Abstract
We extend relational demography theory by introducing kinship as a new demographic characteristic of categorization. We theorize that family firm employees’ kinship similarity (family vs. nonfamily), kinship tie (child vs. other familial relationship), and gender (female vs. male) uniquely affect their organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Data collected from 209 family CEO–employee dyads indicate that male family employees, especially sons of the CEO, display the highest OCB when altruistic leadership behavior is high, whereas daughters and other female family employees display consistently high OCB, confirming that employees’ experiences in family firms are simultaneously shaped by their kinship characteristics and gender.
Introduction
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or employee contributions in the workplace that go beyond role requirements and contractually rewarded job responsibilities (Organ & Ryan, 1995), has been a topic of widespread scholarly interest for decades. It is universally recognized that employees’ OCB is essential for organizational effectiveness and success (Podsakoff et al., 2018a); it can increase firm productivity, efficiency, and performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Given these benefits, researchers have long sought to determine how employees’ OCB can be promoted (Bellairs & Halbesleben, 2018). Researched antecedents include employee characteristics such as justice perceptions (Cropanzano et al., 2018), task and organizational characteristics, and certain types of leadership behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000), just to name a few.
Despite decades of OCB research, gaps in our understanding remain. For instance, although we know that leadership behaviors play a key role in motivating employees’ OCB “. . . the mechanisms through which these leader behaviors influence citizenship behaviors are not always clear” (Podsakoff et al., 2000, p. 552). As such, calls have been made for research on OCB’s boundary conditions (MacKenzie et al., 2018; Podsakoff et al., 2018b) to uncover the set of circumstances in which leadership behaviors can inspire employees’ OCB (Li et al., 2017). Moreover, researchers urge scholars to consider the organizational context to improve their predictions of OCB (Wang & Sung, 2016) because “. . . OCB develops within a context and so requires the identification of unique content” (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2018, p. 532). Although OCB is a widespread phenomenon, there are contexts, such as family firms, where employees’ OCB is likely salient but less understood (Bormann et al., 2020; Marler & Stanley, 2018).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify unique content within family firms that may impose a boundary condition on established OCB relationships. Family firms, defined as “enterprises that are significantly influenced by family members and kinship ties,” experience differences in organizational behavior because of the overlap of the family system with the business system (Gagné et al., 2014, p. 643). We draw from relational demography theory to provide insights into whether employees’ kinship characteristics alter behavior in family businesses. Relational demography theory predicts that relationships and work-related outcomes are affected by the relative similarity (or dissimilarity) in demographic characteristics—such as race, age, and gender—of individuals who comprise a dyad or larger group (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). We conceptualize and introduce kinship as a demographic characteristic of relative similarity (or dissimilarity) that is relevant to employees’ behavior in family firms. Specifically, we submit that two kinship characteristics—kinship similarity (i.e., whether an employee is a member of the business-owning family) and kinship tie (i.e., whether a family employee is a child of the family CEO)—alter employees’ OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior. Moreover, we contend that the employee’s gender, in conjunction with their kinship similarity and kinship tie, challenges previous theorizing due to gender role expectations within families (Martin & Ruble, 2010). Similar to other scholars, we use the term gender to refer to the psychological and social implications of being male or female and the term sex to refer to the biology-based categories of male and female, with the recognition that these categories are not all inclusive (e.g., Eddleston & Powell, 2008, 2012). In this vein, gender roles represent beliefs about the behaviors that are appropriate for members of each sex (Eagly & Wood, 2012). Although gender roles are learned and deeply embedded within the family domain (Martin & Ruble, 2010), we theorize that they can be transferred to and intensified in the business domain (Haberman & Danes, 2007; Vera & Dean, 2005).
This study makes three key and interrelated contributions. First, it contributes to the organizational behavior literature by revealing family business idiosyncrasies that can alter traditionally predicted OCB relationships. While we find altruistic leadership behavior to be positively related to employees’ OCB in family firms, we also show that this relationship is contingent on employees’ kinship characteristics and gender. Thus, this study not only fills gaps in the literature by illuminating contextual boundary conditions of OCB predictions, but it also provides novel insight into why family businesses are theoretically distinct and experience differences in organizational behavior (Combs et al., 2018). Second, this study contributes to relational demography theory by introducing kinship as a new demographic characteristic of categorization. We reveal that kinship similarity and kinship tie are relevant and important employee characteristics within family firms that affect the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB. Third, this study contributes new gender-related insights to the family business literature. We submit that gender alters the expected behavioral responses of family and nonfamily employees and among family employees due to the gendered socialization processes that transfer from the family to the family business. By investigating organizational behavior from a gendered perspective (Eddleston & Powell, 2012), we add to our knowledge of women in family firms (see Campopiano et al., 2017, for a recent review) and also answer a call for research that “renders the gendered experience of men as visible” (Byrne et al., 2019, p. 593).
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
In this section, we propose a direct and positive relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB in family firms (Hypothesis 1). This is a baseline hypothesis that extends insights from the organizational behavior literature to the family business context. Next, we draw from relational demography theory to theorize that kinship similarity (Hypothesis 2a) and kinship tie (Hypothesis 2b) moderate the relationship. We then integrate a gendered perspective to submit that these moderated relationships are contingent on the employee’s gender (Hypotheses 3a and 3b).
Altruistic Leadership Behavior and Employees’ OCB
OCB is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Employees’ OCB can be categorized as behavior that benefits specific individuals, or it can reflect an employee’s care, concern, and loyalty toward an organization (Ehrhart, 2004; Smith et al., 1983). We focus on employees’ OCB aimed at the organization because it helps elicit the sense of community for family firms that contributes to their long-term success and survival (Marler & Stanley, 2018; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005). Although research documents the benefits of pro-organizational behavior in family firms, such as increased organizational commitment (Davis et al., 2010) and firm performance (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007), relatively less is known about how such behaviors are promoted.
