following, “secular” means a view that deals with the world and societies without involving or favoring any specific religions, whether in a positive or negative way (Lee 2015). Indeed, secularization, not to be confused with “anti-religious,” means “religiously neutral.” Consequently, secularization is a process that leads societies in a different manner than religions (e.g., other types of learning, morals, and intellect) (Eller 2017). Being secular thus means being “worldly” and related to the world, its things, and present life. In this context, the temporal character is an important distinction from religion.
Based on the definitions provided, we exemplify the justification of BaV through secular sources: Human reason or humanism can lead to the belief that it is logical to treat people equally and not harm others. Thus, the value of equality is emphasized at the family level. Hence, equality can be transferred to the business level within a code of conduct as a binding instrument for all employees. Although the family’s value is identical to the religiously justified example in Sect. 2.1.2, fundamental differences can be seen in the sources and beliefs as well as the values of FFs. This confirms the need for a differentiated examination of BaV. Furthermore, it is crucial that the impact of the family level at the business level can differ in terms of the degree of the process (e.g., use of business instruments).
2.2 Secularization theory and post-secular society
Secularization theory discusses the displacement of religion from modern societies. The key assumption rests on the separation of the church and state in European countries. Berger (1977) claims a dichotomous separation between the public sphere (e.g., state, companies) and private sphere (e.g., family, personal relationships). Following this consideration, religion is increasingly pushed from the former into the latter. As a result, the public sphere is free of BaV and instead characterized by mostly rational considerations based on scientific, genuine reason. By contrast, the private sphere is shaped by personal BaV, desires, and choices. Consequently, only beliefs, values, and religion are relevant here. Kim et al. (2012, p. 205) summarize this as follows: “As modernism gradually replaced Christianity as the dominant worldview in the western world, it essentially eliminated God from the public arena.” Thus, religious sources are gradually replaced by human reason (e.g., moral laws). Despite this decline of religion, current developments can amplify its political significance (Casanova 2009, 2012).
In FF research, secularization theory implies that the sources of BaV that shape management decisions are changing. In countries that are considered secular, such as the DACH region (Casanova 2009), the influence of religion in FFs is expected to decrease. In line with the definitions underlying this research, secularization theory implies that these changing sources of BaV alter the values of the family and the firm. By religious sources being replaced by secular sources, both FFs’ dialogue capacity as well as key management decisions are affected. As secularization theory represents a Eurocentric perspective, previous findings on religion in FFs, which often derive from developing and emerging countries (Fathallah et al. 2020; Kavas et al. 2020), may not be applicable in modern societies such as the DACH region.
However, secularization theory has been increasingly criticized over the past two decades by different disciplines. Even Berger (2012, p. 313), one of the biggest advocates of this theory, has discarded his earlier thoughts and stated that the decline of religion “has been empirically falsified.” Accordingly, increasing modernity does not necessarily lead to a decrease in religiosity, but instead an increase in plurality (Berger 2012). Essentially, the critique of the literature relates to three central problems. First, the basic assumption of secularization theory describes a binary and linear process. In doing so, religious and secular BaV are viewed as mutually exclusive, which neglects the fact that both can and do occur side by side (Fisher 2017). Second, this discourse lacks a unified basis (e.g., definitions and core agreements). As a result, religion is often discussed in a truncated way that dispenses with its facets and dynamics (Fisher 2017; Martin 2017). Third, the theory lacks consistency in content and argumentation as well as empirical support (Dhima and Golder 2021).
This paper is based on Habermas’ (2001) considerations of post-secular society, which draws on and further develops secularization theory as well as its critiques. Habermas (2001) emphasizes – contrary to secularization theory – the crucial importance of religion despite growing secularization (e.g., as a source of BaV), which applies equally to all modern societies. Accordingly, secularization developments do not result in the abolition of religion and religious groups, but rather lead to a renewal of religion. Going further, Habermas (2010) calls for an open dialogue between religion and reason. Additionally, Berger (2012, p. 313) argues that “modernity does not necessarily produce a decline of religion.” Rather, a secular discourse “can coexist with religious discourses that are not secular at all” (Berger 2012, p. 314). Thus, an individual can be religious and secular at the same time, while religion “becomes a matter of individual decision” (Berger 2012). Nevertheless, decisions based on human reason are not necessarily completely rational, but rather can be influenced by different constructs such as religion (Kim et al. 2012).
In FF research, post-secular society implies that religious and secular sources may both play a role in shaping the BaV of FFs. Habermas’ (2001) key considerations imply an increased and more deliberate focus on the process of BaV and their sources. As religion continues to hold significance in a transformed manner within a secular business environment, FFs may enhance their dialogue capacity by reflecting on how to justify BaV at the (secular) firm level. Thus, research needs to consider the influence of both religious and secular sources when studying FFs.
However, the arguments of Habermas (2001) and Berger (1999, 2012, 2017) are based entirely on conceptual work. These considerations form the theoretical basis for high-quality articles in the field of management and business (e.g., Everett et al. 2018; Gümüsay 2015; Kim et al. 2012). For instance, Gümüsay (2015) concludes that religion is becoming increasingly important for economies and businesses in modern-day post-secular society and, in line with recent literature reviews (Smith et al. 2019), highlights the need for empirical evidence in this regard.
3 Literature review
For this research, we conducted an integrative literature review in line with Gilal et al. (2019) to identify the leading research on the BaV in FFs. We followed established procedures in the extant literature (Chrisman et al. 2008; Soleimanof et al. 2018; Weiler and Hinz 2019) and focused on the relevant top journals to ensure the high quality of the included articles. We included scholarly peer-reviewed journals ranked B or higher by the VHB-Jourqual 3 or ranked 3 or higher by the 2021 ABS Journal Ranking Report. The literature review was structured as a screening of all the articles published in the selected journals that address the research topic, an additional keyword search in databases, and forward/backward integration.
Our first step was to examine the background of the BaV in FFs at the meta-level. Despite growing academic interest in this field, a lack of evidence as well as great heterogeneity in terms of differing research interests are still prevalent. The review showed that these high-quality articles (e.g., Kidwell et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2019) are characterized by an inadequate delimitation of BaV and an insufficient analysis of their sources. Hence, a comprehensive and interdisciplinary examination is largely lacking. The extant literature rarely defines BaV or identifies their sources (Jiang et al. 2015; Ruf et al. 2021). Insofar as articles consider the sources of BaV at the business level, they only refer to the owning family/individual family members (e.g., Sharma and Manikutty 2005; Rau et al. 2019) or distinct religious principles (Shen and Su 2017; Maung et al. 2020). Other publications examine values as one of several cultural components, neglecting the individual sources of values informing FFs (Lambrecht 2005; Vallejo 2008). Moreover, parts of the sample seem to be based on assumptions about the sources of BaV without an empirical investigation of these sources (e.g., Yuan and Wu 2018; Ruf et al. 2021).
Only a small number of articles include a comprehensive consideration of values (Koiranen 2002; Barbera et al. 2020). Among those publications that explicitly or implicitly refer to a theoretical framework, the majority rely on the definitions provided by social-psychological and cultural studies or the theories of Rokeach (1972, 1973), Schwartz and Bilsky (1990), and Schwartz (1992, 1994) (e.g., Parada et al. 2019; Ruiz Jiménez et al. 2015). Empirical studies refer to the existing theoretical value model or its adoption (e.g., Ruf et al. 2021). The values under investigation are often taken as “set” or “given.” Thus, the examination of the justification structures of values is neglected. This represents a notable simplification in the academic investigation of values. Hence, the influence of specific Christian and secular beliefs on the values in FFs remains largely unstudied.
In summary, the literature review clearly shows that BaV are mostly examined in a one-sided manner. Existing publications are dedicated to different academic interests (i.e., corporate social responsibility, stewardship, leadership) as an outcome of certain BaV, but largely neglect their sources (e.g., Blodgett et al. 2011; Dieleman and Koning 2020). Identifying and tracing the BaV in FFs to their actual sources (religious and secular beliefs) as well as examining the influence of these on the values in FFs thus remain substantial research gaps. Accordingly, further empirical evidence is necessary.
4 Methodology
4.1 Research design
To answer the research question, we adopted a qualitative-empirical research design (Reay 2014; De Massis and Kammerlander 2021) that allows us to explore novel in-depth insights into the under-researched topic of FFs’ dialogue capacity. Moreover, it enriches the current body of literature by employing a differentiated and interdisciplinary approach towards BaV, bridging the gap between existing qualitative (e.g., Marques et al. 2014) and quantitative studies (e.g., Jiang et al. 2015) that both largely neglect religious and secular sources of BaV.
