Are the values of family members consistent with the organizational culture of their business?

Original Research SAGE Open April-June 2024: 1–21 ÓThe Author(s) 2024 DOI: 10.1177/21582440241253563 journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo Are the Values of Family Members Consistent With the Organizational Culture of Their Business? Marie Mikus ˇova ´ 1 ,Va ´clav Friedrich 1 , Gabriela Pola ´kova ´ 1 , and Ondr ˇej Linhart 2 Abstract In family businesses, as in other organizations, an informal organizational culture is formed. The purpose of the research was to determine if there is a relationship between intra-family relationship and the type of organizational culture. Quantitative research has been conducted. The OCAI questionnaire was used as well as a set of questions from the authors who called it the Family Involvement Model. Data were obtained from 860 respondents, family business owners. Key findings that the values of family members are not consistent with the organizational culture in their business have been statistically confirmed. Only the hypothesis of the consistency of family values and clan organizational culture was confirmed. The study contributes to the study of family involvement in family business. Practical implications for family business owners can be seen in the building of positive influence on the creation of the organizational culture in their business. The study addresses the nature of organizational culture and the values of the family what is the originality of the research. Plain Language Summary Findings of the research have shown that the behaviours and attitudes inside the family do not necessarily match the nature of the organizational culture in their company. This hypothesis was confirmed only for the clan culture. This research study suffers from several limitations. The study has limitations in generalizability. The research was carried out in one country, a country with a relatively short history of family business. Families and their businesses do not yet have as much knowledge and experience as family businesses with a long tradition. However, the results obtained offer an opportunity for comparative research in countries where family business has a long tradition. This study assumes a direct relationship between family values and organizational culture. There is the possibility that there are other relationships that could be considered as other mediating variables not considered in this study. For this reason, more research could focus on a more robust understanding of relationships within families and how they influence culture in their business by including mediators that incorporate the influence of, for example, strategic decision making or business model development. The complexity of the respondents’ position may not have yielded reliable results. The complexity of a situation where a respondent identifies the relationships and values of their own family members and then values within their business, often perceived as a second family, can jeopardize the reliability of the answers. A limitation could be seen in the F-PEC model used. Some contemporary authors argue that Klein et al.’s F-PEC scale defines only a very specific type of family business. There are other types more conceptually and empirically, as also affirmed by Gupta and Levenburg. However, the structure of this model has been shown to be a suitable choice for the family model contoured here. FIM - formulated questions or group assignments may be submitted for discussion. The 1 Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic 2 Technical University of Liberec, Czech Republic Corresponding Author: Marie Mikus ˇova ´, Department of Management, Economics Faculty, Technical University of Ostrava, Sokolska ´tr ˇ. 33, Ostrava 70800, Czech Republic. Email: [email protected] Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). authors do not claim that the FIM is a final closed model. It will certainly require further elaboration or refinement. The authors welcome any comments. Research implications: By providing a clear and predictable relationship between the intensity and nature of family members’ relationships with each other and with the family business and the formation of organizational culture, the study contributes to family business theory, contributing to the study of family involvement in family business in terms of creating and maintaining the informal intangible aspects of organizational culture. Practical implications: for family business owners, it could provide impetus for establishing policies, rules, or roles within the family so that their involvement in the family business positively influences the creation and behaviour of the organizational culture in their business. Social implications arise from the importance of the existence of family firms that are significant in the economy. Not only the owners of family businesses, but also policymakers and regulatory authorities should contribute through their initiatives to promote the informal organizational culture that is a prerequisite for the growth and sustainability of family businesses, which are typically the largest employment generators in most economies. Originality/value/theoretical contribution: the study addresses the nature of organizational culture and the ‘‘character’’ of the family. By the ‘‘character’’ of the family is meant the relationships between family members and the relationships of family members to the family business. Relationships within the family and the relationship of family members to the family business are undoubtedly reflected not only in the formal structure, but also in the informal culture. The study reveals how these two ‘‘characters’’ are not/related. Keywords family business, familiness, FIM, OCAI, organizational culture, values Introduction Family, from a sociologistic point of view, is a basic building block of any society (Petrusek, 1996). But not only sociology claims its utmost importance, also economical significance is undeniable, especially considering family business. Ransburg et al. (2016) state that family values, vision, and purpose influences culture in the family-owned business. This organizational culture (OC) is an important subsystem of an organization, a determinant of organizational effectiveness and the quality of work life of organizational members (e.g., Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Miranda-Wolff, 2022; Schein, 1992; Schein & Schein, 2016; Trice & Beyer, 1990). Organizational culture is defined as a phenomenon consisting of individual elements, such as the core values, beliefs, and opinions that exist in the organization, the patterns of behavior, and the symbols that express the connection between the beliefs, values, and behaviors of the members of the organization (Denison, 1990; Schein, 1992 and others). Organizational culture is the result of the accumulation of experiences passed on to individuals through the socialization process; it provides continuity, reduces employee uncertainty, and affects their job satisfaction and emotional well-being; it is a source of motivation, and can be a competitive advantage (Luka ´s ˇova ´, 2015). Organizational culture is created in all types of organizations, corporates, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and above-mentioned family businesses as well. A family business is different from a conventional business in many ways. This difference may also influence the nature of organizational culture. A family business can be characterized as a combination of two systems of values, expectations, and rules—of the family and of the business (Baron & Lachenauer, 2021). Differences from non-family businesses appearing in organizational culture may lie, for example, in the area of social ties, where a greater sense of social feeling is often found in family businesses (Soluk et al., 2021). There is a strong emphasis on quality, as the reputation of the business and the family is at stake (Chan et al., 2020). There is much more support for other family members to be involved in the running of the business and its management, as one of the main goals of a family business is to pass the business on to the next generation (Drewniak et al., 2020). Of course, negatives arising from family involvement in the business. These may include nepotism, the