Recent OCB research, however, introduces antecedents that could be relevant to family firms. For example, a predictor of employees’ OCB is organizational trust; when employees develop trust in their organization, they are more likely to take personal responsibility and engage in OCB (Tourigny et al., 2019). Similarly, employees who have a positive regard for their work relationships experience a heightened sense of vitality that encourages their OCB (Shefer et al., 2018). Recent family business research finds that leadership can enhance employees’ OCB through reinforcing the importance of the family’s socioemotional goals (McLarty & Holt, 2019) and by creating a strong stewardship climate of cooperation and participation (Bormann et al., 2020; Neubaum et al., 2017). Marler and Stanley (2018) theorize that identification with the family business can increase employees’ OCB and that having friendship ties with family members can strengthen the relationship for nonfamily employees. Matherne et al. (2017) find that identification with the owning family increases employees’ OCB. The findings of Medina-Craven et al. (2020) lend support to these claims by demonstrating that identification with both the family business and the owning family can enhance employees’ OCB. In all, this research indicates that the owning family is a unique target of identification that can lead to employee behavior that is beneficial to the family’s business (Matherne et al., 2017).
Building from this research, we suggest that altruistic leadership behavior can inspire employees’ OCB because it strengthens the employees’ relationship with the family and the family firm. Altruistic leadership behavior reflects the care, loyalty, and trustworthiness that leaders demonstrate for their subordinates (Fry et al., 2005). Employees often respond to altruistic leadership behavior with increased motivation, commitment, and satisfaction (Fry et al., 2005; Sosik et al., 2009). The leader sets the tone for employee behavior by establishing organizational norms and acting as a role model; employees in turn mimic and reciprocate these behaviors (Smith et al., 1983). For example, a family business leader’s display of stewardship behavior improves employee engagement (Zahra et al., 2008) and can be key to promoting employees’ OCB (Pearson & Marler, 2010). Given that OCB is discretionary and outside the employment contract, it is likely a salient behavior that employees offer in response to altruistic leadership behavior. As such, leaders who display altruistic behaviors like consideration, compassion, and trust, may inspire employees to reciprocate by contributing more discretionary effort to the family firm. In contrast, employees who see their leadership as unsupportive and uncaring are likely to disengage from the family firm (Zahra et al., 2008) and reduce their OCB.
Kinship Characteristics
We introduce kinship as a new demographic characteristic of categorization in relational demography theory that more fully explains employee responses to altruistic leadership behavior in family firms. Relational demography research draws from social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) to predict and explain the effects of sharing the same demographic characteristics. Social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to identify with people whom they perceive as similar to themselves (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Specifically, individuals create a positive self-identity by categorizing themselves and others into distinct social groups and then making favorable comparisons between members of their own group and members of the other group. Relational demography scholars examine demography-based social identities, such as those categorized on the basis of race, age, gender, ethnicity, and disability, and their effects within organizations. Generally, research finds that demographically similar employees have enhanced self-identities, positive attitudes, and a desire to be supportive to their group, whereas demographically dissimilar employees tend to feel threatened in their work environment (Goldberg et al., 2010). For instance, race dissimilarity between supervisors and employees can invoke workplace anxiety and injustice perceptions for employees (M. Z. Carter et al., 2014); disability dissimilarity between supervisors and employees is linked to decreased leader–member relationship quality (Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016); and age dissimilarity between supervisors and employees can produce negative workplace emotions and decreased organizational performance (Kunze & Menges, 2017).
We extend relational demography theory insights to the family firm context to theorize that employees will categorize themselves into distinct groups based on kinship. Employees who are part of the business-owning family would place themselves in the family “in-group,” whereas employees who are not part of the business-owning family would be considered the nonfamily “out-group” (Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012; Marler & Stanley, 2018). Accordingly, and in relational demography terminology, we describe family employees as those who have kinship similarity and nonfamily employees as those who have kinship dissimilarity. We theorize that kinship similarity (dissimilarity) categorizations alter the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB.
Leadership is a social interaction whereby characteristics of the leader become salient depending on the shared characteristics of the employee (Ayman et al., 2009). Research shows that employees who share characteristics with their leader are more influenced by their leader’s behavior than employees without shared characteristics (Sparrowe et al., 2006). In family firms, “family and business experiences create stronger ties among family members, and increase the family’s shared values and norms” (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003, p. 347). Thus, we theorize that family employees (i.e., those who share kinship with the owning family) will show stronger behavioral responses to altruistic leadership behavior than nonfamily employees. Although prior family firm research indicates that family and nonfamily employees have different attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Barnett & Kellermanns, 2006; Davis et al., 2010; Madison & Kellermanns, 2013), our study goes a step further by offering a theoretical explanation of why differences exist through insights from relational demography theory.
Family employees are likely to show greater commitment and trust in family firm leadership than nonfamily employees (Davis et al., 2010; Pearson & Marler, 2010). Indeed, Davis et al. (2010) showed that “blood is thicker than water” in predicting employees’ perceptions of family firm leaders’ stewardship, trustworthiness, and commitment. They argued that family employees have inside knowledge of family relationships and therefore are more likely than nonfamily employees to recognize that family firm leadership is committed to the family’s interests and the good of the family business. In support of Davis et al.’s (2010) findings, research suggests that altruistic behavior fosters enhanced bonding among family members, consideration for one another, and loyalty to the family (Schulze et al., 2003). Furthermore, due to their shared kinship, family firm leaders’ altruistic behavior is expected to be reciprocated by family members via greater stewardship toward the business (Eddleston, 2008). Altruistic and considerate leadership also helps foster family members’ identification with the family firm, which, in turn, should increase their commitment to the prosperity of the family and the family business (Gersick et al., 1997; Matherne et al., 2017). Extending these insights therefore suggests that employees with kinship similarity (i.e., family employees) will reciprocate leadership’s altruistic behavior by engaging in higher levels of OCB.
In contrast, from their vantage point on the outside the family looking in, nonfamily employees have different perceptions of family firm leadership due to their kinship dissimilarity. Nonfamily employees often do not have access to the same opportunities for ownership and promotion as family employees, which makes them less trusting of leadership and less committed to the long-term success of the family firm (Davis et al., 2010). Whereas family employees are likely to share a unified vision for the family firm with leadership, nonfamily employees tend to have a more distant and utilitarian relationship (Lubatkin et al., 2005). Nonfamily employees are also likely to see family firm leaders as placing family interests above those of the business (Verbeke & Kano, 2012), which may make them less responsive to altruistic leadership behavior. Additionally, in feeling excluded from the family “in-group” (Barnett & Kellermanns, 2006), nonfamily employees are likely to feel less motivated to respond to altruistic leadership behavior with greater OCB. In comparison to family employees, nonfamily employees should also feel less pressure from the family to reciprocate displays of altruistic leadership with greater OCB. Taken together, we therefore expect family employees to respond with greater OCB to strong altruistic leadership behavior than nonfamily employees.