In doing so, we focused on FFs, as this form of business is strongly characterized by BaV (García-Álvarez et al. 2002; Erdem and Gül Başer 2010), SEW (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Berrone et al. 2012), and family influence (Chua et al. 2003; Kellermanns et al. 2012). Since this research addresses a “how” question, we adopted an inductive research approach that emphasizes the unique dynamics of religion and secularization in FFs as well as the context of the DACH region. The chosen method corresponded to a cross-sectional field study by Lillis and Mundy (2005). Using qualitative semi-structed interviews as the primary method allowed us to capture the nuanced dynamics of how secularization and post-secular society of the DACH region affect FFs’ dialogue ability. Interviews facilitated the collection of rich data, thereby enabling a multi-layered understanding of the research question. Furthermore, this qualitative research design aligned with recent methodological recommendations by emphasizing the complex dynamics of FFs, BaV and religion (Leppäaho et al. 2016; Bhatnagar et al. 2021; Massis and Kammerlander 2021).
4.2 Data collection
We focused on the DACH region to obtain data from countries with a homogeneous cultural background. These countries are characterized by their historical ties to Christianity, albeit losing its monopoly position, and by a concurrent trend of secularization, leading to a growing number of people without a confession. This context aligns with post-secular society considerations (Habermas 2001, 2010). Further, this focus on the DACH region, which represents developed countries, differs fundamentally from previous empirical studies on religion in FFs, which often emphasize developing or emerging countries (e.g., Bhatnagar et al. 2020; Fathallah et al. 2020).
Applying a purposive sampling strategy (Eisenhardt Graebner 2007; Massis and Kotlar 2014), we drew on both religious and secular FFs that demonstrated strong religious or secular influences within the firm (e.g., on key management decisions) to explore the research question. On the one hand, regarding religiosity, we focused on Christianity due to its dominant position in the DACH region. We identified relevant firms through an Internet search. The criteria used were religious text passages on websites and in press reports. Further, we located religious FFs through religious associations, networks and personal or financial commitment for religious institutions and communities (e.g., sponsorship for church projects). On the other hand, to gather a reference group and represent the landscape of FFs in the DACH region in our sample, we included secular FFs. We contacted FFs that show no reference to religiosity but instead referred to secular rationales such as human reasoning. This sampling method, which followed Miles et al. (2019), guaranteed enough variation in our sample to ensure meaningful qualitative data analysis. Next, the presumed religiosity or secularity was then jointly evaluated and confirmed by the interviewees’ self-assessment in interviews and inductively by quotes such as “There is a blessing on our firm” (R3) and “It is only logical to treat employees well” (S4). According to the definition informing this research, secular FFs must be characterized by secular sources and not solely by the absence of religious sources. The multi-layered insights from our primary and secondary data, and particularly the self-reflection of the interviewees, were intended to ensure that Christian and secular FFs had been correctly identified. Hence, this process largely ruled out that, e.g., concealing religious sources (e.g., minority religions) was confused with a secular orientation.
The majority of firms in general and FFs in particular (Dumas and Blodgett 1999; García-Álvarez and López-Sintas 2001), regardless of their size, engage intensively with BaV. However, compared to small FFs, larger FFs face a broader and more complex array of stakeholders and management decisions (Hiebl and Li 2020), while direct family influence (e.g., through BaV) on the firms’ management may be limited (Chang et al. 2022). In addition, studies such as Duh et al. (2010) and Simon et al. (2012) demonstrate that BaV are equally important for FFs of all sizes, indicating that firm size does not diminish the importance of BaV. Acknowledging that prior research indicates that this fosters a need for the family’s BaV to be moderated (Raitis et al. 2021), makes large FFs well suited for studying the interplay between religious and secular sources in business context from a secularization perspective. Following recommendations of De Massis and Kotlar (2014), we focus our data collection solely on large FFs to reduce bias stemming from size differences (e.g., potential differences in inclusion and articulation of BaV between small, medium and large FFs). In addition, this adheres recent articles that use large FFs to examine either BaV or religion (e.g., Bhatnagar et al. 2020; Raitis et al. 2021; Ernst et al. 2024).
Consequently, to be included, firms must have more than 180 employees, indicating extensive experience with a wide range of management decisions. Smaller firms were excluded, since their typically less diverse management decision-making might not as effectively demonstrate the influence of BaV. Nonetheless, the impact of BaV on the firm level was ensured by FF’s definition, which emphasizes substantial family influence within the firm, regardless of size. This aligns with existing studies on BaV in FFs (e.g., Duh et al. 2010; Parada and Viladás 2010; Bhatnagar et al. 2020). Following state-of-the-art recommendations (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Miles et al. 2019), we purposively sampled FFs until we observed a confident level of redundancy, and novel information from additional cases became minimal. This resulted in a final sample of 21 FFs covering different BaV (Christian and secular) as well as contextual factors (e.g., industry, company size, number of generations). The sample firms had between 180 employees and 20,000 employees and annual revenues between EUR 10 million and 4,000 million. Table 1 provides an overview of the sample.
Data collection took place between February 2021 and July 2021. We addressed the research question by exploring variations and differences among a variety FFs and thus chose to conduct one interview per firm. This allowed for a broader sampling, ensuring a diversity of cases and breadth of exploration. Adopting a key informant approach (Kumar et al. 1993), we interviewed the members of owning families who have significant influence in their firm. We considered, for example, the CEO or chairperson of the supervisory board to be reliable key informants. This research is primarily based on 21 semi-structured interviews with these influential owning members (e.g., CEO or chairperson of the supervisory board).
We used a semi-structured interview guide. First, we discussed the context of the firm (e.g., capital in family ownership) and family (e.g., generation, religious situation). Second, we talked about the BaV important to the interviewees and their sources as well as how those BaV are transferred to the firm (e.g., codes of conduct). Third, since BaV often cannot be articulated without context and are therefore better analyzed in action (Vitell 2009), we focused the conversation on BaV in the context of several managerial decisions (e.g., corporate social responsibility, mergers & acquisitions, crisis management, and management control systems). Follow-up questions helped gather further information and clarify responses. One interview per firm was conducted, lasting between 56 and 140 min, which led to a total of 1,674 min. All the interviews were conducted jointly by two interviewees, recorded, and fully transcribed. To follow ideas early, we took field notes, summarized each interview directly after the conversation, and documented our thoughts (e.g., first impressions, interesting comments, inconsistencies). Since our research questions targeted sensitive issues, we sent the transcripts to the interviewees for review and used them only after their approval.
In addition, to ensure rigor (Massis and Kotlar 2014), we drew on a media analysis of the online presence of the firm and company documents (e.g., websites and available codes of values) and further publicly available data (e.g., press reports and prizes). While the interviews constitute the core of this study, this secondary data allowed for data triangulation. Given the complexity and sensitivity of our research question, we relied on recommendations from the FF literature (Massis and Kotlar 2014) to mitigate potential biases and confirm the accuracy of our data.
4.3 Data analysis
We analyzed data using an inductive approach as suggested by Miles et al. (2019). This data-driven approach of content analysis built on multiple readings and interpretations of our texts, allowing us to delve deep into our extensive qualitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding. Considering the complexity of our research question, this approach is particularly well-suited for unveiling nuanced insights into FFs and facilitating a profound contextual understanding of secularization in the DACH region. To ensure rigor, multiple authors were involved in the data analysis to achieve investigator triangulation (Flick 2004; De Massis and Kotlar 2014).
State-of-the-art literature on qualitative research advocates a stepwise process to inductive data analysis (Gioia et al. 2012; Miles et al. 2019; Bouncken et al. 2021). Thus, we followed recommendations by Miles et al. (2019) by employing a three-step coding technique. In the first step, we coded all the data segments referring to BaV (Miles et al. 2019). More precisely, since the language and context of the interviewees were important (e.g., Zwack et al. 2016), we focused on in vivo coding. Insofar as BaV were not explicitly addressed but implicitly present (e.g., in certain management decisions), they were also coded and grouped accordingly. To ensure high-quality data, we distinguished between three levels of understanding: (1) the meanings and interpretations of the participants, (2) the researchers’ interpretations of those meanings, and (3) confirmatory analysis (Miles et al. 2019). This process involved continuous review and multiple iterations between the authors.