transmission of family conflicts to the business and vice versa, an imbalance between the goals of the family and the business, and others (Craig & Newbert, 2020; Vergara et al., 2020). Family involvement influences business performance (Memili et al., 2015) and strategy (Minola et al., 2016). Family involvement in a business can be a competitive advantage, but also a cause of failure that can lead not only to premature business exit but also to rifts between family members (Garcia et al., 2018). As can be seen from the previous and the following theoretical background text, there are a number of studies dealing with the features of entrepreneurial families as well as family businesses. But do we know to what extent the ‘‘character’’ of the family and the mutual relations of family members is reflected in the ‘‘character’’ or culture 2SAGE Open of their business? Do friendly relationships in the family also mean a friendly environment in the business? How competition between family members affect the organizational culture of their business? Here, the authors state a research problem. A research question was formulated: Are the values and behaviors of family members consistent with the informal environment of their business? In order to answer the research question, research sub-questions were formulated and within them hypotheses were formulated as well. To answer them, the outputs from used models will have to be processed. The processing procedure is as follows. First, theoretical attention must be given to the areas that are treated in the presented research. The purpose of this section is to highlight the differences between a family business and a non-family business, and to explain the F-PEC model, the essence of which will be applied. Then the key role of organizational culture, the explaining of the Cameron and Quinn model that will be applied in the research are described. In the following section, the methodology, and methods used are described. The results obtained from the questionnaire survey in family businesses are statistically processed, presented, and discussed. Finally, the key results of the research are summarized and the limitations and benefits of the research are mentioned. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development In the following section, two main aspects of this article will be described—family business and organizational culture. Organizational culture arises in all types of organizations. Even in family businesses. The link between these two topics is well defined: family, a nucleus of every family business, influences its culture, that further influences the whole organization (Ransburg et al., 2016). Family business has a number of unique characteristics reflecting its nature. How can a family firm be distinguished from a non-family firm? Family Business A key aspect that distinguishes family firms from nonfamily firms relates to the element of family and family culture and the interrelationship between the family and the firm within an economic, managerial, and sociological framework (Davis, 2001). The definition of a family firm varies from country to country, but always refers to the dominance of family ownership, family representation in top management, controlling bodies, and, above all, the intention to pass the business on to the successor generation. The family is at the center of the company. This results in two structures encountering each other, namely, the family and the business, increasing the potential for conflict which affects both the family and the business sphere. Families are governed by equality, inclusion, and caring feelings. Businesses, on the other hand, are governed by meritocracy, selectivity, and critical analysis. These fundamental differences create opportunities for conflict in decision-making, employment, compensation, reinvestment, etc. Should such decisions favor the welfare of the family or the welfare of the business? A consensus must be found for the different values and relationships that work in the family and in the company. The introduction of rules and roles between family-business relationships is essential for maintaining harmony in the family and at the same time for the successful development of the business (Figure 1). In what follows, we focus on the features of family businesses that are related to the questions in the Cameron and Quinn (1999) questionnaire. Family businesses face complexities when it comes to the involvement of family members. Family members may be heavily favored, non-family members may perceive injustice in this way. This leads to a weakening of organizational culture, resulting in poor economic performance. In another situation, family members are expected to perform better than non-family members. Thus, family members may suffer from reverse nepotism, which is also negatively reflected in OC. It is indisputable that fairness in treatment, quality care, and concern for employees are closely related to their loyalty, which influences organizational culture (Schuman & Ward, 2017). The willingness to take risks is typical of the founding generation, where it has become its motivator (LlanosContreras et al., 2021). Urbanikova et al. (2020) state that the second generation is considered more innovative than the first generation. Internal and external knowledge is identified as one key factor in deep understanding the ability of the family to innovate (Becerra et al., 2020; Del Vecchio et al., 2019). Not only knowledge of managers, but also wise leadership has a significant, positive indirect effect on stimulating open innovations due to its influence on workplace friendships (Abdulmuhsin & Tarhini, 2022). The economic and business performance related issues and their solutions are interlinked with ethical values. Vazquez (2018) concluded that family businesses are vastly different from non-family businesses, which, as one can assume, will also influence their attitude toward organization culture. Other authors see the sources of this difference in the family’s own involvement (Sharma & Sharma, 2011), the personalities of the founder and his/ her successors (McMullen & Warnick, 2015), the interpersonal relations and communication (Campopiano & Mikus ˇova ´et al. 3 De Massis, 2014), or in the social relations and emotions (Cennamo et al., 2012). Another element influencing the organization culture is the company’s relationship with its stakeholders. In their study, Poech and Kriwanek (2011) concluded that family businesses are more respectful of the rights of stakeholders than non-family businesses. A responsible approach to stakeholders was also identified by for example, Barakat et al. (2020) or Chaudhary and Saxena (2022). A strength of family businesses is their socioemotional wealth (SEW). The complex relationships between different socio-emotional wealth goals are a frequent focus of research (e.g., Cleary et al., 2019; Dou et al., 2020; Weimann et al., 2021). It can be concluded that family control and influence, family members’ identification with the firm, binding social ties, emotional attachment, and the renewal of family ties to the firm through dynastic succession are important elements that can contribute to the creation of a strong organizational culture. When the founder generation becomes involved in the form of sibling and cousin teams, it is difficult to escape the complexities that come with diverse personalities, values, and perceptions of what vision is best for the business and for the family (Aronoff et al., 2011). Formal policies (i.e., shareholder agreement, code of conduct, policy on employment of family members, on marriage prenuptial, on retirement) and family institutions (family meeting, family assembly, family council, family office, etc.) governing the relationship between the family and the business are important to any family business because they help avoid problems and conflicts before they happen (Craigh & Moores, 2017). The way in which they interfere with the family is a constant problem. How to determine the extent of the family’s impact on the business? Several models are created. Barney (1991) divided six dimensions of OC into three groups: human resources, organizational resources, and process resources. Its division inspired Irava and Moores (2010). Rutherford et al. (2006) examine degrees of family involvement through the number of generations, ownership, and a host of family involvement variables. The model of Pearson et al. (2008) explores only the internal view of a company and a family. Danes et al. (2009) monitored the relationship between family and business on the level of the availability of resources and the existence of restrictions. Ban ˜os-Monroy et al. (2015) proposed three dimensions of familiness as process, human, and organization resources. Frank et al. (2017) defined a multidimensional scale (Family Influence Familiness Scale [FIFS]) comprising six dimensions. Cano-Rubio et al. (2017) propose a composition of familiness that considers family capital, bonding social capital, and bridging social capital of the FB. In conclusion, it can be summarized that family influence is used as a unique element that differentiates between family and non-family firms and differs performing family businesses from underperforming ones (Pearson et al., 2008) and that it can be a source of competitiveness. For the purpose of the presented research, the F-PEC model by Astrachan et al. (2002) is used. They defined Figure 1. Rules for families and businesses. Source. Carlock and Ward (2001). 