In addition to the comparison between family and nonfamily employees, we submit that the type of kinship tie moderates the relationship, thus providing a nuanced understanding of within-family relationships. Various types of kinship ties can exist within a family firm, including relationships between spouses, siblings, children, aunts/uncles, and cousins. Accordingly, we argue that family employees will differ in their OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior based on their kinship tie, not just their kinship similarity. Indeed, although family employees are part of the “in-group”, research acknowledges differences in their perceptions and commitment based on whether they are children (Dumas, 1989; Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012) or a spouse of the family firm CEO (Poza & Messer, 2001; Werbel & Danes, 2010). Research applying evolutionary psychology to family firms further highlights behavioral differences that exist among distant versus close kin, suggesting that strong bonds between parents and their children promote supportive behaviors and reciprocity within the family firm (e.g., Yu et al., 2020).
Family psychology research, particularly attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), suggests that children develop enduring attachments to those who provide them with protective and supportive care. This type of care is altruistic in nature, and in turn, fosters compassion and altruism in children (Mikulincer et al., 2005). Indeed, parents who are altruistic serve as role models and thus, often have children who exhibit similar altruistic behaviors (Hoffman, 1975). Attachment theory also explains that patterns of attachment formed during childhood are enduring and continue to be reflected in adult life (Holmes, 2001). Research suggests that when children of the CEO have benefitted from their parent’s altruism, they are likely to feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate (Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012). Extending these insights to family firms, scholars have argued that a strong parent–child bond transfers to the family firm, thereby encouraging adult children to work as “loyal assistants to their parents” (Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012, p. 372). Similarly, Cater and Justis (2009) demonstrated how strong parent–child bonds transfer to the family firm to predict positive succession outcomes. Accordingly, due to the strong attachment between parents and their children, we expect children of the CEO to reciprocate altruistic leadership behavior with greater OCB than other kin of the CEO.
Whereas the parent–child bond in family firms is characterized as codependent due to the parent’s reliance on the child to maintain the business for future generations and the child’s reliance on the parent for resources, other kin of the CEO have greater freedom to create their roles in the family firm (Nicholson, 2008). While other kin are still part of the family “in-group,” they are more genetically and emotionally removed from the CEO than the CEO’s children, and thus, their relational bond is generally characterized by less trust, loyalty, and commitment (Ankeny, 2007; Vollan, 2011). Evolutionary psychology theory suggests that as genetic relatedness decreases, feelings of attachment, trust, and loyalty lessen (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981; Lewis et al., 2017). As such, in comparison with children of the CEO, other family employees are less likely to feel a strong sense of obligation to respond to high levels of altruistic leadership behavior with greater OCB. Accordingly, we submit that children of the family CEO will exhibit greater OCB than other family employees in response to high levels of altruistic leadership behavior.
Kinship Characteristics and Gender
Next, we explore how the hypothesized moderating effects of kinship similarity and kinship tie are shaped by the employee’s gender. We first describe differences between males and females in their responses to leadership behavior in general; this informs our theorizing about nonfamily employees’ OCB in the family firm. We then describe differences in the gendered socialization processes between males and females within the family that spillover to the family business (Campopiano et al., 2017); this informs our theorizing about family employees’ OCB. Specifically, we theorize that kinship similarity and gender interact to change the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB. That is, we theorize about the different effects of altruistic leadership behavior on OCB for female nonfamily employees, male nonfamily employees, female family employees, and male family employees. We then extend this theorizing to a discussion about kinship tie and gender to make OCB predictions about sons and daughters of the family CEO who are working in the family business.
Organizational research informs us that males and females value different leadership behaviors. Women prefer leaders who display transformational leadership (Ayman et al., 2009), considerateness (Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002), and support (Kidd & Smewing, 2001), whereas men prefer leaders who display masculine traits associated with assertiveness, status, and authoritativeness (Ayman-Nolley & Ayman, 2005). These findings reflect the values associated with each sex conveyed by gender socialization processes (M. J. Carter, 2014; Eagly & Wood, 2012). That is, while many females are socialized to value communal traits associated with cooperation, interdependence, compassion, and warmth, males are socialized to value agentic traits associated with dominance, independence, aggressiveness, and ambition (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eddleston et al., 2006). As a result, female and male employees react differently to leadership behaviors. For example, women’s organizational commitment increases more than men’s in response to supportive leadership (Kidd & Smewing, 2001). Therefore, we expect that female nonfamily employees, in comparison to male nonfamily employees, will be more receptive to altruistic leadership behavior because it reflects many of the characteristics that they are socialized to value (Kacmar et al., 2011).
Family firm research informs us that “gender effects are especially pronounced in the spheres of work and home” (Nelson & Constantinidis, 2017, p. 232). Not only are females and males socialized differently within the family, these differences can persist within the family firm (Danes et al., 2005; Danes & Olson, 2003; Dumas, 1989; Francis, 1999). Unlike nonfamily employees who can negotiate and develop their role within the family firm when they begin employment, family employees transfer gendered role expectations from the family domain to the business domain (Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012). As such, we expect the gendered effects for family employees to be different from those of nonfamily employees.
Within the family, females are socialized to offer support where needed (Eagly & Wood, 2012; Ferree, 1990). Because women are socialized to be supportive and to subordinate their own interests for the sake of the family (Ferree, 1990; Marshack, 1994), their tendency to offer support to the family may transfer to the family business such that they display OCB regardless of the level of altruistic leadership behavior. Indeed, research indicates that women tend to join their family’s business to offer their family support as opposed to climb the career ladder (Campopiano et al., 2017; Dumas, 1989, 1992). As Martinez Jimenez (2009, p. 55) states, “Women have always given unconditional support . . . to the founder of the firm,” thereby indicating that altruistic leadership behavior may have little impact on female family employees’ OCB. Female family employees are also socialized to respond to other’s needs and to refrain from criticizing the family businesses’ leadership (Lyman, 1988). They often assume the roles of “emotional caretakers,” “family buffers” (Nelson & Constantinidis, 2017, p. 225), and “nurturers of family unity and the continuity of the family business” (Campopiano et al., 2019, p. 43). Therefore, in comparison to female nonfamily employees who are expected to increase their OCB in response to increased altruistic leadership behavior, female family employees should display high OCB regardless of the level of altruistic leadership behavior.