In the second step, to make sense of the empirical material, the emerged codes were subsumed into broader second-order concepts. To ensure rigor, this step was performed in parallel and independently by the two authors. In this way, significant and recurring themes emerged from the texts. The preliminary findings were then jointly consolidated by multiple in depth-discussions. Finally, in the third step, we have combined these second-order concepts into overarching themes. The result was again intensively discussed and refined. We assigned representative quotes and interpretations of BaV from our raw data, as exemplified in Table 2 (Miles et al. 2019). These themes explain how FFs approach the religious and secular sources of their BaV and are the the basis for developing the process model for FFs’ dialogue capacity.
As our data analysis progressed, we found an ambiguity in how FFs deal with their religious and secular BaV. Subsequently, we identified three distinct classifications of FFs based on their dialogue capacity towards the religious and secular sources of BaV: religious-missionary FFs, religious-pragmatic FFs, secular FFs. Each classification demonstrated unique characteristics in their dialogue capacity, which enhanced our comprehension of FFs. The key findings of our study are organized according to the identified classifications of FFs and presented with illustrative quotes in the next section. We used the theories discussed in Sect. 2.2 to explain our inductive findings (Miles et al. 2019). Combining both theoretical considerations allowed for theory triangulation (Flick 2004). The following chapters discuss the key findings (Sect. 5) and introduce a process model of how religious and secular beliefs influence FFs’ dialogue capacity (Sect. 6). Regarding FFs’ dialogue capacity, two different approaches (family focus, business focus) can be distinguished that determine how FFs deal with their religious and secular sources.
5 Findings
5.1 Religious-missionary FFs
Religious-missionary FFs are characterized by religious BaV both at the family level and at the business level, which can be clearly traced back to a religious source (e.g., the Bible). The family’s religious sources are transferred directly to the FF, linking both inextricably. Furthermore, religious-missionary FFs highlight their religious sources in the public presentation of the firm (e.g., website) and the family (e.g., private volunteering). Consequently, family and religion are inherently intertwined. As religion plays a vital role in perpetuating the owning family’s heritage, religious-missionary FFs continue to wield religious influence even in the secularized DACH region. Focusing on the family’s overarching religious considerations (e.g., eternal perspective) rather than business considerations means that religious sources remain the reference point for key management decisions. Thus, this underscores that religious-missionary FFs’ dialogue capacity is characterized by a family focus. It is exclusively this family focus that facilitates the direct transmission of the family’s religious sources into the firm. Consequently, despite the secular environment in which religious-missionary FFs operate, their religious sources continue to shape their dialogue capacity without being adapted.
However, although religious-missionary FFs do not adapt their religious sources, their self-reflection on dialogue capacity is particularly high. Thus, the sources of BaV can be clearly identified and highlighted in the business context. This readiness to reflect on the process of conveying religious sources to the firm through the dialogue capacity also contributes to the preservation of religious sources, as anchored in the family focus. Characteristically, religious-missionary FFs refer their beliefs to the Bible in general or to specific Bible passages or Christian principles. These religious sources are openly proposed within the FF and repeatedly suggested to all employees (e.g., religious texts as a part of the Christmas presents given to employees), but are not compulsory. However, religious-missionary FFs believe that religion contributes to business.
“For me personally, the Bible and faith are important. It even goes so far that I believe that the Western world has benefited economically in sum from adhering to these standards. I am convinced that the values of the Bible work whether I believe in them or not.” (R10)
In addition, religious-missionary FFs often maintain close personal contacts with the Church and its representatives. Temporary religious contacts (e.g., religious school, upbringing) seem to be less relevant to highly elaborate on religious sources but ensure that religion is recognized as an important source of BaV. Further, long-standing personal friendships with representatives of the Church (e.g., priests) facilitate an ongoing discourse about BaV.
These religious sources provide a profound affirmation of the family’s BaV and have a significant influence on how they are conveyed to the company. Religious beliefs are commonly transferred implicitly or out of conviction first to the family’s values and, subsequently, to the FF. Thus, they are usually deeply anchored and immutable – even the family is subordinated to these religious BaV (e.g., in the form of a “family constitution” based on the Bible). Unlike secular FFs, religious BaV are passed down through the generations, which means that the justification by a religious source is preserved.
“Peace is the highest good (…). This love of neighbors, love of enemies, and witness of peace (…) has been imprinted over generations and I am also aware that things that lie in this kind of imprint naturally accompany every human being. The origin never diminishes, and this naturally plays a very big part in our daily business – not obviously, but it at least plays a very big part for us as owners and as management.” (R3)
Religious-missionary FFs are typically shaped by values such as charity, trust, justice, forgiveness, humility, responsibility toward creation, and an eternal perspective. It seems important for the family to act as a role model. Using further instruments for transferring BaV is deliberately avoided, due to the Christian precept of “thou shalt not brag.” This can also be seen in the example of social projects, which are financed by the family but not promoted in the FF by religious-missionary FFs. Moreover, religious rituals (e.g., blessing new vehicles) are formative for the FF. The focus is not only on the ritual, but also on the message conveyed. This issue is nevertheless dealt with considerately, as “religious imprinting” should not take place under any circumstances.
Tracing BaV back to their sources is important for religious-missionary FFs and is thus consciously controlled.
“It’s not that we position ourselves in a way that other companies position themselves differently. But practice sometimes speaks a different language. We don’t have any values that other companies don’t have. But perhaps it is the case that our employees believe that these are our values because they experience them.” (R10)
Consequently, the connections among source, beliefs, and values are often direct and open in religious-missionary FFs. This can also be clearly recognized in various management decisions.
“In Matthew 18, there is a passage about how to deal with people who cause problems in the community. (…) We are a large company and operate worldwide. We have never had a court case because this desire for harmony is important not only in internal relations, but also in external relations.” (R3)
5.2 Religious-pragmatic FFs
Religious-pragmatic FFs are shaped by religious sources at the family level, which are secularly justified at the business level. Religious-pragmatic FFs are evidence that the secularization of the DACH region has removed religion from the mainstream. In a secular society, religious sources often must be justified. Religious-pragmatic FFs are cautious about their religious sources and strive to not impose them on the FF (e.g., employees) and its secular environment (e.g., customers). Consequently, there is a need to adapt religious sources through the development of a business focus. Precisely, secularization accelerates the shift in the dialogue capacity. Social influences (e.g., secular expectations of the business environment) and negative previous experiences (e.g., conflicts with key stakeholders) often lead to this business focus, in which family influence and thus their religious sources are separated from the firm. Instead, religious-pragmatic FFs emphasize secular sources that are universally recognized and accepted in their business environment. Thus, while religion remains significant for the family, the firm comprises diverse stakeholders who should not be subjected to the family’s religious sources.
“We are a mixture of all kinds of cultures and religions and live side by side on an equal footing. As a family, we attach great importance to the fact that there must be room for everyone. But there is also a clear separation between work and private life, which clearly includes religion in the private sphere.” (R14)
However, while the values of the family and the values of the FF remain mostly identical in terms of content, a transformation process takes place regarding the sources (e.g., reference to the Bible replaced by reference to human reason). This transformation process is managed consciously to prevent intercultural or interreligious conflicts. A common language of religious and secular BaV is important for religious-pragmatic FFs, which is reflected in “universal” or “integrative” BaV. This cautious approach can be traced back to the inclusive considerations of Christianity itself (e.g., in the sense of “we are a company for all people”).
“I think it is important to always separate the private and the family from the company. (…). We do not see and position us as a Christian company, but we are a Christian family. (…). As a family, we want to make transparent what drives us, but we don't want to impose this on our employees afterwards. Instead, we are looking for universal values (…). These are, of course, shaped by the Judeo-Christian culture, but we are not imposing Christianity on our employees or partners.” (R5)
In a few religious-pragmatic FFs, a discontinuity of the family’s religious sources between generations is evident. Religious sources are still considered to have an influence but can no longer be clearly articulated. Thus, managerial decisions may be legitimized by human reason, although, say, the 10 Commandments seem to be implicitly included. Above all, the reference to eternity decisively influences BaV at the individual level. Further, religious sources are also often combined with secular sources. For instance, a Christian ethic (e.g., eternal perspective, committed only to the Creator) is combined with a secular ethic (e.g., long-term orientation, focus on stakeholders).
“Much is prescribed and directed from above. Faith is responsible for good and bad, but within a realistic framework.” (R4)
However, the religious sources of BaV are usually only discussed in a personal dialogue (e.g., when employees explicitly raise this topic). In a particularly secular environment, religious-pragmatic FFs take great care to not show religious BaV as such to their stakeholders. This is demonstrated by openness and tolerance, which is attributed to Christianity. Despite the transformation processes of family BaV, the importance of the family and its religious BaV remains high.