4SAGE Open family involvement (F) in three dimensions: P—power (the influence of the family on the ownership, control, and management of the firm); E—experience (the information knowledge, judgment, and intuition that comes through successive generations); and C—culture (the alignment of the family’s goals with the firm’s goals). Their F-PEC scale is widely accepted in the literature (Rutherford et al., 2008). Power. The positive effect of ownership and management on firm performance is generally reported especially in later generational stages (Azizi et al., 2021; BlancoMazagatos et al., 2016). The involvement of non-family members in management is related to personal values in family firms, and, consequently, on organizational culture (Camfield & Franco, 2019; Schepers et al., 2021). Other dimensions are formulated as professionalization and formalization, not only of the organizational structure, and processes, but also of the family relationship with the company (Polat, 2020; Razzak et al., 2021). Experience. By successfully passing on the family business to the next generation, the experience related to how to reconcile family life with the business grows (Hillen & Lavarda, 2019). Therefore, planning and executing the succession process seems crucial (Drewniak et al., 2020). Each of the barriers to a successful handover (family disagreements, dissatisfaction of key employees, not preparation of the next generation, etc.) can be overcome by using strategies designed specifically for the business and family themselves (Botella-Carrubi & Gonza ´lez-Cruz, 2019; Collingsworth-Crusse, 2021). Culture. In the context of family business culture, the main theme is socio-emotional wealth (SEW). SEW is a key factor that differentiates family businesses from other types of businesses. Family culture influences the psychological ownership of family members. Creates opportunities for communication between family members, reinforces shared family values, aligns family and firm expectations, and promotes identification with the firm (Vergara et al., 2020). Sharing values, beliefs, company mission, etc. provides a competitive advantage (Soluk et al., 2021). The authors did not directly use this model in their research. However, its structure was the inspiration for formulating and classifying questions for their research. Further information can be found in the section Methodology. Organizational Culture Interpersonal relationships, workplace environment, human fulfillment and human personality development, employee performance and satisfaction, corporate image, and brand, all of these are corporate culture. Corporate culture is associated with management behavior and attitude, organizational performance, firm, and employee behavior (see, e.g., Brown, 1995; Denison, 1990; Drennan, 1992; Gordon, 1991; Hall, 1995; Sackmann, 2006; Schein, 1992). A number of researchers have concluded that organizational culture, together with leadership, plays an important role in building social sustainability. Combining these two components maximizes the potential of sustainability for the future (Bagga et al., 2023; Belay et al., 2023; Suaidy & Manurung, 2023). Yunita et al. (2023) focused on finding relationships between other components or subsystems of an organization. Their findings revealed that organizational culture and technological capacity have a beneficial effect on organizational ambidexterity. A well-chosen and well-set organizational culture supports creativity and innovation (Choi et al., 2023; Villanueva Peve et al., 2023). Organizational culture is closely related to employee engagement both in periods of economic stability and in times of threat (Bui & Le, 2023; Lombongadil & Djamil, 2023; Rozˇ man et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2023). Organizational culture affects job satisfaction (Fauzan, 2023), employee performance (Elifneh & Embilo, 2023; Mulyadin et al., 2023; Supriyanto et al., 2023), as well as financial performance in an organization (Savic ´et al., 2023). To effectively lead their organization while taking cultural factors into account and actively influencing the cultural environment to enhance performance, managers must possess a thorough understanding of their organization’s culture (Luka ´s ˇova ´, 2015). They can identify strengths and weaknesses based on their knowledge of the content of the culture and also purposefully choose effective management tactics. The term organizational culture is, in this research, understood as a set of basic assumptions, values, attitudes, norms of behavior that are shared all around an organization and that are apparent in the thinking, feeling, behavior of organizational members and in artifacts of material and immaterial nature. The elements of organizational culture are interrelated and interact. Schein’s (1992) model is well known, where organizational culture was structured into three levels (artifacts, values and norms, core beliefs). Many authors identify with this concept (e.g., Schneider & Barsoux, 1997). Some elaborate it further, such as Lundberg (1996). Other authors structure the content of organizational culture in a different way (e.g., Denison, 1990; Hall, 1995; Hofstede, 2001; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). The typologies of organizational culture are based on different foundations. There are typologies formulated in relation to organizational structure (e.g., Handy, 1993; Harrison, 1972; Trompenaars, 1993), environmental influence, and organizational response to the Mikus ˇova ´et al. 5 environment (e.g., Ansoff et al., 2018; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Miles & Snow, 1978), the stage of organizational development (e.g., Bridges, 1992), organizational behavior in the marketplace (Bridges, 1992; Hall, 1995), and in the behavior of employees toward each other and toward their organization (Goffee & Jones, 1998). One can also mention the compass model by Hall (1995), the Organizational Character Index (OCI) by Bridges (1992), or the ‘‘double S cube’’ by Goffee and Jones (1998). In their Organizational Culture Transformation Model (OCTM), Ipinazar et al. (2021) placed Total Employee Ownership (TEO), Total Employee Involvement (TEI), and Leadership (L) as three design elements for a high performance organization. Omanovich et al. (2021) noted the attractiveness and motivation of the work of researchers, differences in goals, mission, and features of their activities. These specifics were included in the development of a multi-model of the organizational culture of scientific institutions. For the purpose of the research, the model of Cameron and Quinn (1999) was chosen, which is based on the Competing Values Model (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This model captures the prevailing organizational values, the associated strategic priorities in different types of culture, captures the atmosphere in the organization, leadership style, and the success criteria of the organization. The basic dimensions of that module are flexibility in opposition to stability and control. The other axis displays external versus internal focus. As a combination of these two dimensions four culture styles are identified— clan culture, adhocracy culture, hierarchy culture, and market culture. Each type is characterized by the goals the organization is working toward and the tools it uses to achieve them. The clan culture embodies a warm and welcoming work environment, where shared values and objectives foster a strong sense of teamwork. Rather than a strictly business-oriented entity, it resembles an extended family. Employee commitment to the organization is notably high. The emphasis lies on individual growth and development, with a focus on customer satisfaction by viewing them as partners. Teamwork, active participation, and achieving consensus are considered essential pillars within the organization. The hierarchy culture is characterized by a highly formalized and structured work environment, where adherence to procedures and regulations is central to its functioning. Formal rules serve as the unifying force within this culture. The organization prioritizes smooth operations, striving for stability and efficiency. Success is measured by the reliability of deliveries, meeting deadlines, and maintaining low costs. Employee management primarily revolves around ensuring employee security and stability within the organization. The adhocracy culture cultivates a dynamic and entrepreneurial work environment that encourages creativity and innovation. Individuals within this culture are willing to take risks and explore new approaches. The organization thrives on being at the forefront of its field, developing new products and engaging in experimentation. In such a culture, managers play an important role in fostering individual initiative and nurturing creativity. However, it is important to note that while adhocracy pushes boundaries, it can also encounter resistance from employees and the market as a whole. The market culture is defined by a results-oriented organization where individuals are driven by competition and dedicated to achieving their goals. The organization’s cohesion is rooted in a collective focus on winning, with success measured by gaining a larger market share. Long-term strategies are consistently shaped by attention to competition, fierce competitiveness prevails. Hypotheses Development The solution of the stated problem formulated in the introduction (Are the values of family members consistent with the informal environment in their company?) was divided into the following sub-questions: (1) Is there a strong positive correlation between organizational clan culture and commitment to the firm, sharing of goals and values among family members? (2) Is there a strong positive correlation between organizational culture of hierarchy and defining formalized rules for family members’ involvement in the family business? (3) Is there a strong positive correlation between market organizational culture and prioritizing the needs of the business over the needs of the family? (4) Is there a strong positive correlation between the organizational culture of adhocracy and family members’ understanding of their business as a source of profitability and therefore a necessity to ensure its competitiveness? In order to answer the research questions and subquestions, the following hypotheses were formulated. The hypotheses are supported by the arguments of the authors and for greater comprehensibility they are supplemented with tables where the features of both examined models are presented (Tables 1–4). H1: There is a strong positive correlation between the organizational culture of the clan and the commitment to the firm and the sharing of goals and values among family members. 6SAGE Open The authors hypothesize that, if the respondents feel the organizational culture at their workplace as friendly, full of cooperation and exchange of experiences, and concern for their wellbeing, it is also due to the attitude of family members who maintain harmony in the family by sharing common goals and values. H2: There is a strong positive correlation between organizational culture hierarchy and defining formalized rules for family members’ involvement in the family business. The authors hypothesize that a culture of hierarchy, which is characterized by order, rules, stability, is Table 2. Hierarchy. OCAI FIM There is strict hierarchy and control, formal rules Effectiveness (efficiency, performance) of activities Job security, relationship stability Formal rules and principles Constancy and stability Efficiency (reliable supply, low costs) It is important that the business remain family-owned It is important that the management of the business (top management, managing directors, board of directors) is entirely or mostly in the hands of family members We have formal rules in place to bring the family and the business together (e.g., family protocol, family code, rules for employing family members, etc.) We have more or less regular meetings with extended family members to discuss business Source. Cameron and Quinn (1999) and own research. Table 3. Market. OCAI FIM The people in the company are very competitive Task completion Hard competition Emphasis on success and achievement of goals Winning in the market Winning the market and outperforming the competition In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the short term, I will prioritize the needs of the business In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the medium term, I will provide for the needs of the business as a priority In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the long term, I will provide for the needs of the business as a priority Family members are willing to go the extra mile for the survival of the business if necessary, even at their own expense Source. Cameron and Quinn (1999) and own research. Table 1. Clan. OCAI FIM The people in the company are close to each other, they share their knowledge Mentoring, education Teamwork, participation Loyalty and mutual trust Human development Employee engagement Family members share the same or similar views on the operation of the business Family members share the same or similar views on family involvement in the business Family members are loyal Our employees are loyal We have good relationships with business partners Source. Cameron and Quinn (1999) and own research. Table 4. Adhocracy. OCAI FIM The people in the company are willing to take risks, are entrepreneurial Entrepreneurship, innovation Individual risk-taking, innovation Commitment to innovation and development Acquiring new resources and opportunities Ownership of a unique or latest product The family business satisfies the need for the success of the whole (most) family The family business covers the personal material needs of all (most) family members The family business provides opportunities for personal development for all (most) family members The family business contributes to the image of the family All (most) family members are fulfilling themselves through the family business Source. Cameron and Quinn (1999) and own research. Mikus ˇova ´et al. 7 supported by family rules, such as rules for employing and rewarding family members, family protocol, etc. H3: There is a strong positive correlation between the organizational culture of the market and the prioritization of business needs over family needs. The authors hypothesize that a results-oriented and competitive market culture is influenced by the values of family members, where a business first approach prevails. H4: There is a strong positive correlation between the organizational culture of adhocracy and family members’ perception of their business as a source of profitability, and therefore the need to ensure its competitiveness. The authors hypothesize that the dynamic creative environment of the adhocracy culture is strongly positively correlated with the fact that the family understands the need to ensure the competitiveness of their company as a source of its existence, by encouraging the search for new products, approaches, etc. Methodology and Methods Used The basis for obtaining answers to research questions and hypotheses was quantitative research. Survey Design Two questionnaires were used. The first questionnaire (OCAI), already used in a number of sectors, was used in its original form. The second questionnaire (FIM) was created by authors inspired by the existing F-PEC model. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) questionnaire by Cameron and Quinn (1999) was used to identify the type of organizational culture. The content of the organizational culture within the firms under study is determined by evaluating six key components, which form the basis of the questionnaire. These components are as follows: Dominant features of the organization (characteristics of the environment and atmosphere prevailing in the organization) Leadership style in the organization (what is meant by leadership in the company, what are considered leadership skills) Management of employees (what is characteristic of the management style, what methods are used) Cohesion of the organization (what ensures the cohesion of the organization) Priority strategic factors (what is emphasized in the organization, what is the focus of the organization) Success criteria (how success is defined in the organization). For each of the components, four statements are presented, each of which characterizes one of the four types of culture listed above. The respondent is asked to divide a total of 100 points among these statements based on the extent to which each statement describes the organization. The questionnaire is simple in terms of administration. Its shortcoming is considered to be that it is imprecise (Sackmann, 2006). However, it is suitable for analyses that focus on the strategic aspects of an organization’s culture. The text of the questionnaire is given in the Appendix A. Family Influence Model (FIM) The authors were inspired by the F-PEC model (Astrachan et al., 2002) and findings from literature research to determine the attitudes of family members toward each other and the firm. In addition to questions related to power, questions related to the experience and culture of the company were formulated. These questions are closely related to SEW. In the end, 18 questions were formulated in consultation with experts in communication, management, economics and psychology, and family business owners. Experts and family business owners evaluated the relevance and face validity of the questions and divided them into four groups that characterize the types of organizational culture mentioned above. The assignment of individual elements to groups was confirmed by factor analysis (Appendix B). The Cronbach coefficient adetermines the internal consistency of the instrument and can take values in the range of h.1i,with generally acceptable coefficient values between .7 and .95 (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The battery is consistent, as evidenced by the Cronbach alpha (a= .853). The individual factors also have high consistency (see Cronbach’s alpha in the Appendix B). A 4-point scale was established for the responses. For research purposes, the authors called this the Family Influence Model (FIM). The text of the questionnaire is given in Appendix B. 8SAGE Open Basically, the respondents evaluated their relationships with each other as family members as well as the informal climate in their family business. In neither questionnaire did the respondents know which type of organizational culture was characterized by which question. Participants The respondents are family business owners from all over the Czech Republic regardless of the industry in which they operate. There is no official database of family businesses in the Czech Republic. The authors used their own database of 4,000 respondents, 860 valid responses were obtained. A pilot survey of 20 family businesses verified the comprehensibility of the questionnaires. Data were collected using computer-assisted web interviewing (the CAWI method) in May 2022. Data Analyses By means of descriptive statistics, businesses (history, turnover, number of employees) and families (the involvement of family members in the activities of the family business) were characterized. This was followed by an evaluation of the outputs of both models. First, the average rating of individual cultures in both models (means and rank) was identified. Using the IBM SPSS program, the prevailing culture in both models was found. The McNemar-Bowker symmetry test was used to test the consistency of the two models. A correlation analysis (Sig. 2-tailed) was conducted to determine the existence of a relationship between the value attitude of family members and the informal culture in their business. On the basis of this, using correlation analysis it was possible to test the hypotheses. Results The basic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 5 and the characteristics of the position of family involvement in the company in Table 6. Production firms predominate in the set (75.3%). Firms with 11 to 100 employees are the most represented (46.5%). A total of 88.2% of the firms have a maximum of 100 employees. Most businesses have an annual turnover of 0.4 million to 2.0 mil. EUR (47.4%). A total of 83.3% of businesses have a turnover of less than two million EUR. 57% of the firms have been in business for 10 years or less. Almost 60% of businesses are owned by the first generation, that is, the founders. More than half of the businesses (51.3%) are managed by the first generation, that is, the founders. The company’s supervisory board is mostly dominated by the first generation, that is, the founders (45.6%). Table 5. Characteristics of Respondents. Predominant field of activity Numbers of employees Annual turnover in EUR Existence (years) N%N%N%N% Production 648 75.3 10 or less 359 41.7 Up to 0.4 mil. 309 35.9 Less 5 62 7.2 Service 196 22.8 11–100 400 46.5 0.4 mil.–2 mil. 408 47.4 6–10 430 50 Agriculture 16 1.9 101–250 76 8.8 2 mil.–4 mil. 129 15.0 11–20 315 36.6 251–500 24 2.8 4 mil.–20 mil. 14 1.6 20+53 6.2 501 and more 1 0.1 Source. Own research. Table 6. Respondent Characteristics—Family Involvement in Family Business. The company is predominantly owned by The company is mainly managed by The company’s Supervisory Board is dominated by N%N%N% First generation (the founders) 509 59.2 441 51.3 392 45.6 Second generation (children of the founders) 351 40.8 419 48.7 318 37.0 No supervisory board has not been established 150 17.4 Source. Own research. Mikus ˇova ´et al. 9 match the nature of the organizational culture in their company. This hypothesis was confirmed only for the clan culture. This research study suffers from several limitations. The study has limitations in generalizability. The research was carried out in one country, a country with a relatively short history of family business. Families and their businesses do not yet have as much knowledge and experience as family businesses with a long tradition. However, the results obtained offer an opportunity for comparative research in countries where family business has a long tradition. This study assumes a direct relationship between family values and organizational culture. There is the possibility that there are other relationships that could be considered as other mediating variables not considered in this study. For this reason, more research could focus on a more robust understanding of relationships within families and how they influence culture in their business by including mediators that incorporate the influence of, for example, strategic decision making or business model development. The complexity of the respondents’ position may not have yielded reliable results. The complexity of a situation where a respondent identifies the relationships and values of their own family members and then values within their business, often perceived as a second family, can jeopardize the reliability of the answers. A limitation could be seen in the F-PEC model used. Some contemporary authors argue that Klein et al.’s (2005) F-PEC scale defines only a very specific type of family business (Gupta & Levenburg, 2012). There are other types more conceptually and empirically, as also affirmed by Gupta and Levenburg (2010). However, the structure of this model has been shown to be a suitable choice for the family model contoured here. FIM-formulated questions or group assignments may be submitted for discussion. The authors do not claim that the FIM is a final closed model. It will certainly require further elaboration or refinement. The authors welcome any comments. Research implications: By providing a clear and predictable relationship between the intensity and nature of family members’ relationships with each other and with the family business and the formation of organizational culture, the study contributes to family business theory, contributing to the study of family involvement in family business in terms of creating and maintaining the informal intangible aspects of organizational culture. Practical implications: for family business owners, it could provide impetus for establishing policies, rules, or roles within the family so that their involvement in the family business positively influences the creation and behavior of the organizational culture in their business. Social implications arise from the importance of the existence of family firms that are significant in the economy. Not only the owners of family businesses, but also policymakers and regulatory authorities should contribute through their initiatives to promote the informal organizational culture that is a prerequisite for the growth and sustainability of family businesses, which are typically the largest employment generators in most economies. Originality/value/theoretical contribution: the study addresses the nature of organizational culture and the ‘‘character’’ of the family. By the ‘‘character’’ of the family is meant the relationships between family members and the relationships of family members to the family business. Relationships within the family and the relationship of family members to the family business are undoubtedly reflected not only in the formal structure, but also in the informal culture. The study reveals how these two ‘‘characters’’ are not/related. Appendix A. Organizational Culture—OCAI. Name Label Mean Dominant characteristics B1a The people in the company are close to each other, they share their knowledge 67.74 B1b The people in the company are willing to take risks, are entrepreneurial 14.89 B1c The people in the company are very competitive 7.35 B1d There is strict hierarchy and control, formal rules 10.02 Leadership in our company supports B2a Mentoring, education 15.58 B2b Entrepreneurship, innovation 27.07 B2c Task completion 28.97 B2d Effectiveness (efficiency, performance) of activities 28.39 Employee management in our company supports (continued) 16 SAGE Open Appendix A. (continued) Name Label Mean B3a Teamwork, participation 50.54 B3b Individual risk-taking, innovation 11.88 B3c Hard competition 5.84 B3d Job security, relationship stability 31.74 Our company is united by B4a Loyalty and mutual trust 40.46 B4b Commitment to innovation and development 21.53 B4c Emphasis on success and achievement of goals 28.47 B4d Formal rules and principles 9.54 Areas of strategic focus of the company B5a Human development 14.01 B5b Acquiring new resources and opportunities 30.67 B5c Winning in the market 12.97 B5d Constancy and stability 42.35 Success for our company means B6a Employee engagement 27.01 B6b Ownership of a unique or latest product 14.72 B6c Winning the market and outperforming the competition 19.41 B6d Efficiency (reliable supply, low costs) 38.85 Note. Business’ culture: a = clan (C); b = adhocracy (A); c = market (M); d = hierarchy (H). Appendix B. Family Influence Model. Name Label Mean A priori factor: C—clan culture (Cronbach’s alpha a= .778) C1 Family members share the same or similar views on the operation of the business 31.7 C2 Family members share the same or similar views on family involvement in the business 29.9 C3 Family members are loyal 34.6 C4 Our employees are loyal 31.9 C5 We have good relationships with business partners 35.1 A priori factor: A—adhocracy culture (Cronbach’s alpha a= .651) A1 The family business satisfies the need for the success of the whole (most) family 31.4 A2 The family business covers the personal material needs of all (most) family members 30.3 A3 The family business provides opportunities for personal development for all (most) family members 30.1 A4 The family business contributes to the image of the family 30.7 A5 All (most) family members are fulfilling themselves through the family business 26.7 A priori factor: M—market culture (Cronbach’s alpha a= .648) M1 In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the short term, I will prioritize the needs of the business 31.2 M2 In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the medium term, I will provide for the needs of the business as a priority 29.0 M3 In times when both business and family are materially threatened in the long term, I will provide for the needs of the business as a priority 26.1 M4 Family members are willing to go the extra mile for the survival of the business if necessary, even at their own expense 33.7 A priori factor: H—hierarchy culture (Cronbach’s alpha a= .763) H1 It is important that the business remain family-owned 33.5 H2 It is important that the management of the business (top management, managing directors, board of directors) is entirely or mostly in the hands of family members 30.5 H3 We have formal rules in place to bring the family and the business together (e.g., family protocol, family code, rules for employing family members, etc.) 23.1 H4 We have more or less regular meetings with extended family members to discuss business 23.6 Note. The battery is consistent, as evidenced by the Cronbach alpha (a= .853). The individual factors also have high consistency (see Cronbach’s alpha in the Table). Mikus ˇova ´et al. 17 Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the project VSBTechnical University of Ostrava, Grant no. SP 2023/025 A family business: An analysis of factors influencing employee attitudes in employer selection. ORCID iD Marie Mikus ˇova ´https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0183-806X Data Availability Statement Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. References Abdulmuhsin, A. A., & Tarhini, A. (2022). Impact of wise leadership, workplace friendships on open innovation in family firms: A developing country perspective. Journal of Family Business Management,12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JFBM-04-2020-0028 Ansoff, I. I., Kipley, D., Lewix, A. O., Helm-Stevens, R., & Ansoff, R. (2018). Implanting strategic management (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. Aronoff, C. E., Astrachan, J. H., & Ward, J. L. (2011). Developing family business policies. Palgrave Macmillan. Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002. 00045.x Azizi, M., Bidgoli, M. S., & Taheri, A. (2021). The effect of ownership and management structure on family businesses performance. Cogent Business &Management,8(1), 1872888. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1872888 Bagga, S. K., Gera, S., & Haque, S. N. (2023). The mediating role of organizational culture: Transformational leadership and change management in virtual teams. Asia Pacific Management Review,28(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apmrv.2022.07.003 Ban ˜os-Monroy, V., Ramirez-Solis, E., & Rodrı ´guez-Aceves, L. (2015). Familiness and its relationship with performance in Mexican family firms. Academy of Strategic Management Journal,14(2), 1–22. Barakat, S. R., Parente, T. C., & Sarturi, G. (2020). Stakeholders prioritization in family businesses: A theoretical essay. Revista de Empreendedorismo e Gesta ˜o de Pequenas Empresas,9(3), 293–322. https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe. v9i3.1532 Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,17(1), 99–120. Baron, J., & Lachenauer, R. (2021). Harvard business review family business handbook: How to build and sustain a successful, enduring enterprise. Harvard Business Review Press. Becerra, M., Cruz, C., & Graves, C. (2020). Innovation in family firms: The relative effects of wealth concentration versus family-centered goals. Family Business Review,33(4), 372–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520953700 Belay, H. A., Hailu, F. K., & Sinshaw, G. T. (2023). Linking internal stakeholders’ pressure and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices: The moderating role of organizational culture. Cogent Business,10(2), 1–22. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2229099 Blanco-Mazagatos, V., de Quevedo-Puente, E., & DelgadoGarcı´a, J. B. (2016). How agency conflict between family managers and family owners affects performance in wholly family-owned firms: A generational perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy,7(3), 167–177. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jfbs.2016.07.003 Botella-Carrubi, M. D., & Gonza ´lez-Cruz, T. F. (2019). Context as a provider of key resources for succession: A case study of sustainable family firms. Sustainability,11, 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071873 Bridges, W. (1992). The character of organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press. Brown, A. D. (1995). Organisational culture. Pitman. Bui, D. H., & Le, A. T. T. (2023). Improving employee engagement through organizational culture in the travel industry: Perspective from a developing country during Covid-19 pandemic. Cogent Business,10(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2023.2232589 Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Addison-Wesley. Camfield, C., & Franco, M. (2019). Professionalisation of the family firm and its relationship with personal values. The Journal of Entrepreneurship,28(1), 144–188. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0971355718810291 Campopiano, G., & De Massis, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family firms. Journal of Business Ethics,129(3), 1–24. Cano-Rubio, M., Fuentes-Lombardo, G., Herna ´ndez-Ortiz, M. J., & Vallejo-Martos, M. C. (2017). Composition of familiness: Perspectives of social capital and open systems. European Journal of Family Business,6(2), 75–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejfb.2016.12.002 Carlock, R. S., & Ward, J. L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business: Parallel planning to unify the family and business. Palgrave Macmillan, Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1153–1173. Chan, F., Jalandoni, D., Sayarot, C. A., Uy, M., Daradar, D., & Aure, P. (2020). A family affair: A quantitative analysis of third-generation successors’ intentions to continue 18 SAGE Open the family business. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies,11(2), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.15388/ omee.2020.11.43 Chaudhary, D., & Saxena, S. S. (2022). Cut or close in? Examining social relations from stakeholders perspective towards family business success. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings,2022(1), 1430. Choi, Y., Ingram, P., & Sang, S. W. (2023). Cultural breadth and embeddedness: The individual adoption of organizational culture as a determinant of creativity. Administrative Science Quarterly,68(2), 429–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00018392221146792 Cleary, P., Quinn, M., & Moreno, A. (2019). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: A longitudinal content analysis of corporate disclosures. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10, 119–132. Collingsworth-Crusse, K. (2021). How to transition your family business to a new generation. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from https://www.pnc.com/insights/small-business/business-planning/how-to-transition-your-family-business-to-a-new-generation.html Craig, J. B., & Newbert, S. L. (2020). Reconsidering socioemotional wealth: A Smithian-inspired socio-economic theory of decision-making in the family firm. Journal of Family Business Strategy,11(4), 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs. 2020.100353 Craigh, J. B., & Moores, K. (2017). Leading a family business: Best Practices for long-term stewardship. Praeger. Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G., & Amarapurkar, S. S. (2009). Family capital of family firms. Bridging human, social and financial capital. Family Business Review,22, 199–215. Davis, J. A. (2001). Definitions and typologies of the family business. Harvard Business School. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Addison-Wesley. Del Vecchio, P., Secundo, G., Rubino, M., Garzoni, A., & Vrontis, D. (2019). Open innovation in family firms: Empirical evidence about internal and external knowledge flows. Business Process Management Journal,26(5), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0142 Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Wiley & Sons. Dou, J., Wang, N., Su, E., Fang, H., & Memili, E. (2020). Goal complexity in family firm diversification: Evidence from China. Journal of Family Business Strategy,11, 1–12. Drennan, D. (1992). Transforming company culture. McGrawHill. Drewniak, Z., S1upska, U., & Goz´ dziewska-Nowicka, A. (2020). Succession and ownership in family businesses. European Research Studies,23(4), 638–654. https://doi.org/10. 35808/Ersj/1706 Elifneh, Y. W., & Embilo, T. (2023). The effect of organizational culture on employees’ performance in research institutes - Evidence from Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. Brazilian Journal of Operations,20(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.1603.2023 Fauzan, R. M. (2023). The influence of work discipline and organizational culture on employee job satisfaction in CV. Marnos Rattan Furniture. Jurnal Ekonomi Teknologi,2(5), 367–374. Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess–Reyes, J., & Weismeier–Sammer, D. (2017). Capturing the familiness of family businesses: Development of the family influence familiness scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,41(5), 709–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12229 Garcia, P. R. J., Sharma, P., De Massis, A., Wright, M., & Scholes, L. (2018). Perceived parental behaviors and next generation engagement in family firms: A social cognitive perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,43(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796087 Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation. Harper Business. Gordon, G. G. (1991). Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review,16(2), 396–415. Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2010). Cultural influences on family businesses worldwide: The CASE project. Family Business Review,23(2), 155–169. Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2012). Cultures, ideologies and family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 2(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/20436231211216420 Hall, W. (1995). Managing cultures: Making strategic relationships work. John Wiley & Sons. Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations. Penguin Books. Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organisation’s character. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from 02.10 Understanding Org Cha (pepperdine.edu) Hillen, C., & Lavarda, C. E. F. (2019). Budget and life cycle in family business in succession process. Revista Contabilidade & Financxas,31, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808057x201909600 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage. Horva ´thova ´, P., Bla ´ha, J., & C ˇopı´kova ´, A. (2016). Pokroc ˇile ´r ˇı´- zenı´lidsky ´ch zdroju ˚. Management Press. Ipinazar, A., Zarrabeitia, E., Rio Belver, R., & Martinez-deAlegrı´a, I. (2021). Organizational culture transformation model: Towards a high performance organization. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,14(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3288 Irava, W., & Moores, K. (2010). Clarifying the strategy advantage of familiness: Unbundling its dimensions and highlighting its paradoxes. Journal of Family Business Strategy,1(3), 131–144. Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implications for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15406520.2005.00086.x Kora ´b, V. (2021). Rodinne ´podniky ve sve ˇtove ´m vinar ˇstvı´[Family businesses in the world’s wine industry]. CERM. Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Macmillan. Llanos-Contreras, O., Arias, J., & Maquieira, C. (2021). Risk taking behavior in Chilean listed family firms: A Mikus ˇova ´et al. 19 socioemotional wealth approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,17(1), 165–184. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00628-y Lombongadil, F., & Djamil, M. (2023). The influence of organizational culture and work environment on employee engagement through employee resilience as intervening variable (Study on Strategic Management and Governance-Bank Indonesia). Dinasti International Journal of Management Science,4(6), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.31933/dijms.v4i6. 