In contrast, the response of male family and nonfamily employees to altruistic leadership behavior is likely to vary because males are socialized to protect and provide for the family (Eagly & Wood, 2012; Ferree, 1990) and to display autonomy and dominance among family (Raley & Bianchi, 2006). Men tend to be given great status within their family that causes them to expect opportunities for leadership in their family business (Ahrens et al., 2015; Hamilton, 2006, 2013). Indeed, male family members often join the family business in hopes of someday leading the firm (Freudenberger et al., 1989; Keating & Little, 1992) and thus expect to be groomed for leadership (Dumas, 1989, 1992; Nelson & Constantinidis, 2017). In turn, male family employees may expect family business leadership to display altruistic behavior toward them because of their high status in both the family and business domains (Hamilton, 2006, 2013) and desire to further their position in the family business (Dumas, 1989, 1992). Because gender role theory explains that men view interactions at work as an instrumental means to achieve their goals (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001), male family employees should therefore view high altruistic leadership as an opportunity to improve their status through greater OCB. Thus, to further increase their status, male family employees should display greater OCB when altruistic leadership behavior is high. In contrast, male nonfamily employees may realize high status and career success are not likely in family businesses because salary and advancement decisions may be based on kinship rather than performance or extra-role behaviors (Jaskiewicz et al., 2013). Thus, we expect that male family employees will have stronger OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior than male nonfamily employees. Taking these arguments together, we hypothesize:
We also anticipate that within the family, the moderating effect of kinship tie will depend on the employee’s gender. That is, female children (daughters) and male children (sons) of the family CEO are likely to differ from one another and from other family employees in their OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior. In line with our H3a theorizing, we expect that daughters will follow the same behavioral patterns as other female family employees in the family business. Kubíček and Machek (2019) take stock of the family business succession literature with a specific focus on gender; they find that daughters tend to accept traditional gender norms when working in the family business (Overbeke et al., 2013), have greater emotional attachment to the business, and have to “exert extra effort to prove to their families and fathers that they are capable of leading a business” (p. 977). These findings suggest that daughters, like their female family employee counterparts, will be supportive of the business and exhibit high levels of OCB regardless of the level of altruistic leadership behavior.
However, in comparing the behavioral responses of male family employees, we anticipate that sons will have stronger OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior than other male family employees. Sons are groomed to take leadership of the family business, and this mind-set is often reinforced by family messages and expectations throughout the son’s childhood (Overbeke et al., 2013). Altruistic leadership behavior can be viewed as a signal to the son regarding his potential leadership status, and therefore he will be more likely than other male family employees to exhibit high levels of OCB in response.
Methodology
Sample and Procedures
As part of a larger project, we collected primary survey data from multiple informants per family firm. We operationalized family firms as those owned by a family with at least two family employees (e.g., Lee et al., 2019). We derived our sampling frame of 2,024 family firms by soliciting family firm contact information from undergraduate business students at a large U.S. public university, searching newspapers for family firm articles, and attending forums for family firm owners. We mailed a packet to each business in our sampling frame that included a cover letter and a separate paper survey for the family CEO, a family employee, and a nonfamily employee. A postage-paid return envelope was stapled to each survey so that respondents could mail their survey directly to us once completed, and the surveys for each family firm contained the same unique identifier so that we could match respondents to the same family business once returned. After initial and follow-up mailings, we received 408 completed surveys from respondents in 192 family firms for an organizational response rate of 9.5%.
Our theorizing requires us to have data from the family CEO and an employee from the same family firm; thus, our sample was constrained to 209 dyads. Regarding kinship similarity, 103 dyads are family CEO–family employees and 106 dyads are family CEO–nonfamily employees. The distribution of employees based on kinship and gender is 51 (24.4%) female family employees (19 are daughters), 63 (30.1%) female nonfamily employees, 52 (24.9%) male family employees (25 are sons), and 43 (20.6%) male nonfamily employees. Apart from dyadic characteristics, the firm- and individual-level sample characteristics are as follows. On average, the family firms have been in existence for 35.54 years and have 62.95 employees, of which 3.98 are family employees and 58.97 are nonfamily employees. They mainly represent the services industry (27.8%), retail industry (26.3%), and manufacturing industry (11.0%); the remaining are in industries such as agriculture or construction. The CEOs are all part of the business-owning family, and on average, are 55.21 years of age and have been with the family firm for 22.14 years; 78% are male and 57% are the founders. The employees, on average, are 43.68 years of age, have been with the family firm for 11.68 years and have 9.22 years of experience prior to joining the family firm; 31% hold top management positions, 34% previously held a similar position at another firm, and 50% have a bachelors or advanced degree.
Nonresponse Bias
Given that late respondents are more similar to nonrespondents than they are to early respondents (Kanuk & Berenson, 1975), we split the data by grouping those who responded to the first mailing versus those who responded to the follow-up mailing. We compared the means of our study’s variables between these groups of respondents and found no significant differences. Additionally, we compared the means from the survey responses in our sample to those in the surveys we received but could not use (i.e., family CEOs and employees who were not part of a matched organizational dyad) and found no significant differences. Accordingly, nonresponse bias does not appear to be an issue in this study.
Representativeness
We compared characteristics of our sample to those of three other samples: (1) sample of 708 U.S. family businesses from the 1997 National Family Business Survey (NFBS; Winter et al., 2004); (2) sample of 1,464 U.S. family businesses from the 1995 Arthur Andersen Center for Family Business Survey (Schulze et al., 2003); and (3) sample of 2,563 U.S. family businesses from the 1997 American Family Business Survey (Oswald et al., 2009). These national database samples are representative of the population and have been described as “the largest and most comprehensive surveys ever conducted on family firms” (Oswald et al., 2009, p. 121; Schulze et al., 2003). Each sample contains different variables, so complete comparisons could not be made. We found that CEOs in our sample are slightly older in age, but are similar in educational level with the American Family Business Survey and in gender with the NFBS. The family firms in our sample have not been in business as long as those in the comparison surveys, but are representative of similar industries as the NFBS. Overall, these comparisons suggest that our sample of family businesses and their CEOs are similar to those in national databases, and therefore sample bias does not appear to be a concern.