“If I can’t do it myself, then I can’t ask others to do it either. How do you convey it? Simply by doing it and by living it, that’s the only method. You can write stories about it, but it has no worth.” (R9)
5.3 Secular FFs
The BaV of secular FFs originate solely from secular sources – both at the family level and at the business level. As these secular sources are widely accepted in the DACH region, secular FFs do not need to adjust sources through their dialogue capacity. Instead, secular FFs often transfer their sources directly to the firm. The dialogue capacity shows either a family focus or a business focus, although this understanding is rarely reflected by the family. However, while secular FFs professionally embrace diversity and pluralism, they strictly keep religious sources in the private sphere. In essence, reflecting the sources of BaV seems less important, whereas values at the business level are of high importance for management purposes (e.g., the behavioral control of employees). Since these secular sources require no adaptation for transfer to a business context in the DACH region, secular FFs rarely have an awareness of their dialogue capacity. Consequently, the most common secular source is human reason:
“If a person thinks normally and transfers that to business life, then you don’t need any other values.” (S4)
Further, since secular FFs follow a family focus, their BaV are repeatedly justified through upholding family tradition. Connections to the FF’s history and the founder’s legacy are usually stronger than any other influence. This is also often taken up in symbolism (e.g., a statue of the founders made from characteristic local materials). This constitutes an essential component of their dialogue capacity. In some secular FFs, the founding generation had religious BaV. Nevertheless, the present generation tends to reference family tradition, indicating an intergenerational decline of religious sources. This is evident in the example of religious rituals, which continue unchanged but lose the reference to their actual religious source (e.g., Christmas celebrations, blessing of vehicles).
Moreover, insofar as secular FFs follow a business focus, their dialogue capacity tends to be separated from the family and their secular sources. Instead, economic considerations serve as a source of BaV. Most likely, the FF and its business interests are superordinate to the BaV of the family. This is exemplified by the treatment of employees:
“A company is a community of interests. (…) If I give everyone the recognition they need, then I know that they will do everything for the company. (…). When employees feel good, they perform well.” (S4)
With increasing firm size and thus complexity and diversity, BaV often coincide with globally accepted value catalogues. Further, due to internationalization, common values are acknowledged as important for managerial decisions and are thus explicitly specified within the firm. These values are documented at the family level (e.g., family constitutions) and at the business level (e.g., codes of conduct) and instrumentalized as binding guidelines (e.g., measurable goals for management and employees). Secular FFs, following a business focus, almost exclusively emphasize secular sources that concern a secular business context. Thus, for instance, management decisions tend to be more frequently justified by frugality (e.g., adopting photovoltaics for low-cost electricity) than responsibility toward society (e.g., utilizing photovoltaics for the purpose of preserving nature).
A business focus in secular FFs often manifests by using professional teams (e.g., non-family managers), processes (e.g., consulting, workshops) and tools (e.g., employee surveys) to support their dialogue capacity. In this context, the existence of a specific value system in the organization is often used to distinguish FFs from non-FFs. In general, these secular sources lead to BaV specific to secular FFs, which are associated with management implications. Furthermore, this significantly affects the dialogue capacity by separating the family’s sources from the firms’ BaV.
“The firm has a very strong culture which was influenced by my grandparents. The firm has always said [slogan], which was created by the firm leaders, not the family members. However, because it is predominantly driven by employees and management teams, misuse can occur if there are no clear definitions and the origin is ambiguous. Of course, this concept has been fostered for a long time. As time passes, the meaning may become somewhat unclear.” (S6)
6 Discussion
6.1 Synthesis of findings
Acknowledging that BaV constitute a distinct characteristic of FFs (Astrachan et al. 2002; García-Álvarez et al. 2002; Erdem and Gül Başer 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al. 2011), prior research has largely omitted their religious and secular sources, which give them their specific character (Chrisman et al. 2003; Sorenson 2013; Eze et al. 2021). Moreover, these sources undergo transformation due to the current religious situation of modern societies such as the DACH region (Casanova 2009, 2012). Little is known about how this impacts FFs’ BaV. This research adopts a qualitative approach and provides novel in-depth insights that enhance theorizing about FFs. Based on our findings, we develop a process model of DACH region FFs’ dialogue capacity. Figure 1 illustrates the model.
Fig. 1
Process model of family firms’ dialogue capacity on religious and secular sources in the DACH region
At the meta level, our model describes the process for conveying the religious and secular sources of BaV into FFs. This process, in other words how FFs deal with these sources (e.g., incorporating, transforming or separating the family’s religious and secular sources of BaV at the firm level), is conceptualized as FFs’ dialogue capacity. Our cross-case analysis of 21 FFs shows that FFs’ dialogue capacity varies, highlighting the unique religious situation in the DACH region. Acknowledging the three different classifications that emerged in our data (religious-missionary FFs, religious-pragmatic FFs, secular FF), the model proposes that FFs’ dialogue capacity corresponds to either a family or business focus (see also Table 2). Regardless of their sources, both religious and secular families can prioritize family or business focus. On the one hand, a family focus is manifested by a family-first approach (characterized by non-financial goals, traditions and rituals, legacy of the founding generation) and family- and religion-oriented dialogue (characterized by eternal perspective and responsibility towards God, positive personal experience with religion, exchange and joint reflection about religion). On the other hand, a business focus is manifested by a company-first approach (characterized by separation of irrational considerations from the firm, negative personal experience with religion, non-family experts in management) and a religion-neutral dialogue (characterized by internationalization, pluralism and diversity, avoiding conflicts with key stakeholders, intergenerational religious decline).
Religious-missionary FFs are characterized by religious BaV both at the family and the business level. The religious sources are openly disclosed to key stakeholders and shape the firms’ management decisions. In addition, secular BaV of the family are also important at the business level. Figure 1 illustrates that, by applying a family focus, religious families can maintain their sources in the secular DACH region in order to become religious-missionary FFs. This shows how the family’s religious sources are directly transferred to the business, uniting the family and the firm. These firms demonstrate a profound dialogue capacity in order to directly reconcile religion with the secular business context.
Religious-pragmatic FFs avoid imposing religious BaV at the business level and on its stakeholders. Instead, these firms are characterized by secular BaV that still hold a religious source. Figure 1 shows that, by applying a business focus, religious families derive religious BaV from religious sources at the family level but justify them secularly at the business level. A transformation of religious sources ensures that the firm’s stakeholders encounter only universally accepted secular BaV, while religion remains significant for the family. Thereby, religious sources based on the business replace religious sources. Religious-pragmatic FFs’ dialogue capacity shows a reflexive approach, adapting to the secular DACH region driven by secular expectations and past conflicts with key stakeholders.
Secular FFs are characterized solely by secular BaV. Nevertheless, these firms differ in the their dialogue capacity: Fig. 1 shows that secular families can adopt either a family focus or a business focus in order to become secular FFs. Although secular sources are formative in both foci, they are related to either the family (family focus) or the firm (business focus). As a consequence, BaV on the business level vary and range from BaV of primary importance to the owning family (family focus), such as trust and responsibility, to BaV of primary importance for business considerations (business focus), such as sustainability and diversity. These in the DACH region widely accepted secular sources are transferred directly to the firm without needing adjustment. However, that being said, secular FFs are often unaware of their dialogue capacity.
Acknowledging the processes illustrated in Fig. 1, dialogue capacity holds particular significance for religious families. Only through a family focus, religious sources can be directly integrated at the business level in the secular DACH region. In addition to underscoring the continuing relevance of religion, the findings also reveal a more nuanced picture of how FFs deal with the sources of BaV. Given the foci in FFs’ dialogue capacity, our findings suggest that there are different shades of FFs rather than a dichotomy (e.g., religious and secular families). This demonstrates DACH region FFs’ highly differentiated dialogue capacity. However, the model stresses that no FF relies exclusively on religious sources. Instead, economic considerations (secular sources) are incorporated into all FFs, underscoring the dominant orientation of DACH region FFs. Even religious-missionary FFs, which directly include religious sources on the business level, also integrate secular sources based on the family.
Furthermore, a business focus leads to the use of existing catalogues of BaV that are widely applied and acknowledged in business practice. As a result, the sources, and therefore the dialogue capacity, are less reflected. This business focus is reinforced by globalization and diversity, which facilitate the need for a religion-neutral dialogue. In addition, the sources of FFs’ BaV may change based on the reaction of the business environment (e.g., potential conflicts with key stakeholders). This is especially evident for religious families: While positive experiences can foster a family focus and, consequently, the integration of religious sources into the firm (religious-missionary FFs), negative experiences can lead to a business focus and, hence, the separation of religious sources from the firm (religious-pragmatic FFs).