1945 Luka ´s ˇova ´, R. (2015). The content of organizational culture and organizational performance: A review study. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies, 10(4), 1–16. Lundberg, C. C. (1996). Designing organizational culture courses: Fundamental considerations. Journal of Management Education,20(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 105256299602000102 McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. (2015). To nurture or groom? The parent-founder succession dilemma. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(6), 1379–1412. Memili, E., Fang, H., Chrisman, J. J., & De Massis, A. (2015). The impact of small-and medium-sized family firms on economic growth. Small Business Economics,45(4), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9670-0 Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill. Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, C., Garrett, R., & Cassia, L. (2016). Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,10(4), 395–412. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11187-016-9758-1 Miranda-Wolff, A. (2022). Cultures of belonging: Building inclusive organizations that last. HarperCollins Leadership. Mulyadin, A., Hersona, S., & Hartelina, H. (2023). The influence of visionary leadership, organizational culture, and work discipline on employee performance at SMP Negeri 1 Kedungwaringin. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science,4(6), 1089–1098. https://doi.org/10.31933/ dijms.v4i6.1873 Omanovich, M., Safaie, N., & Shirazi, S. A. (2021). Multimodel of successful organizational culture for science organizations. TEM Journal,10(2), 864–871. https://doi.org/10. 18421/TEM102-47 Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,32(6), 949–969. Petrusek, M. (1996). Velky ´sociologicky ´slovnı´k. Sociologicky´ u´ stav Akademie ve ˇdC ˇR. Poech, A., & Kriwanek, F. (2011, May 26–27). Integrative ethics management systems in family firms: An exploratory approach [Conference session]. NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference Proceedings, Munich, Germany. Polat, G. (2020). Advancing the multidimensional approach to family business professionalization. Journal of Family Business Management,11(4), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JFBM-03-2020-0020 Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science,29, 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363 Ransburg, D., Sage-Hayward, W., & Schuman, A. M. (2016). Human resources in the family business: Maximizing the power of your people. Palgrave Macmillan. Razzak, M. R., Jassem, S., Akter, A., & Mamun, S. A. A. (2021). Family commitment and performance in private family firms: Moderating effect of professionalization. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,28(5), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2019-0165 Rondi, E., De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2019). Unlocking innovation potential: A typology of family business innovation postures and the critical role of the family system. Journal of Family Business Strategy,10(4), 100236. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jfbs.2017.12.001 Rozˇ man, M., Tominc, P., & Milfelner, B. (2023). Maximizing employee engagement through artificial intelligent organizational culture in the context of leadership and training of employees: Testing linear and non-linear relationships. Cogent Business,10(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2023.2248732 Rutherford, M. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Holt, D. T. (2008). Examining the link between ‘familiness’ and performance: Can the F-PEC untangle the family business theory jungle? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,32, 1089–1109. Rutherford, M. W., Muse, L., & Oswald, S. (2006). A new perspective on the developmental model for family business. Family Business Review,19, 317–333. Rydvalova ´, P., Petru˚ , N., & Valentova ´, E. (2022). Vzde ˇla ´va ´nı´v rodinny ´ch podnicı´ch. Studie k pru ˚zkumu kvality rodinne ´ho podnika ´nı´. Souhrnna ´vy ´zkumna ´zpra ´va [Education in family businesses. Study to survey the quality of family businesses] (Summary research report). Technicka ´univerzita v Liberci. Sackmann, S. (2006). Assessment, evaluation, improvement: Success through corporate culture. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Savic ´, B., Jelic ´, S., & Ostojic ´, V. V. (2023). The impact of organizational culture on financial performance of the company. Economic Themes,61(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.2478/ ethemes-2023-0012 Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey Bass. Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series, 5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Schepers, J., Voordeckers, W., Steijvers, T., & Laveren, E. (2021). Entrepreneurial intention-action gap in family firms: Bifurcation bias and the board of directors as an economizing mechanism. Eurasian Business Review,11, 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-021-00183-z Schneider, B., & Barsoux, J. L. (1997). Managing across cultures. Prentice-Hall. Schuman, A., & Ward, J. (2017). Family education for businessowning families: Strengthening bonds by learning together. Palgrave Macmillan. Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(02): 309–334. Soluk, J., Kammerlander, N., & De Massis, A. (2021). Exogenous shocks and the adaptive capacity of family firms: 20 SAGE Open Exploring behavioral changes and digital technologies in the COVID-19 pandemic. R&D Management,51, 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12471 Suaidy, H. M., & Manurung, A. H. (2023). The importance of leadership and organizational culture for social sustainability. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science, 4(5), 1025–1030. https://doi.org/10.31933/dijms.v4i5.1882 Supriyanto, S., Zainal, V. R., & Nawangsari, L. C. (2023). The influence of organizational culture and compensation on employee performance (Study on employees of Grogol Branch Pawnshop). Dinasti International Journal of Management Science,4(4), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.31933/ dijms.v4i4 Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011) Making sense of Chronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1990). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice Hall. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. The Economist Books. Urbanikova, M., Stubnova, M., Papcunova, V., & Hudakova, J. (2020). Analysis of Innovation activities of Slovak small and medium-sized family business. Administrative Sciences, 10(4), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10040080 Vazquez, P. (2018). Family business ethics: At the crossroads of business ethics and family business. Journal of Business Ethics,150(3): 691–709. Vergara, M. P. L., Laverde, I. C. B., & Cortes, D. L. (2020). The role of family dynamics and culture in the psychological ownership of family shareholders in family businesses. Cuadernos de Administracio ´n,36(68), 138–152. https://doi.org/ 10.25100/cdea.v36i68.9786 Villanueva Peve, T. G., Urbano Cochachin, F. L., Torres Patilla, A. K., & Deza Quispe, J. A. (2023). Innovation and organizational culture in South American companies in the last decade. International Journal of Professional Business Review,8(7), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/ 2023.v8i7.1565 Weimann, V., Gerken, M., & H€ ulsbeck, M. (2021). Old flames never die – The role of binding social ties for corporate entrepreneurship in family firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,17, 1707–1730. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11365-021-00749-3. Wu, M. C., Chiang, W. J., Chiang, S. L., Trung, P. M., & Lindayani, L. (2023). A study on major factors revitalizing nursing staff’s work enthusiasm: A cross-national study on organizational culture, organizational empowerment and self-efficacy. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 16(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2022.2076043 Yunita, T., Bandur, A., & Alamsjah, F. (2023). Technological capacity and organizational culture: The importance of organizational ambidexterity in the banking sector. International Journal of Professional Business Review,8(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1479 Mikus ˇova ´et al. 21