Measures
Survey respondents used 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), unless stated otherwise. Scale items are provided in the appendix.
Dependent Variable
We measured employees’ OCB from family and nonfamily employees’ responses to Lee and Allen’s (2002) eight-item scale. We used a self-report measure because supervisors may not always notice these behaviors (Carpenter et al., 2014; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and attributional biases are more likely when respondents are asked to rate unobservable variables related to another person (Schriesheim et al., 2011). The scale exhibited high reliability (α = .92).
Independent Variable
We measured altruistic leadership behavior from the CEO’s responses to Fry et al.’s (2005) seven-item scale of leading with altruistic love. Scale items incorporate leadership behavior that is caring, kind, considerate, trustworthy, and courageous (Fry et al., 2005). The scale exhibited high reliability (α = .90).
Moderating Variables
We measured kinship similarity and kinship tie by asking the employee, “What is your relationship to the family firm’s CEO?” If the employee indicated that they are related to the family CEO, we coded kinship similarity as 1 (indicating the respondent is a family employee); if the employee indicated that they are not related to the family CEO, we coded kinship similarity as 0 (indicating the respondent is a nonfamily employee). Kinship similarity is a requisite of kinship tie, and thus, only family employee respondents were coded by kinship tie: if the family employee indicated that they are the child of the family CEO, we coded kinship tie as 1; if the family employee indicated any other familial relationship with the family CEO (i.e., spouse, sibling), we coded kinship tie as 0. We asked employees to indicate their gender on the survey; we coded females 0 and males 1.
Control Variables
We controlled for firm age, measured by the number of years the family firm has been in existence, and firm size, measured by the number of employees. We included three dummy coded industry variables: retail, services, and manufacturing; other industries served as the referent industry (Arteaga & Menéndez-Requejo, 2017). We controlled for stewardship governance because a collectivistic work culture may create a climate of collaboration that could be the cause for altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB, measured with a five-item scale used in prior research (Madison et al., 2017). We controlled for the CEO’s age, gender, and tenure with the family firm. Age and tenure were measured in years, and CEO gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. We controlled for whether the CEO was the founder of the family firm (nonfounder coded 0, founder coded 1). We controlled for the employee’s age, tenure, position, experience, and education (Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Age and tenure were measured in years. Position was coded 1 for top managers (e.g., chief financial officer, vice president of operations, director of marketing) and 0 for lower positions (e.g., human resource coordinator, sales associate, administrative assistant). Prior similar position was coded 1 if the employee previously held a similar position in another firm, 0 if not. Experience prior to joining the family business was measured in years. Education was coded 1 if the employee had a bachelors or advanced degree, 0 if not (i.e., some college, high school diploma).
Data Analyses
Prior to analyzing the hypothesized relationships with hierarchical ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, we assessed our data for potential statistical issues.
Regression Assumptions
We followed the steps described in Hopkins and Ferguson (2014) to assess standard regression assumptions. The normal probability plot of the regression residuals indicated that linearity assumptions had not been violated. The Levene’s test confirmed that the variance between family and nonfamily employees’ OCB is true variance (F ≤ 1.22, ns [not significant]), thus meeting the scedasticity requirement. We assessed the independence of observations because nonindependence violates a regression assumption and distorts the estimate of the error variance (Kenny & La Voie, 1985). Nonindependence, as applied to our study, raises the possibility that employees within the same family firm would be more similar to one another in OCB than employees of different family firms. The ICC(1) (intraclass correlation coefficient) statistic of 0.09 indicates that nonindependence does not appear to be an issue and that adjustments were not necessary for hypothesis testing (Kenny et al., 2002). The highest variance inflation factor was 5.26 and the highest condition index was 10.87; both are below the threshold that suggests multicollinearity, thereby not violating that regression assumption (Hair et al., 2010). We tested for normality and found one outlier (standardized residual = −5.76); however, Cook’s distance value of 0.18 indicates that this does not have an undue influence on our results (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Based on these assessments, hierarchical OLS regression is an appropriate tool for analyzing our data.
Discriminant Validity
Some OCB measures contain a dimension of altruism; however, our measure of employees’ OCB aimed at the organization, rather than individual, does not. Nevertheless, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to ensure there was no empirical overlap. The two-factor model with the seven items of altruistic leadership behavior separate from the eight OCB items (χ2 = 247.82; df = 89; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.09; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.93; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.90; goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.86) exhibited greater fit than the single-factor model (χ2 = 933.72, df = 90, RMSEA = 0.21, CFI = 0.62, NFI = 0.60, GFI = 0.51). Each item loaded significantly on its model construct without any cross loadings; standardized loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.81 for the altruistic leadership behavior items and from 0.56 to 0.92 for the employees’ OCB items. In contrast, in the single-factor model, standardized loadings ranged from 0.23 to 0.35. These analyses demonstrate that our measures of altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB are empirically distinct.
Common Methods Bias
Because the predictor and criterion variables were collected from different sources, common methods bias is unlikely (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As a precaution, we performed a Harman’s single-factor statistical test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) in which 10 factors emerged, accounting for 69.03% of the variance, with the first factor explaining 20.45%. These results, coupled with our research design, allow us to conclude that common method bias is not likely a concern.
Results
Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables. Table 2 presents the OLS hierarchical regression results of kinship similarity predictions using data from 209 family CEO–employee dyads. Table 3 presents the OLS hierarchical regression results of kinship tie predictions using data from 103 family CEO–family employee dyads.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations.
Note. n = 209 family CEO–employee dyads. Coding of variables: kinship similarity: 0 = nonfamily employee, 1 = family employee; kinship tie: 0 = familial relationship other than child, 1 = child of the family CEO; CEO gender and employee gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; CEO founder: 0 = not founder, 1 = founder; employee position: 1 = top manager, 0 = lower positions; employee prior similar position: 0 = no, 1 = yes; employee education: 0 = high school or some college, 1 = bachelors, masters, or terminal degree. Kinship tie correlations represent 103 family CEO–family employee dyads; the correlation between kinship similarity and kinship tie cannot be computed because kinship similarity is a constant in family dyads. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.
p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Kinship Similarity OLS Regression Results.
