Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future research on management accounting and control in family firms: suggestions linked to architecture, governance, entrepreneurship and stewardship

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Management Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While research on management accounting and control in family firms has increased considerably in recent years, the attributes of these numerically dominant firms in all economies that differentiate them from non-family firms have yet to feature in general management accounting and control research. Despite this recent increased interest there are still important unanswered questions concerning management accounting and control systems in family firms. In this paper, we present suggestions for future research on management accounting and control in family firms. We organize our suggestions with the help of the AGES framework, which indicates that family firms differ from non-family firms across four dimensions: architecture, governance, entrepreneurship, and stewardship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The selection of these key studies is based upon the authors’ knowledge of the literature on management accounting and control in family firms and represents those studies which are most central to this literature in our view. Thus, this list of key studies is not the result of a systematic literature review or the like, but nevertheless is similar (but more up-to-date) when compared to the review samples of systematic literature reviews on the topic of interest (e.g., Helsen et al. 2017; Senftlechner and Hiebl 2015).

References

  • Acquaah, M. (2013). Management control systems, business strategy and performance: A comparative analysis of family and non-family businesses in a transition economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(2), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amat, J., Carmona, S., & Roberts, H. (1994). Context and change in management accounting systems: A Spanish case study. Management Accounting Research, 5(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bammens, Y., Voordeckers, W., & Gils, A. V. (2011). Boards of directors in family businesses: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W., Ulrich, P., & Staffel, M. (2011). Management accounting and controlling in German SMEs–Do company size and family influence matter? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 3(3), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinelli, C. (2011). Boards of directors in family firms: An exploratory study of structure and group process. Family Business Review, 24(2), 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blili, S., & Raymond, L. (1993). Information technology: Threats and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 13(6), 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruque, S., & Moyano, J. (2007). Organisational determinants of information technology adoption and implementation in SMEs: The case of family and cooperative firms. Technovation, 27(5), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, P., & Quinn, M. (2016). Intellectual capital and business performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colli, A. (2011). Business history in family business studies: From neglect to cooperation? Journal of Family Business Management, 1(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. A. (2004). The board of directors in family firms: One size fits all? Family Business Review, 17(2), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J., & Moores, K. (2005). Balanced scorecards to drive the strategic planning of family firms. Family Business Review, 18(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J., & Moores, K. (2010). Strategically aligning family and business systems using the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. B., & Moores, K. (2015). The A-GES framework: Understanding the family business difference. In S. L. Newbert (Ed.), Small business in a global economy: Creating and managing successful organizations (pp. 123–154). Santa Barbara: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. B., & Moores, K. (2017). Leading a family business: Best practices for long term stewardship. Santa Barbara: Praegar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family Business Review, 5(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1993). Alternative methodologies for identifying family-versus nonfamily-managed businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(2), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debicki, B. J., Matherne, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Family business research in the new millennium: An overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why. Family Business Review, 22(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, J., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., & Depaire, B. (2015). The effect of family business professionalization as a multidimensional construct on firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 516–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, J. C., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., Depaire, B., & Mercken, R. (2013). Family firm types based on the professionalization construct: Exploratory research. Family Business Review, 26(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duréndez, A., Ruíz-Palomo, D., García-Pérez-de-Lema, D., & Diéguez-Soto, J. (2016). Management control systems and performance in small and medium family firms. European Journal of Family Business, 6(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efferin, S., & Hartono, M. S. (2015). Management control and leadership styles in family business. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(1), 130–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Masri, T. E., Tekathen, M., Magnan, M., & Boulianne, E. (2017). Calibrating management control technologies and the dual identity of family firms. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(2), 157–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, García, de Lema, D., & Duréndez, A. (2007). Managerial behaviour of small and medium-sized family businesses: An empirical study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(3), 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., McCollom Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannoni, E., Maraghini, M. P., & Riccaboni, A. (2011). Transmitting knowledge across generations: The role of management accounting practices. Family Business Review, 24(2), 126–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourvish, T. R., & Wilson, R. G. (1994). The British brewing industry 1830–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helsen, Z., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., Orens, R., & Dekker, J. (2017). Management control systems in family firms: A review of the literature and directions for the future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 410–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W. (2013). Risk aversion in family firms: What do we really know? The Journal of Risk Finance, 14(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W. (2014). A finance professional who understands the family: Family firms’ specific requirements for non-family chief financial officers. Review of Managerial Science, 8(4), 465–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). Family involvement and organizational ambidexterity in later-generation family businesses: A framework for further investigation. Management Decision, 53(5), 1061–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W. (2017). Finance managers in family firms: An upper-echelons view. Journal of Family Business Management, 7(2), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W., Duller, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Ulrich, P. (2015). Family influence and management accounting usage-findings from Germany and Austria. Schmalenbach Business Review, 67(3), 368–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Duller, C. (2013). The changing role of management accounting in the transition from a family business to a non-family business. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 9(2), 119–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., Duller, C., & Neubauer, H. (2012). Institutionalisation of management accounting in family businesses–Empirical evidence from austria and Germany. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(4), 405–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. W., & Mayrleitner, B. (2017, forthcoming). Professionalization of management accounting in family firms: The impact of family members. Review of Managerial Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0274-8.