The importance of dialogue capacity in the DACH region proves to be especially influential for religious families both in religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs, where positive corporate behavior based on religious sources (e.g., ethical handling of stakeholders) is also appreciated in a secular environment (e.g., by employees). Thereby, FFs initiate discourse on religion. Secularization thus leads to greater sensitivity in this regard (e.g., considerately handling religious contents for religious-missionary FFs and translating religious values into universal values for religious-pragmatic FFs). Conversely, secular FFs deliberately separate religious sources from business. However, this goes beyond secular FFs and applies to religious-pragmatic FFs, which indicates the ongoing secularization in the DACH region.
Both religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs prove an increasing dialogue capacity. While religious-missionary FFs consciously emphasize religious sources (e.g., the Bible), religious-pragmatic FFs separate the family’s religious sources from the firm and strive for universal BaV. Unlike secular FFs, which often rarely reflect their dialogue capacity, religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs are much more aware of the sources of their BaV and can moderate them according to the situation. Furthermore, by demonstrating a reflexive approach toward BaV, religious-missionary FFs make a conscious effort to avoid imposing religious sources on stakeholders by providing a secular alternative. The religious and secular spheres are both recognized as important, if not always compatible. The expressed caution, tolerance, and respect for the variety of stakeholders, including employees and business partners above all others, indicate a trend towards a a reflexive approach in FFs’ dialogue capacity. Conflicts about BaV between the family level and business level can usually be resolved by reflecting on the sources of the BaV (e.g., terminations necessary for business considerations by Christian CEOs). However, the business focus of religious-pragmatic FFs can cause tension and indicate a need for change.
In a secular environment, secular sources do not require adaptation. Secular FFs build largely on family tradition for explaining their BaV. Further, the findings demonstrate that secular FFs often reflect insufficiently on the sources of their BaV. In terms of the justification of BaV, there is a generational divide, which points to secularization. This can also be seen in secular FFs, which mainly refer to the religious sources of previous generations and religious traditions in a secular way. For instance, the original source of BaV that shaped the founding generation (e.g., the Bible) is replaced unreflectively with “family traditions” by following generations.
The developed process model proves applicable for various contextual factors within our sample, including industry and firm size (e.g., religious-missionary FFs in technical industries and secular FFs in traditional industries). However, there may be limitations in industries characterized by highly diverse workforces in terms of nationalities and religions (e.g., transport or manufacturing). In these industries, family managers tend to be more cautious about their religious sources and rather strive for a common secular basis through a business focus. Moreover, religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs rarely use instruments to transfer their BaV (e.g., mission statements), but rather convey values implicitly through role modeling. Furthermore, the values are deliberately neither written down (e.g., codes of conduct) nor used as an instrument (e.g., behavioral aspects) in the firm. This is particularly evident in the continuation of religious rituals (e.g., blessing of new vehicles).
6.2 Theoretical contribution and practical implications
Beyond the proposed process model of DACH region FFs’ dialogue capacity, this research provides five novel contributions to the literature. First, this is one of the first studies to empirically examine the theoretical considerations of secularization theory (Berger 1977, 2012) and post-secular society (Habermas 2001, 2006) for business research. Our findings demonstrate how these conceptual thoughts align with the actual landscape of business in the DACH region, thereby substantially enhancing our theorizing about FFs. In addition, our empirical data from the DACH region complements the existing empirical studies on religion in FFs, many of which focus on developing and emerging countries (Fathallah et al. 2020; Kavas et al. 2020) whose religious situation differs fundamentally from that of developed countries (Casanova 2009).
Second, contrary to literature-based expectations regarding secularization (Berger 1977, 2012; Casanova 2012), our findings show that religious sources are still important for certain FFs in the DACH region, extending the literature by identifying situations where religion continues to impact FFs’ rational decision-making. Figure 1 shows that in the case of religious families, religious sources are either integrated (family focus) or separated from the business level (business focus), leading to the categorization of religious-missionary FFs or religious-pragmatic FFs. Thus, religion does not disappear but continues to be influential through a family focus, although FFs’ dialogue capacity on religious and secular sources is transformed. Due to the close connection between family and firm (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Miller and Breton-Miller 2014), family members with substantial influence within their FF play a significant role in preserving religion in business.
Third, secularization is divisive and fosters three types of religious FFs, highlighting how secularization effects FFs’ dialogue capacity. This study expands the FF literature by suggesting more nuanced sources of BaV, shedding light on religious families that emphasize a business focus in order to transform their religious sources into more universally applicable secular sources. In addition, potential conflicts between key stakeholders of religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs confirm the ambiguity and controversial nature of religion in the secular business context, thereby highlighting the interplay between the arguments provided by Berger (1977, 2012) and Habermas (2001). Given the heterogeneity of FFs’ BaV (e.g., Rau et al. 2019) and the one-sided evidence of extant literature on BaV (e.g., Marques et al. 2014), this differentiated in-depth study on the religious and secular sources of BaV promises novel insights into FFs that can advance the understanding of FFs.
Fourth, Habermas (2001) advocates for an open dialogue between religion and modern societies, highlighting the crucial importance of religion in his notion of post-secular society. This is especially evident both in religious-missionary FFs and religious-pragmatic FFs, which consider religious sources within their dialogue capacity. This highlights that both spheres can coexist (Habermas 2001, 2010) and also supports the findings of Madison and Kellermanns (2013) and Paterson et al. (2013) that show that family members do not impose their religious BaV despite the strong importance of religion to them. However, Habermas’ call for an open dialogue about religion does not apply to all FFs. Given the identified nuances of FFs, our findings suggest that Habermas’ (2001, 2006) claims in his post-secular society, especially those on an open dialogue between religious and secular BaV, are not yet met in the DACH region. Instead, the findings show that the secular business environment can create pressure for religious families to transform their religious BaV into universally accepted BaV.
Fifth, although SEW is also frequently criticized (Miller and Breton-Miller 2014; Schulze and Kellermanns 2015), it is still one of the most dominant concepts in FF research (Xi et al. 2015; Anwar et al. 2023). Acknowledging BaV as key drivers of SEW that can advance understanding of this concept and its challenges (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2007; Berrone et al. 2012; Jiang et al. 2018), our contributes a religion perspective to SEW-literature. While prior literature indicates that the family’s religion appears to be promising from a SEW-perspective (Kellermanns 2013; Naldi et al. 2013; Astrachan et al. 2020), our findings showcase that FFs in a secular business context face challenges in reconciling religion with SEW tradeoffs. This identified dialogue capacity of religious FFs considering to adopt a family focus or a business focus contributes to recent literature on mixed-gamble towards SEW (Gómez-Mejía et al. 2014, 2023; Umans et al. 2023) and extends prior studies (Vasconcelos 2010; Sorenson 2013; Debicki et al. 2016; Barbera et al. 2020; Dieleman and Koning 2020) indicating that religious and secular sources may influence FFs’ BaV by emphasizing SEW.
Our research offers three practical implications. First, our work can guide owning families and family managers towards a reflexive approach to their BaV, deriving helpful practical advice for management decisions. While the ongoing secularization of the DACH region may hardly be a problem for secular FFs, it poses notable challenges for religious FFs. Our study provides one of the first attempts to address this problem by raising awareness about FFs’ dialogue capacity. Awareness of FFs’ dialogue capacity allows religious sources to be perceived positively in a secular business environment. Thus, despite secularization in the DACH region, religion retains its significance in the business context through religious FFs that emphasize a family focus. Building on the finding that not all FFs conform to Habermas’ openness, our research argues for greater transparency regarding the sources of BaV at the firm level. The intentional dialogue of religious or secular BaV can contribute to holistic decision-making towards key stakeholders such as, e.g., employees and customers. This is particularly relevant for internationally operating FFs, which face a high diversity of BaV and thus need a common secular basis. Second, the findings may help non-family managers to understand FFs’ heterogeneity by emphasizing their BaV. Awareness of the religious and secular sources can shed light on FFs’ complex behavior and deepen the understanding of management decisions that deviate from rational business considerations. Third, practitioners emphasizing the unique dynamics of religious and secular BaV may contribute to a holistic management of FFs. Recognizing religion as an important source of BaV may facilitate effective management of FFs.
