Twenty cases of Slovenian family firms were carefully selected from the database. We included micro (0 to 9 employees), small (10 to 49 employees), and medium-sized family firms (50 to 249 employees) as, in these size classes, family businesses of the first generation prevail in Slovenia and the family exerts strong and direct control over the business. In addition to the firm’s size, an important limitation in selecting cases was the family generation in charge. We limited our research on succession from the first to the second generation; thus, only those cases in which the founder was still employed in the firm, owned the firm, or was active in the firm (although he/she is retired) as well as when a member of the next family generation was involved in the family business were selected. As there is no common definition of a family business 1, we defined it as any firm in which a founder (i.e., an owner/manager) considers it to be a family business.
Data were gathered through direct interviews conducted between February and March 2014; additional data were collected through direct observations and documentation, thereby enhancing data credibility 2. We conducted at least two interviews per case, with the founder and the successor. We found them to be well-informed interviewees who “view the focal phenomenon from different perspectives” [ 3, p. 19]. 4 suggested conducting 30 interviews to cover both the breadth and depth of the research topic. Therefore, we believe that the conducted interviews provided us with a sufficient quantity of high-quality data needed to ensure a strong qualitative study. All interviews took place at workplaces in family businesses on workdays.
Data gathered were analysed systematically; data collection and analysis were done several times concurrently, as is often the case in qualitative methods 5. After organizing and arranging data, a cross-case comparison was conducted. We based the presentations of the results on the method of 6, which is “grounded in a positivist tradition and based on comparative case analysis” [ 7, p. 99]; following this method, the results are presented in tables (with the exception of two institutional cases) that display “concise, consistent summary points of each case which facilitates comparisons” [ 8, p. 99]. The empirical results were compared and contrasted with the established literature. The main findings are presented in the next subchapter.
- 瀏覽次數：1120