Note. n = 209 CEO–employee dyads; Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4 are reanalyzed without control variables in Model 5, Model 6, and Model 7, respectively. Standardized regression coefficients shown. OLS = ordinary least squares.
p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Kinship Tie OLS Regression Results.
Note. n = 103 family CEO–family employee dyads; Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4 are reanalyzed without control variables in Model 5, Model 6, and Model 7, respectively. Standardized regression coefficients shown. OLS = ordinary least squares; DV = dependent variable.
p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
H1 predicted that altruistic leadership behavior is positively associated with employees’ OCB in family firms. As shown in Table 2’s Model 2, altruistic leadership behavior is significantly and positively related to employees’ OCB (β = .23, p ≤ .001). Moreover, this relationship is also supported in the analysis of family employees’ OCB (Table 3’s Model 2: β = .23, p ≤ 0.01). Thus, H1 is supported.
H2a predicted that kinship similarity moderates the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB, such that the relationship is stronger when the employee is a family member. As shown in Table 2’s Model 3, the interaction effect of kinship similarity and altruistic leadership behavior on employees’ OCB is not significant (β = .05, ns). Thus, H2a is not supported.
H2b predicted that kinship tie moderates the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and family employees’ OCB, such that the relationship is stronger when the family employee is a child of the family CEO. As shown in Table 3’s Model 3, the interaction effect of kinship tie and altruistic leadership behavior on employees’ OCB is positive and significant (β = .36, p ≤ .01). Figure 1 illustrates these results. Children of the family CEO (simple slope = 0.69, t = 4.12, p ≤ .001) have a significant increase in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases, while employees who are related to, but not children of, the family CEO (simple slope = 0.01, t = 0.05, ns) have no change in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases. Thus, H2b is supported.
Moderating effect of kinship tie on family employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
H3a predicted that gender, in conjunction with kinship similarity, would have a significant effect on the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB. We hypothesized that this relationship would be the strongest when the employee is a male family member. The results are reported in Table 2’s Model 4, which incorporates the additional two-way interaction terms necessary to assess the significance of the three-way interaction term. Results demonstrate a significant effect of the three-way interaction between kinship similarity, gender, and altruistic leadership behavior on employees’ OCB (β = .49, p ≤ .001). The model accounts for 42% of the variance in employees’ OCB. Figure 2 is presented for ease of interpreting the moderated moderating effect of kinship similarity and gender. Male family employees (simple slope = 0.71, t = 5.02, p ≤ .001) and female nonfamily employees (simple slope = 0.39, t = 2.99, p ≤ .01) have significant increases in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases. Male nonfamily employees (simple slope = −0.04, t = −0.21, ns) and female family employees (simple slope = −0.04, t = −0.28, ns) have no change in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases. The slope of line 1 for male family employees is significantly greater than that of line 2 for male nonfamily employees (t = 3.08, p ≤ .01) and line 3 for female family employees (t = 3.73, p ≤ .001). While female family employees display essentially high OCB regardless of the level of altruistic leadership behavior, male family employees exhibit the greatest increase in OCB as altruistic leadership behavior increases. Furthermore, male family employees display the highest level of OCB when altruistic leadership behavior is high. However, the slope of line 1 is not significantly greater than the slope of line 4 (t = 1.37, p = .17), indicating that female nonfamily employees have similar responses to altruistic leadership behavior as do male family employees. Thus, H3a is partially supported.
Moderating effect of kinship similarity and gender on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
H3b predicted that gender, in conjunction with kinship tie, would have a significant effect on the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and family employees’ OCB. We hypothesized that this relationship would be the strongest when the family employee is the son of the family CEO. The results in Table 3’s Model 4 indicate that the three-way interaction term between kinship tie, gender, and altruistic leadership behavior does not have a significant effect on family employees’ OCB (β = .25, ns). However, because of the smaller sample size used in this analysis, we conducted a post hoc power analysis using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2009). The power level was 0.55, which is not an acceptable level to detect significant relationships. As such, in Table 3’s Model 7, we omitted the control variables from the analysis, which increased the power level to 0.91. In this analysis, the three-way interaction term between kinship tie, gender, and altruistic leadership behavior has a significant effect on family employees’ OCB (β = .32, p ≤ .05). Figure 3 presents the interaction plot. Sons (simple slope = 1.37, t = 6.10, p ≤ .001) and other male family employees (simple slope = 0.44, t = 2.25, p ≤ .05) have significant increases in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases. Daughters (simple slope = 0.12, t = 0.49, ns) and other female family employees (simple slope = 0.17, t = 0.10, ns) have no change in their OCB as the level of altruistic leadership behavior increases. The slope of line 1 for sons is significantly greater than that of line 2 for other male family employees (t = 3.13, p ≤ .01), daughters (t = 3.84, p ≤ 0.001), and other female family employees (t = 4.77, p ≤ .001). Furthermore, the slope of line 2 for other male family employees is not significantly different from daughters (t = 1.05, ns) or other female family employees (t = 1.61, ns). Thus, with this modified test, H3b is supported.
Moderating effect of kinship tie and gender on family employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Robustness Test
To ensure the statistical control of variables did not unduly influence the results and inferences drawn from those results, as we did to test H3b, we repeated the analyses without the control variables (Becker et al., 2016). Results are presented in Model 5, Model 6, and Model 7 of Table 2 and Table 3. As shown, results align with those from the main analysis: the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB is positive and significant (β = .30, p ≤ .001); the interaction effect of kinship similarity and altruistic leadership behavior on employees’ OCB is not significant (β = .02, ns); the interaction effect of kinship tie and altruistic leadership behavior is positive and significant (β = .29, p ≤ .05); and the three-way interaction of kinship similarity, gender, and altruistic leadership behavior is positive and significant (β = .38, p ≤ .001). Without control variables, the kinship similarity model accounts for 17% of the variance in employees’ OCB, and the kinship tie model accounts for 33% of the variance in employees’ OCB. Therefore, our results are robust and were not unduly influenced by the control variables used in this study.