6.3 Limitations and further research
This paper faces specific limitations. First, we used interviews and thus self-reported data from family members as the key informants. As the interviewees’ reflections were based on their own perspectives, a certain degree of subjectivity cannot be ruled out (Kumar et al. 1993). Furthermore, most of the interviewees held long tenured positions in their firm and our interviews covered not only current issues but also the firm’s history. Although this approach is important for analyzing BaV, recall bias and post-hoc sense-making may have limited our findings (Bell 2005; Merkl-Davies et al. 2011). However, since the analyzed FFs are large firms for which extensive material is publicly available (e.g., business reports), the triangulation of these primary data and cross-verification from at least two sources should have led to a comprehensive and objective analysis (Miles et al. 2019). As the findings are consistent across the analyzed data, key information bias may not be a major concern in this study.
Second, given that the aim of this study was to explore the dialogue capacity of a variety of different FFs, we conducted one interview per firm. While this allows for a broader sample and cross-case analysis, it may be limited by the potential heterogeneity of owner families within single cases. As investigating differences between family members was not the object of the present study, it offers opportunities for further research. Thus, future studies may employ, for instance, a single case study approach and interview several members of the owning family and non-family managers.
Third, acknowledging Christianity’s monopoly position in the DACH region, our study focuses on purposively sampled Christian FFs. However, this approach omits other relevant religions such as Islam and Judaism and thus limits our findings. Expanding the data collection to a broader range of religious perspectives could reveal additional nuances about how religion influences FFs and could enrich our understanding of the interplay between religion and FFs’ management decisions in the business context of the DACH region. Therefore, the interpretation of our model is limited primarily to Christian FFs.
Fourth, while the explorative nature of the study provided original findings, adopting such an interpretative approach may have biased those findings. Despite the authors’ best efforts to carefully evaluate the findings following our empirical research design, subjectivity in the data analysis cannot be ruled out. This is especially important for coding, as a different approach may lead to different findings. This study and its reliability must be considered against this background.
Fifth, considering the limited understanding of the sources of FFs’ BaV, we employ an explorative approach to answer the “why” and “how” questions. Due to the characteristics of the sample, especially its regional composition (DACH region) and heterogeneity (e.g., company size, industry), the findings may not be readily generalizable to the broader FF landscape. A sample with other characteristics might generate different findings. Further, since the number of interviews was limited (21 FFs), more interviews would lead to more perspectives and thus more saturated data. The study does not claim to be representative, but rather provides initial evidence for further research.
Further research is necessary to complement our findings. In particular, the ongoing changes in religiosity and secularization in European societies offer substantial potential. A purposeful focus on FFs with specific characteristics (e.g., very regional or very international FFs) promises important new insights. Additionally, it would be interesting to assess how the responses of FFs change over time by conducting a longitudinal study.
7 Conclusion
BaV are a key distinguishing feature of FFs. A growing body of literature acknowledges that studying BaV enhances the understanding of FFs’ behavior and management decisions (e.g., Rau et al. 2019; Astrachan et al. 2020). However, to date, little is known about the religious and secular sources of their BaV, which give them their specific character. Following secularization theory (Berger 1977, 2012) and post-secular society (Habermas 2001, 2006, 2010), our qualitative-empirical study provides in-depth insights into DACH region FFs’ dialogue capacity, which means how FFs deal with their BaV and the ability of FFs to promote dialogue about religious and secular sources in a business context (e.g., integration, transformation, or separation of the family’s religious and secular sources of BaV at the firm level). Despite the secular business context (Casanova 2009; Berger 2012, 2017), certain FFs still emphasize religious sources at the firm level. However, secularization is divisive and forces religious FFs to adapt the sources of their BaV. Thereby, FFs’ dialogue capacity does not allow a dichotomy, but suggests three different shades of FFs. This pressure to adapt implies that Habermas (2006, 2010) claims for an open dialogue between religion and secularization does not yet apply to FFs from the DACH region.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Overview of the sample (sorted by cluster according to the time of data collection)
Code
Firm
Interviewee
Country
Number of employees
Annual revenue (Euro millions)
Current main owner’s number of generation
Family members are part of the management team
Position
Duration (minutes)
Secular family firms
S1
Austria
≥ 10,000
1,900
5–7
No
Deputy chairperson of the supervisory board
89
S2
Austria
500–1,999
110
3
Yes
CEO
70
S3
Austria
5,000–9,999
1,100
3–4
Yes
CEO
60
S4
Austria
500–1,999
180
2–3
Yes
CEO
112
S5
Switzerland
≥ 10,000
4,000
2–3
No
Chairperson of the supervisory board
74
S6
Germany
≥ 10,000
5,600
3
No
Chairperson of the supervisory board
86
S7
Austria
2,000–4,999
490
3
Yes
CEO
56
Religious family firms
R1
Austria
2,000–4,999
310
2–3
Yes
Chairperson of the supervisory board
87
R2
Germany
500–1,999
400
1–2
Yes
Chairperson of the supervisory board
106
R3
Germany
500–1,999
490
1
Yes
CEO
94
R4
Austria
180–499
10
2–3
Yes
CEO
82
R5
Switzerland
500–1,999
110
3
Yes
CEO
82
R6
Austria
2,000–4,999
245
2–3
Yes
Chairperson of the supervisory board
67
R7
Germany
180–499
40
2–3
Yes
CEO
84
R8
Austria
180–499
15
4
Yes
CEO
78
R9
Austria
500–1,999
280
2
Yes
CEO
140
R10
Germany
500–1,999
275
3
Yes
CEO
69
R11
Germany
2,000–4,999
300
≥ 8
Yes
CEO
69
R12
Germany
2,000–4,999
290
3
Yes
CEO
49
R13
Germany
180–499
116
4–5
Yes
Deputy chairperson of the supervisory board
62
R14
Austria
500–1,999
80
2
Yes
CEO
58
∑ 21 firms
∑ 1,674 min
Table 2
Data structure
Overarching themes
Second-order concepts
First-order codes
Exemplary quotes
Family focus
Family-first
Non-financial goals
“It is important to me that [the firm] remains a family firm, that it is passed on to the next generation (…). That would also be my heart’s desire (…). I think that in a family firm, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. And the employees should feel that the family is an essential part of it.” (S7)
Traditions and rituals
“People know that too, and there are celebrations from time to time with the blessing of the vehicle, which are usually rituals (…). People appreciate that and like to do it, or take it for granted that it’s like that, and see something good in it. But I don’t actually consciously do religious education on top of that.” (R1)
Legacy of the founding generation
“Why do we (…) operate in 16 countries and (…) the headquarters is located in the [region]? Employees from the [region] helped build the company – with honesty, with diligence, with support, and with understanding also to solve low points together. (…) What my grandparents represented as personalities was inherited by my mother and my aunt. And they passed it on to us as children.” (R6)
Family- and religion-oriented dialogue
Eternal perspective and responsibility towards God
“Suddenly we were told that we didn’t have a [permit] yet. We just forgot about it. But then they said it’s not that bad, it’s just a fine, it’s an administrative offense, but it’s not a criminal offense. So we can just start anyway. That was a moment where I said the damage wouldn’t be great but I would feel bad and I also can't reconcile it with my Christian values from this eternal perspective. (…) There are similar examples and questions about the product recall where you really know it’s not about stakeholders now, (…) it’s about this eternal perspective [and] this obligation to the Creator which gives the ethics discussion a completely different perspective.” (R5)
Positive personal experience with religion
“It’s clearly based on the Gospel, and quite clearly based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. And when you look at it, it’s always about love, love of neighbor. And of course, when you go into topics like the Sermon on the Mount or many other passages, then you also notice that this plays a big role. In (…) Matthew 18 there is a passage, (…) which is about how to deal with people in the church who are causing problems of whatever kind. (…) And the rule is that if you see a problem with your brother or sister then go and talk to them. If you can’t solve it then take another person with you and talk to the problem person again, if you can’t solve it again, (…) then get more people involved (…). That’s why we have never had a lawsuit, regardless of the country, regardless of the context, regardless of the situation.” (R3)
Exchange and joint reflection about religion
“I am intentionally looking to Christian sources to guide me. This comes in the form of my two close friends who are both devoted Christians (…). I also seek the professional help of a wise Christian (…). I mean, he is a neurologist, (…) a doctor, who has achieved a lot in life by following Christian values, so I really consciously pick up on that. (…) Presently, I have taken up a new position and assist as a sacristan [in the parish community] and (…) I make connections and have meaningful encounters every now and then.” (R4)
Business focus
Business-first
Separation of irrational considerations from the firm
“We have always made it clear that a person’s religiosity is very private and has no place in a professional environment. It does not belong there because it leads to discussions that do not lead anywhere in a professional context.” (S2)
Negative personal experience with religion
“I am very careful when I talk about my religion in the firm, because it can be easily misunderstood.” (R5)
Non-family experts in management
“We have a management team of five people, none of whom are family members. I am very much in favor of integrating people from outside the family. Because I think that not all intelligence, skills and knowledge can be in one family.” (S4)
Religion-neutral dialogue
Internationalization, pluralism and diversity
“However, another significant aspect was my father’s openness to various religious communities, and consequently, he emphasized the importance of secularism within [our firm]. (…) [Through internationalization], our interactions began with the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox in Eastern Europe, extending to include the Islamic religious community in Southeastern European markets and colleagues who identify with Judaism. Over the years, [our firm] has evolved into a blend of diverse cultures and religions. This diversity is a defining feature of our firm – an embodiment of equal coexistence. The family places great value on ensuring that there is room for everyone.” (R14)
Avoiding conflicts with key stakeholders
“I think [my values] are influenced by religion in a certain way (…). But that was not my intention in that sense. And I would also say that apart from the fact that I see our firm as apolitical, the firm is also totally open to religion. We don’t have a crucifix hanging anywhere. I personally believe that I am guided by Christian values, but we are very liberal, we are very open. I think it is important for the firm to have human values, to pursue human values and to live them and to make them clear without dogmatizing them in any way or associating them with any faith or political orientation or anything else. Instead, it really lets [values] exist on their own, detached from any denomination or anything like that.” (R11)
Intergenerational religious decline
“For the founder, my grandfather (…) the church has played an important role in the development of the firm, not only as a customer group, but also as a partner. (…) And those are probably our core values. I’m not a religious person, I don’t believe in God or anything, and I can’t say that the company has really developed Christian values [since then]. I think that would be going too far.” (S2)
Abelson RS, Prentice DA (1989) Beliefs as profession: a functional perspective. In: Pratkanis AR, Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG (eds) Attitude structure and function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 361–381
Allouche J, Amann B, Jaussaud J, Kurashina T (2008) The impact of family control on the performance and financial characteristics of family versus nonfamily businesses in Japan: a matched-pair investigation. Fam Bus Rev 21(4):315–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865080210040104CrossRef
Astrachan JH, Klein SB, Smyrnios KX (2002) The F-PEC scale of family influence: a proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Fam Bus Rev 15(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00045.xCrossRef
Astrachan JH, Binz Astrachan C, Campopiano G, Baù M (2020) Values, spirituality and religion: family business and the roots of sustainable ethical behavior. J Bus Ethics 163:637–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04392-5CrossRef
Balog AM, Baker LT, Walker AG (2014) Religiosity and spirituality in entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda. J Manag Spiritual Relig 11(2):159–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.836127CrossRef
Barbera F, Shi HX, Agarwal A, Edwards M (2020) The family that prays together stays together: toward a process model of religious value transmission in family firms. J Bus Ethics 163:661–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04382-7CrossRef
Bell AJ (2005) “Oh yes, I remember it well!” Reflections on using the life-grid in qualitative interviews with couples. Qual Sociol Rev 1(1):51–67CrossRef
Berger PL (1977) Facing up to modernity: excursions in society, politics, and religion. Basic Books, New York
Berger PL (2012) Further thoughts on religion and modernity. Society 49(4):313–316CrossRef
Berger PL (2017) The desecularization of the world: a global overview. In: Pfadenhauer M (ed) The new sociology of knowledge. Routledge, New York, pp 61–76CrossRef
Berger PL (1999) The desecularization of the world: resurgent religion and world politics. William B. Eardmans, Grand Rapids
Berrone P, Cruz C, Gómez-Mejía LR, Larraza-Kintana M (2010) Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less? Adm Sci Q 55(1):82–113. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.82CrossRef
Berrone P, Cruz C, Gómez-Mejía LR (2012) Socioemotional wealth in family firms: theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 25(3):258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511435355CrossRef
Bhatnagar N, Sharma P, Ramachandran K (2020) Spirituality and corporate philanthropy in Indian family firms: an exploratory study. J Bus Ethics 163:715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04394-3CrossRef
Bhatnagar N, Sharma P, Ramachandran K (2021) Religion and business families’ philanthropic practices. In: De Massis A, Kammerlander N (eds) Handbook of qualitative research methods for family business. Edward Elgars, Cheltenham, pp 191–207
Blodgett MS, Dumas C, Zanzi A (2011) Emerging trends in global ethics: a comparative study of U.S. and international family business values. J Bus Ethics 99:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1164-7CrossRef
Bouncken RB, Qiu Y, Sinkovics N, Kürsten W (2021) Qualitative research: extending the range with flexible pattern matching. Rev Manag Sci 15:251–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00451-2CrossRef
Casanova J (2009) The religious situation in Europe. In: Joas A, Wiegandt K (eds) Secularization and the world religions. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, pp 206–227
Casanova J (2012) Rethinking public religion. In: Shah TS, Stepan A, Toft MD (eds) Rethinking religion and world affairs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–35CrossRef
Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Kellermanns FW, Chang EPC (2007) Are family managers agents or stewards? An exploratory study in privately held family firms. J Bus Res 60(10):1030–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.011CrossRef
Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Kellermanns FW, Matherne CH III, Debicki BJ (2008) Management journals as venues for publication of family business research. Entrep Theory Pract 32(5):927–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00263.xCrossRef
Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Pearson AW, Barnett T (2012) Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrep Theory Prac 36(2):267–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.xCrossRef
Chua JH, Chrisman JJ, De Massis A (2015) A closer look at socioemotional wealth: its flows, stocks, and prospects for moving forward. Entrep Theory Pract 39(2):173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12155CrossRef
De Massis A, Kammerlander N (2021) Handbook of qualitative research methods for family business. Edward Elgars, Cheltenham
De Massis A, Kotlar J (2014) The case study method in family business research: guidelines for qualitative scholarship. J Fam Bus Strateg 5(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.007CrossRef
De Massis A, Kotlar J, Mazzola P, Minola T, Sciascia S (2018) Conflicting selves: family owners’ multiple goals and self-control agency problems in private firms. Entrep Theory Pract 42(3):362–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12257CrossRef
Debicki BJ, Kellermanns FW, Chrisman JJ, Pearson AW, Spencer BA (2016) Development of a socioemotional wealth importance (SEWi) scale for family firm research. J Fam Bus Strateg 7(1):47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2016.01.002CrossRef
Duh M, Belak J, Milfelner B (2010) Core values, culture and ethical climate as constitutional elements of ethical behaviour: exploring differences between family and non-family enterprises. J Bus Ethics 97:473–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0519-9CrossRef
Dumas C, Blodgett M (1999) Articulating values to inform decision making: lessons from family firms around the world. Int J Value Based Manag 12:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007764112498CrossRef
Eller JD (2017) Varieties of secular experience. In: Zuckerman P, Shook JR (eds) The Oxford handbook of secularism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 499–514
Elsbach KD, Pieper TM (2019) How psychological needs motivate family firm identifications and identifiers: a framework and future research agenda. J Fam Bus Strateg 10(3):100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.100289CrossRef
Erdem F, Gül Başer G (2010) Family and business values of regional family firms: a qualitative research. Int J Islam Middle East Financ Manag 3(1):47–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538391011033861CrossRef
Ernst F, Bendig D, Puechel L (2024) Religion in family firms: a socioemotional wealth perspective on top-level executives with perceived religiosity. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05606-7CrossRef
Everett J, Friesen C, Neu D, Rahaman AS (2018) We have never been secular: religious identities, duties, and ethics in audit practice. J Bus Ethics 153:1121–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3426-xCrossRef
Eze NL, Nordqvist M, Samara G, Parada MJ (2021) Different strokes for different folks: the roles of religion and tradition for transgenerational entrepreneurship in family businesses. Entrep Theory Pract 45(4):792–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720964428CrossRef
Fang H, Randolph RVDG, Chrisman JJ, Barnett T (2013) Firm religiosity, bounded stakeholder salience, and stakeholder relationships in family firms. J Manag Spiritual Relig 10(3):253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2012.758055CrossRef
Fathallah R, Sidani Y, Khalil S (2020) How religion shapes family business ethical behaviors: an institutional logics perspective. J Bus Ethics 163:647–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04383-6CrossRef
Fisher N (2017) Fragmentary theory of secularization and religionization: changes in the family structure as a case study. Polit Relig 10(2):363–388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048316000730CrossRef
Fletcher D, Melin L, Gimeno A (2012) Culture and values in family business: a review and suggestions for future research. J Fam Bus Strateg 3(3):127–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.06.001CrossRef
Flick U (2004) Triangulation in qualitative research. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (eds) A companion to qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 178–183
García-Álvarez E, López-Sintas J, Saldaña Gonzalvo P (2002) Socialization patterns of successors in first- to second-generation family businesses. Fam Bus Rev 15(3):189–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00189.xCrossRef
Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York
Gilal FG, Zhang J, Paul J, Gilal NG (2019) The role of self-determination theory in marketing science: an integrative review and agenda for research. Eur Manag J 37(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.10.004CrossRef
Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods 16:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151CrossRef
Gómez-Mejía LR, Campbell JT, Martin G, Hoskisson RE, Makri M, Sirmon DG (2014) Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrep Theory Pract 38(6):1351–1374. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12083CrossRef
Gómez-Mejía LR, Chirico F, Martin G, Baù M (2023) Best among the worst or worst among the best? Socioemotional wealth and risk-performance returns for family and non-family firms under financial distress. Entrep Theory Pract 47(4):1031–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211057420CrossRef
Jiang DS, Kellermanns FW, Munyon TP, Morris ML (2018) More than meets the eye: a review and future directions for the social psychology of socioemotional wealth. Fam Bus Rev 31(1):125–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517736959CrossRef
Joyner BE, Payne D (2002) Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 41:297–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021237420663CrossRef
Kidwell RE, Eddleston KA, Kellermanns FW (2018) Learning bad habits across generations: how negative imprints affect human resource management in the family firm. Hum Resour Manag Rev 28(1):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.002CrossRef
Kluckhohn C (1951) Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification. In: Parsons T, Shils E (eds) Toward a general theory of action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 388–433
Koiranen M (2002) Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneurially active in business: exploring the values and family characteristics of old Finnish family firms. Fam Bus Rev 15(3):175–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00175.xCrossRef
Kotlar J, De Massis A (2013) Goal setting in family firms: goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1263–1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12065CrossRef
Kumar N, Stern LW, Anderson JC (1993) Institutional knowledge at Singapore management university: conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Acad Manag J 36(6):1633–1651CrossRef
Lee L (2015) Recognizing the non-religious: reimagining the secular. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef
Lee JSK, Zhao G, Lu F (2019) The effect of value congruence between founder and successor on successor’s willingness: the mediating role of the founder–successor relationship. Fam Bus Rev 32(3):259–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519840248CrossRef
Leppäaho T, Plakoyiannaki E, Dimitratos P (2016) The case study in family business: an analysis of current research practices and recommendations. Fam Bus Rev 29(2):159–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486515614157CrossRef
Lillis AM, Mundy J (2005) Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research: closing the gaps between surveys and case studies. J Manag Account Res 17(1):119–141. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2005.17.1.119CrossRef
Madison K, Kellermanns FW (2013) Is the spiritual bond bound by blood? An exploratory study of spiritual leadership in family firms. J Manag Spiritual Relig 10(2):159–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2012.758052CrossRef
Mariani MM, Al-Sultan K, De Massis A (2023) Corporate social responsibility in family firms: a systematic literature review. J Small Bus Manag 61(3):1192–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955122CrossRef
Martin D (2017) On secularization: towards a revised general theory. Routledge, LondonCrossRef
Martínez Romero MJ, Rojo Ramírez AA (2017) Socioemotional wealth’s implications in the calculus of the minimum rate of return required by family businesses’ owners. Rev Manag Sci 11:95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0181-9CrossRef
Maung M, Miller D, Tang Z, Xu X (2020) Value-enhancing social responsibility: market reaction to donations by family vs. non-family firms with religious CEOs. J Bus Ethics 163:745–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04381-8CrossRef
Merkl-Davies DM, Brennan NM, McLeay SJ (2011) Impression management and retrospective sense-making in corporate narratives: a social psychology perspective. Account Audit Account J 24(3):315–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111124036CrossRef
Miles MB, Huberman MA, Saldana J (2019) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 4th edn. Sage, New York
Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I (2005) Managing for the long run: lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Naldi L, Cennamo C, Corbetta G, Gómez-Mejía L (2013) Preserving socioemotional wealth in family firms: asset or liability? The moderating role of business context. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1341–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12069CrossRef
Parada MJ, Samara G, Dawson A, Bonet E (2019) Prosperity over time and across generations: the role of values and virtues in family businesses. J Organ Chang Manag 33(4):639–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2018-0341CrossRef
Paterson TA, Specht D, Duchon D (2013) Exploring costs and consequences of religious expression in family businesses. J Manag Spiritual Relig 10(2):138–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2012.758051CrossRef
Pearce JA, Fritz DA, Davis PS (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrep Theory Pract 34(1):219–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00315.xCrossRef
Picone PM, De Massis A, Tang Y, Piccolo RF (2021) The psychological foundations of management in family firms: values, biases, and heuristics. Fam Bus Rev 34(1):12–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520985630CrossRef
Pieper TM, Williams RI Jr, Manley SC, Matthews LM (2020) What time may tell: an exploratory study of the relationship between religiosity, temporal orientation, and goals in family business. J Bus Ethics 163:759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04386-3CrossRef
Raitis J, Sasaki I, Kotlar J (2021) System-spanning values work and entrepreneurial growth in family firms. J Manag Stud 58(1):104–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12653CrossRef
Rokeach M (1972) Beliefs, attitudes and values: theory of organization and change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York
Ruf PJ, Graffius M, Wolff S, Moog P, Felden B (2021) Back to the roots: applying the concept of individual human values to understand family firm behavior. Fam Bus Rev 34(1):48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520944282CrossRef
Ruiz Jiménez MC, Vallejo Martos MC, Martínez Jiménez R (2015) Organisational harmony as a value in family businesses and its influence on performance. J Bus Ethics 126:259–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1941-6CrossRef
Sabah S, Carsrud AL, Kocak A (2014) The impact of cultural openness, religion, and nationalism on entrepreneurial intensity: six prototypical cases of Turkish family firms. J Small Bus Manag 52(2):306–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12101CrossRef
Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1990) Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(5):878–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878CrossRef
Simon A, Marquès P, Bikfalvi A, Muñoz MD (2012) Exploring value differences across family firms: the influence of choosing and managing complexity. J Fam Bus Strateg 3(3):132–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.05.003CrossRef
Smith BR, Conger MJ, McMullen JS, Neubert MJ (2019) Why believe? The promise of research on the role of religion in entrepreneurial action. J Bus Ventur Insights 11:e00119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00119CrossRef
Soleimanof S, Rutherford MW, Webb JW (2018) The intersection of family firms and institutional contexts: a review and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 31(1):32–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517736446CrossRef
Umans I, Lybaert N, Steijvers T, Voordeckers W, Laveren E (2023) Performance below and above aspirations as an antecedent of succession planning in family firms: a socio-emotional wealth mixed gamble approach. Rev Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00662-9CrossRef
Vallejo MC (2008) Is the culture of family firms really different? A value-based model for its survival through generations. J Bus Ethics 81:261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9493-2CrossRef
Van Buren HJ, Syed J, Mir R (2020) Religion as a macro social force affecting business: concepts, questions, and future research. Bus Soc 59(5):799–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319845097CrossRef
Weber M (1905) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Allen & Unwin, London
Weiler M, Hinz O (2019) Without each other, we have nothing: a state-of-the-art analysis on how to operationalize social capital. Rev Manag Sci 13:1003–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0280-5CrossRef
Xi JM, Kraus S, Filser M, Kellermanns FW (2015) Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. Int Entrep Manag J 11(1):113–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0286-zCrossRef
Zellweger TM, Dehlen T (2012) Value is in the eye of the owner: affect infusion and socioemotional wealth among family firm owners. Fam Bus Rev 25(3):280–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511416648CrossRef
Zellweger TM, Nason RS, Nordqvist M, Brush CG (2013) Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 37(2):229–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00466.xCrossRef
Zuckerman P, Shook JR (2017) Introduction: the study of secularism. In: Zuckerman P, Shook JR (eds) The Oxford handbook of secularism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–20CrossRef
Zwack M, Kraiczy ND, von Schlippe A, Hack A (2016) Storytelling and cultural family value transmission: value perception of stories in family firms. Manag Learn 47(5):590–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616659833CrossRef