  • Hiebl, M. R. W., Quinn, M., & Franco, C. M. (2015). An analysis of the role of a Chief Accountant at Guinness c. 1920–1940. Accounting History Review, 25(2), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, C., & Light, B. (1999). A critical success factors model for ERP implementation. IEEE Software, 16(3), 30–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huerta, E., Petrides, Y., & O’Shaughnessy, D. (2017). Introduction of accounting practices in small family businesses. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(2), 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFERA. (2003). Family businesses dominate. Family Business Review, 16(4), 235–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, M. (2017). Consequences of intensive use of non-financial performance measures in Danish family farm holdings. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(2), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H. S. (1999). What can the family contribute to business? Examining contractual relationships. Family Business Review, 12(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnér, P. (2017). Exploring strategy: Text and cases (11th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorissen, A., Laveren, E., Martens, R., & Reheul, A. (2005). Real versus sample-based differences in comparative family business research. Family Business Review, 18(3), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallmuenzer, A., Strobl, A., & Peters, M. (2017). Tweaking the entrepreneurial orientation -performance relationship in family firms: the effect of control mechanisms and family-related goals. Review of Managerial Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0231-6.

  • Klein, S., & Bell, F. A. (2007). Non-family executives in family businesses: A literature review. Electronic Journal of Family Business Studies, 1(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristandl, G., Quinn, M., & Strauß, E. (2015). Controlling und cloud computing–Wie die Cloud den Informationsfluss in KMU ändert. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 63(3–4), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leotta, A., Rizza, C., & Ruggeri, D. (2017). Management accounting and leadership construction in family firms. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(2), 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K. H., & Moss, T. W. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3–4), 241–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madison, K., Holt, D. T., Kellermanns, F. W., & Ranft, A. L. (2016). Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories. Family Business Review, 29(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package–Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzola, P., Marchisio, G., & Astrachan, J. (2008). Strategic planning in family business: A powerful developmental tool for the next generation. Family Business Review, 21(3), 239–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memili, E., Misra, K., Chang, E. P., & Chrisman, J. J. (2013). The propensity to use incentive compensation for non-family managers in SME family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 3(1), 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Breton-Miller, I. L., & Scholnick, B. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 465–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, S. (2008). The role of accounting in the management control system: A case study of a family-led firm. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 5(3), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moores, K., & Mula, J. (2000). The salience of market, bureaucratic, and clan controls in the management of family firm transitions: Some tentative Australian evidence. Family Business Review, 13(2), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moores, K., & Yuen, S. (2001). Management accounting systems and organizational configuration: A life-cycle perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(4–5), 351–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D. O., Thomas, C. H., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. B. (2017). Stewardship climate scale: An assessment of reliability and validity. Family Business Review, 30(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2008). Strategic planning champions: Social craftspersons, artful interpreters and known strangers. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 326–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). The promise of the strategy as practice perspective for family business strategy research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. (2016). The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Management Accounting Research, 31, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, A., & Shanks, G. (2000). A model for ERP project implementation. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A., Bar-Yosef, S., & Dekker, H. C. (2014). Accounting research in family firms: Theoretical and empirical challenges. European Accounting Review, 23(3), 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, M. (2014). Stability and change in management accounting over time–A century or so of evidence from Guinness. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, M. (2017). Are routines “really” an organisational concept? Maybe not for management accounting!. Revista de Ciências Empresariais e Jurídicas, 28, 29–46.