Discussion
We now turn to a discussion of the insights into employees’ OCB that were gleaned from our study on kinship and gender in family firms. Our study suggests that employees use OCB to “pay back” the family firm for the support and compassion received from altruistic leadership behavior (Ilies et al., 2007, p. 269). This finding reinforces the applicability of reciprocal altruism (e.g., Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007) and highlights the importance of stewardship-like behaviors in family firms (Davis et al., 2010; Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007; Pearson & Marler, 2010). While recent research shows that OCB is enhanced when employees strongly identify with the family and the family firm (Matherne et al., 2017; Medina-Craven et al., 2020), our research introduces altruistic leadership behavior as another mechanism that can promote employees’ OCB in family firms. Together, these studies illuminate important antecedents to the discretionary citizenship behaviors that are so essential to family firm success.
Regarding kinship similarity, we did not find support for our prediction that family employees would exhibit stronger OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior than nonfamily employees. Recent stewardship theory research offers insights into this nonfinding. Stewardship cultures may be more relevant for family firms than nonfamily firms at eliciting OCB from nonfamily employees (Bormann et al., 2020). We find that stewardship governance, a control variable in our analysis, is positively associated with employees’ OCB. Thus, we infer that in family firms with stewardship cultures, employees define themselves as part of the firm and that this shared identity mitigates classifications of an “in-group” or “out-group” based on relational demography characteristics, including kinship similarity. Indeed, nonfamily employees who identify with the family firm can become trusted members of the “in-group” (Marler & Stanley, 2018) and may exhibit similar citizenship behaviors to family employees (Matherne et al., 2017). These insights, coupled with the fact that we did not assess employees’ perceptions of their group status, leads us to conclude that nonfamily employees in family firms with stewardship cultures would be less likely to perceive kinship dissimilarity, and thus, would not differ from family employees in their OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior.
Regarding kinship tie, our results reveal that the CEO’s children exhibit stronger OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior than other types of family employees. While research applying an evolutionary psychology perspective to family firms has stressed the importance of the kinship tie in predicting displays of altruism (Nicholson, 2008; Yu et al., 2020), we extend this research by revealing differences in how children of the family CEO versus other types of family employees respond to altruistic leadership behavior. Thus, it appears that kinship tie not only predicts acts of altruism and nepotism but also how family employees respond to it. This finding highlights the importance of examining the types of kinship ties in family firms (Yu et al., 2020) and in examining family-related variables from an organizational behavior perspective (Jaskiewicz et al., 2017; McLarty et al., 2019).
Importantly, our research suggests that gender alters the behavioral responses of family and nonfamily employees in the family firm due to gendered socialization processes that transfer from the family domain. Our findings reveal that the OCB of male family employees, particularly sons, is contingent on the level of altruistic leadership behavior in the family firm. That is, when they receive the altruistic leadership behavior they expect due to their status in the family, they will reciprocate with OCB; otherwise, they will disengage and withhold their OCB. In contrast, male nonfamily employees displayed relatively low levels of OCB, regardless of the level of altruistic leadership behavior. These findings extend prior research suggesting that males contribute OCB in order to gain status and career success (Kacmar et al., 2011), but reveals that male nonfamily employees realize this is an unlikely outcome in family firms because of nepotistic practices (Jaskiewicz et al., 2013). Differences in female employees based on the kinship characteristics are also striking. In line with gender research (e.g., Kidd & Smewing, 2001), our findings suggest that female nonfamily employees are responsive to altruistic leadership behaviors because they are socialized to value those behaviors (i.e., compassion, caring, warmth). However, for female family employees, including daughters, the level of altruistic leadership behavior had little effect on their OCB. This finding suggests that similar to their behavior in the family domain, where they tend to show unwavering support for family members (Campopiano et al., 2019; Ferree, 1990; Marshack, 1994), female family employees are dedicated to and supportive of the family business regardless of other factors.
Contributions
This study makes several theoretical and empirical contributions. First, it contributes to the organizational behavior literature by revealing contextual boundary conditions of established OCB relationships. Family firms are theoretically different from nonfamily firms; they experience differences in organizational behavior due to the family’s embeddedness in the business (Combs et al., 2018; Gagné et al., 2014). Our study suggests that altruistic leadership behavior can be effective at inspiring employees’ OCB in family firms; however, the effectiveness is contingent on the employees’ kinship characteristics and gender. Thus, our study demonstrates that the unique family firm context introduces OCB boundary conditions while also challenging the universality of altruistic leadership behaviors and their established outcomes. Moreover, it sheds light on family-related reasons (i.e., kinship characteristics and gendered role expectations) why family firms experience differences in organizational processes and outcomes compared with nonfamily firms that are not influenced by an owning family (Combs et al., 2018).
Second, this study contributes to relational demography theory by conceptualizing kinship as a new demographic characteristic that can be used for categorizations of relative similarity (dissimilarity). Prior research examines relative similarity on demographic characteristics such as race and age (e.g., M. Z. Carter et al., 2014; Kunze & Menges, 2017). However, these are not the only demographic characteristics that emerge in an organizational setting; our research submits that kinship is an important demographic characteristic that emerges in family firms. To our knowledge, no other relational demography study considers the effects of kinship similarity. Our study finds that kinship similarity together with gender, and kinship tie, separately and together with gender, can have important moderating effects in family firms, thus extending relational demography theory by adding to its nomological net.
Third, this study contributes to gender research by investigating the behavior of males and females within family firms. This is an important step because, “while gender theorizing has penetrated mainstream management theorizing, its application in family business literature remains underdeveloped” (Byrne et al., 2019, p. 579). By integrating gender and kinship theorizing, our study suggests that gender socialization and role expectations alters the OCB responses of family and nonfamily employees and among family employees. This perspective also provides insight for OCB research. A review of the OCB gender literature concludes by stating, “given the inconsistent results found across this literature, it is also important to identify the conditions under which moderating gender effects are most likely to emerge” (Allen & Jang, 2018, p. 235). Our research finds that gender effects emerge when considered simultaneously with kinship characteristics, thereby expanding our understanding of employees’ OCB in family firms while also illuminating the different workplace experiences between male and female employees who are and are not members of the business-owning family.
As a matter of practical implication, this study indicates that altruistic leadership behavior can inspire employees’ OCB in family firms; however, it is not necessarily a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Family business advisors and managers must recognize that there are differences in the motivations and behaviors of employees, based on their kinship characteristics and gender. Therefore, different approaches to promoting employees’ OCB may be necessary depending on the employee. For instance, family firms may need to implement professional practices to demonstrate to nonfamily male employees that there is a path to success and status; they may need to encourage participation and confidence in female family employees so that they can fulfill professional roles. In doing so, family firms may be able to inspire OCB from all types of employees, and therefore maximize these pro-organizational behaviors for the business.
Limitations and Future Research
We need to acknowledge the limitations of our study, which also offer fruitful avenues for future research. We utilized a dyadic design that involved collecting data from family CEOs and their employees. Although the use of matched dyads alleviated common method concerns (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and is important, but rare, in family business research (Holt et al., 2017), it may raise concerns about selection bias and reverse causality. We asked family CEOs to distribute surveys to their employees, and we do not have information about why the family CEOs selected the employees they did. However, descriptive statistics indicate that employee characteristics (e.g., age, tenure, position, prior experience, prior years of experience, education) vary greatly and that employee respondents were nearly equal in number with regard to their gender. This information could be an indication that family CEO selection choices were not made based on specific employee characteristics and that selection bias is not an issue. In the context of our study, reverse causality implies that family firm leadership would increase their level of altruistic leadership behavior in response to employees’ displays of OCB. Thus, to alleviate reverse causality concerns, following the approach of Engelen et al. (2015) for cross-sectional data, we set employees’ OCB as the independent variable and altruistic leadership behavior as the dependent variable and tested the interactive effects of employees’ OCB and the moderating variables (kinship characteristics and gender) on altruistic leadership behavior. None of these reverse interaction terms were significant; therefore, we can conclude that the dangers of reverse causality are limited. Although these results offer further support for our theoretically derived directional model, we recommend that future research utilize a longitudinal or experimental design to further rule out reverse causality.
We also recognize another procedural limitation of our methodology. Our sample was drawn only from U.S. family businesses. Although our findings may generalize to other contexts, they could be affected by national culture. For example, the level of gender egalitarianism (Emrich et al., 2004) in a country may heighten or mitigate the observed interaction effects, as gender roles may manifest differently in cultures that place a greater or lesser emphasis on gender egalitarianism. However, given that management practices are becoming more similar across countries (e.g., Carr, 2005; Stanley et al., 2019) and that family businesses possess similar characteristics across geographic contexts (Randolph et al., 2021), we do not expect cultural differences to significantly affect our findings. We encourage future research to investigate the relationships examined in this study in family businesses based in a variety of cultural settings.
We admit the use of self-reported measures as a potential limitation of our data. The mean score for altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB were both on the high end of the 7-point scale. Thus, the possibility exists that these scores are inflated due to the presence of halo error or social desirability bias. However, a meta-analysis demonstrates that self-reported OCB measures are higher than other-reported OCB measures, but the magnitude of the difference is minimal, especially for employees’ OCB aimed at the organization (Carpenter et al., 2014). Additionally, Combs et al. (2018) state that family firms differ from nonfamily firms in both their management practices and their OCB. As such, the possibility exists that altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB are inherently higher in family firms. Accordingly, we welcome future research that can mitigate potential survey-related biases and explore differences in leader and employee behaviors across family and nonfamily firms.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that we did not measure certain aspects of our theorizing. We theorized about kinship similarity effects that emerge from “in-group” versus “out-group” status; however, we did not measure employees’ perceptions of their group status. Indeed, as described in our discussion of the nonsignificant kinship similarity results, if family and nonfamily employees perceive themselves as part of the same group, we would not expect them to differ in their OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior. Unmeasured group status might be the cause of our nonfindings, and thus, a limitation of our study. Additionally, we theorized about the potential influence of unmeasured gender-related processes (e.g., gender roles, gendered socialization processes) in developing our hypotheses related to male and female family versus nonfamily employees. Thus, to overcome these limitations and refine the testing of our theorizing, we suggest that future research incorporate measures that can assess perceptions of employees’ kinship similarity and gender in a more nuanced way.
Similarly, we encourage future research that can enhance our relational demography theorizing. To our knowledge, this is the first study to extend relational demography insights to family firms. We introduced kinship as a new demographic characteristic to assess relative similarity. We recognize, however, that there are other types of relative similarity that may provide meaningful insights into family firms. For instance, sex similarity is commonly studied in relational demography research, and thus, it would be interesting to examine the employee’s sex similarity with the family CEO in family firms. Our sample had a high representation of male family CEOs in comparison to female family CEOs, and thus, we could not meaningfully assess sex similarity effects because they would be strongly influenced by employee relationships with male family CEOs. Furthermore, there may be more relevant outcomes of relative similarity comparisons in family businesses that we did not address. Thus, we welcome future research through a relational demography lens that can provide a more nuanced understanding of family firms and the people who work for them.
Finally, we are eager for research that can provide additional gender-related insights. Despite a surge of interest, gender roles are not well understood in entrepreneurship in general (e.g., Hughes et al., 2012) and family businesses in particular (Campopiano et al., 2017). For example, little is known about the role of female CEOs in family firms (Amore et al., 2014) or how women in family firms are promoted into such leadership roles. It is particularly important to understand these processes better, as the survival of the family business might depend on female leadership. Although many family firms seem to prefer primogeniture of the son in succession decisions (Hamilton, 2013), birth order or family membership does not guarantee the necessary qualifications (Kidwell et al., 2012). With changing family structures and lower birthrates (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003), family firms need to build and draw on all available human capital. Future research is encouraged to identify processes that facilitate such efforts.
Conclusion
Our study provides new insights into employees’ OCB in family firms. Extending relational demography theory to family firms, we introduce kinship as a new demographic characteristic of categorization. We theorize that two kinship characteristics relevant to family firms; namely, the employees’ kinship similarity with the business-owning family and their kinship tie with the family CEO can alter the relationship between altruistic leadership behavior and employees’ OCB. Additionally, we reveal that gender alters the effects of both kinship similarity and kinship tie. Specifically, nonfamily employees compared with family employees, and the CEO’s children compared with other family employees, exhibit different OCB responses to altruistic leadership behavior due to the gendered socialization processes within the family that persist within the family’s business. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of employees’ OCB in family firms and provides a foundation on which future research can build.
Footnotes
Appendix
Authors’ Note
A prior version of this research was presented at the 2015 Academy of Management Annual Meeting and was awarded the 2018 Best Unpublished Research Paper from the Family Firm Institute.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
