Hierarchical Dyadic Congruence in Family Firms: The Interplay of Supervisor and Supervisee Socioemotional Wealth Importance and Familial Status

Abstract

Hierarchical dyadic congruence in family firms: The interplay of supervisor and supervisee socioemotional wealth importance and familial status We extend McLarty, Vardaman, and Barnett's (in press) analysis of how family firm supervisor attributes, in terms of familial status and socioemotional wealth importance, affect supervisee performance by considering the supervisee attributes. We further integrate the concept of restricted and generalized social exchange to provide a theoretical basis for how hierarchical dyadic (in)congruence moderates the relationship between supervisee commitment and performance. By providing a more fine-grained conceptualization, we contribute to the family business literature at its organization behavior interface.

Social Structures, Social Relationships, and Family Firms

“…In their commentary, Campopiano and Rondi (2019) take the idea of incongruence one step further and suggest that in line with leader-follower congruence arguments, employee commitment is also influenced by hierarchical dyadic congruence (Zhang, Wang, & Shi, 2012). Hierarchical dyadic congruence exists when the supervisor and the supervisee both have the same familial status and SEW concerns.…”

When Can Families Fill Voids? Firms’ Reliance on Formal and Informal Institutions in R&D Decisions

“…Due to their strong commitment and identification with the firm, family firm members should be less likely to leave the business, and actively safeguard its vital knowledge assets (Hannah, 2006; Rajbhandary, 1996). In fact, not only family managers and employees have strong motivations to act in the family firm’s best interests, but nonfamily members may also adopt pro-organizational behaviors (Campopiano & Rondi, 2019; Eddleston et al, 2012; Kotlar & Sieger, 2019). The strong commitment and loyalty toward the firm might also endure after exiting the business, such that former family firm members may be less likely to join direct competitors or intentionally leak sensitive technological knowledge than nonfamily-firm members (Dutton et al, 1994; Hannah, 2007).…”

The Enigma of the Family Successor–Firm Performance Relationship: A Methodological Reflection and Reconciliation Attempt

“…In turn, the sustained maintenance of this family-specific social capital results in supportive stakeholder relationships characterized by enduring commitment, loyalty, harmony, and goal alignment, while it shields the firm from the turbulence and power struggles of succession (Pearson et al, 2008). In the post-succession phase, this setting encourages new productive and generalized exchange between stakeholders and the successor (Campopiano & Rondi, 2019; Homans, 1958; McLarty et al, 2019) which includes knowledge resources necessary for leading and positioning the firm. Ultimately, this productive exchange across family borders materializes in augmented post-succession performance.…”