  • Quinn, M., & Jackson, W. J. (2014). Accounting for war risk costs: Management accounting change at Guinness during the First World War. Accounting History Review, 24(2–3), 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, M., & Kristandl, G. (2017, forthcoming). Internal accounting practices at Whitbread & Company, c. 1890–1925. Accounting History, https://doi.org/10.1177/1032373217734384.

  • Raymond, L. (1985). Organizational characteristics and MIS success in the context of small business. MIS Quarterly, 9(1), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlinson, M., & Hassard, J. S. (2013). Historical neo-institutionalism or neo-institutionalist history? Historical research in management and organisation studies. Management and Organisational History, 8(2), 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C., & Moores, K. (2010). Research on accounting in family firms: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Family Business Review, 23(3), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senftlechner, D., & Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). Management accounting and management control in family businesses: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(4), 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, M. D. (2015). Established management accounting knowledge. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 27(1), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebels, J., & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., (2012). A review of theory in family business research: The implications for corporate governance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 280–304.

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songini, L., & Gnan, L. (2015). Family involvement and agency cost control mechanisms in family small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 748–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songini, L., Gnan, L., & Malmi, T. (2013). The role and impact of accounting in family business. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(2), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songini, L., Morelli, C., Gnan, L., & Vola, P. (2015). The why and how of managerialization of family businesses: Evidences from Italy. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 28(1), 86–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speckbacher, G., & Wentges, P. (2012). The impact of family control on the use of performance measures in strategic target setting and incentive compensation: A research note. Management Accounting Research, 23(1), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spraakaman, G., & Quinn, M. (2017). Accounting history research topics—An analysis of leading journals 2006–2015. In European Accounting Association Annual Conference, Valencia, Spain, May 10–12.

  • Steiger, T., Duller, C., & Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). No consensus in sight: An analysis of ten years of family business definitions in empirical research studies. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 23(1), 25–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stergiou, K., Ashraf, J., & Uddin, S. (2013). The role of structure and agency in management accounting control change of a family owned firm: A Greek case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 62–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Family Business Review, 25(1), 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, E., Kristandl, G., & Quinn, M. (2014). The effects of cloud technology on management accounting and decision making. In CIMA Research Executive Summary Series (Vol. 10, No. 6), http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/Management%20and%20financial%20accounting/effects-of-cloud-technology-on-management-accounting.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2017.

  • Tabor, W., Chrisman, J. J., Madison, K., & Vardaman, J. M. (2017, forthcoming). Nonfamily members in family firms: A review and future research agenda. Family Business Review, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517734683.

  • Umble, E., Haft, R., & Umble, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton, N., Teal, E. J., & Felan, J. T. (2001). Strategic and business planning practices of fast growth family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Ma, H. (2009). Adoption of professional management in Chinese family business: A multilevel analysis of impetuses and impediments. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(1), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers, which have greatly helped us in sharpening our arguments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Martin Quinn

  2. Chair of Management Accounting and Control, University of Siegen, Unteres Schloß 3, 57072, Siegen, Germany

    Martin R. W. Hiebl

  3. Australian Center for Family Business, Building 2, Bond Business School, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Ken Moores

  4. Kellogg School of Management, Jacobs Center, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Justin B. Craig

Authors
  1. Martin Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin R. W. Hiebl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ken Moores
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin B. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin R. W. Hiebl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quinn, M., Hiebl, M.R.W., Moores, K. et al. Future research on management accounting and control in family firms: suggestions linked to architecture, governance, entrepreneurship and stewardship. J Manag Control 28, 529–546 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-018-0257-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-018-0257-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation