Commentary: "are we family and are we treated as family? Nonfamily employees' perceptions of justice in the family firm": it all depends on perceptions of family, fairness, equity, and justice.

Introduction

"Are we family and are we treated as family ..." has addressed an understudied yet important aspect of family-owned and managed firms: the management of the nonfamily human resources. It addresses the perceptions of fairness, equity, and justice within family firms and has proposed distinctly different outcomes when applied to nonfamily individuals working in a family-owned and managed firm. As noted by Chrisman, Chua, and Litz (2003) and Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma (2003), attracting qualified nonfamily employees and fostering value-creating behaviors in this group is critical (but that is true for all firms). What the authors have not noted is that issues of fairness, equity, and justice go to the heart of family conflict over succession and inheritance, and ultimately to the very survival of the firm (Chua et al., 2003). Thus, injustice, unfairness, and inequalities can jeopardize the family firm as an employment opportunity for both family and nonfamily.

Social Systems and Reference Groups

While the theoretical approach laid out in "Are we family ..." seems straightforward, actually applying this to empirical research could become problematic given the differential effects of these variables within the various social systems involved (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; White & Klein, 2002). For example, perceptions as to what is fair, equitable, or just for a nonfamily member should apply only within the social-task system of the workplace as this is where nonfamily members function. For a family member working in their firm, these concepts apply to two different systems, the workplace and the family. This is where the view of "Are we treated as family ..." becomes interesting. Who constitutes the reference family for the nonfamily employee? The implicit assumption is that the reference group is the family of owners. Do employees want to be treated as they perceive the family of the ownership are treated, or do they want to be treated as they perceive their own family system would treat them? Thus, a confounding problem is the specific reference system for nonfamily employees impacting their perceptions of being treated like family. What looks like a simple research model quickly becomes complex.

While fairness, justice, and equality are related, they are different concepts with different components and factors influencing them. They may be perceived differently depending on the social sphere to which they are applied. Are these concepts the same across both social system spheres of family and workplace? How do they enhance or inhibit each other (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) with respect to job performance? For example, a nonfamily employee only has to optimize the fairness outcome in one sphere while a family member in a family firm is faced with optimal fairness outcomes in two social systems that may be in some conflict with each other at different times. That is, what may seem unfair in the workplace might actually be seen as fair and just within the family sphere. Likewise, what might be seen as equitable (equal salaries) might be also perceived as unfair (one person produces more than another) regardless if the employee is family or not.

Family as an Explanatory Variable

To explain this potential conflict in the perception of justice, equity, and fairness between these two systems (family and workplace), the authors have adopted the concept family influence (Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003) and provide both convincing theoretical basis and existing research evidence for why this would be a curvilinear process, at least with respect to nonfamily employees. While such an approach clearly has its merits, it still suffers from the attempt to turn essentially a potentially loosely defined demographic variable (family) into a causal factor. Inherent in every definition of family business is both a definition of family as well as of the firm. Is family really a unitary concept, or is it in fact a multifaceted term that serves as a quick reference for a variety of factors such as generations, values, ethnicity, culture, etc.? In other words, when one uses the term family, one is subsuming a number of factors within that term. Is the impact of family or family influence due to values, cultural background, organizational structure, the number of family members in the firm, or number of generations involved? To advance the field, one needs to add some precision to the definition of family influence and family, which are most likely multidimensional variables for purposes of most research studies.

Problems Defining Family

Families are made up of people who have a shared history, experience, some degree of emotional bonding, sets of common goals for the future, and whose activities involve group issues as well as individual concerns. Families can take many different forms. The intact nuclear family is the most familiar although not the most common anymore in the developed world. Today, dual families have become the norm, and what is family is not as simple as it seems (Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein, 2005; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; White & Klein, 2002). Many are reconstituted families with one of the parents widowed or more likely divorced. Such families consist of a new spouse and children from one or both prior unions. The family social system now includes the relatives of both current and ex-spouses as well as parents, in-laws, children's spouses and children, aunts, uncles, and cousins. This may be far more complex than the traditional "cousin consortium." What mediates this complexity in the family social system are degrees of cohesion, adaptability, flexibility, boundaries, shared values, and goals. These may be more useful concepts than simply using family and are also more easily tested. Astrachan, Klein, and Smyrnios (2002), with their proposed scale of family influence, attempt to address this issue. Addressing family influence also means addressing cases in which nonbiological family are both perceived and treated as family, abeit an extended one. Thus, to identify family and measure its impact in any given family firm becomes both difficult and critical if we are going to use this variable to predict problems within family firms and not merely use the term family as a post hoc explanation of observed human resource problems.

It is true that securing nonfamily employees' commitment and cooperation is more difficult when they do not believe that the family business supports them and that they are not full-fledged and valued members of the family business. But are these individuals concerned about being members of the firm (one social system) or about not being treated the same as the family of owners (a different social system)? Family members can also feel that they are not valued (or are taken for granted) and may believe that they also are not full-fledged members of the firm and/or family because of conflicts in how justice is perceived within the two different social sytems or spheres. Family employees may perceive injustice, inequality, or unfairness in human resource decisions even more than nonfamily employees because of the intersect of the two social systems. What might drive justice in the family firm is not family or the intensity of the family influence but the actual values held by the family leadership concerning people in general, employees, and family in particular. What impacts the perceptions of injustice by nonfamily employees may be their ability to distinguish between decisions in the workplace social system and those in the family social system (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

When the authors talk about the family who exhibits excessive family influence, one would assume that they are talking about a biological grouping. This also assumes that families are bound together very differently than nonbiologically related employees to the firm. While this may be true in some cases, it is important to remember that what makes up family is not so clear (White & Klein, 2002). For example, in-laws are legally and emotionally related, but not a direct biological relationship. Distant cousins, while biologically related, may not feel emotionally tied to the larger family unit or its firm except by their ownership stake in the firm. The boundaries of who are and who are not in the family are issues that family business researchers have yet to adequately address. By looking at existing concepts with the sociological literature on families, one might better understand what is meant by family and family influence. We need to understand what variables within the concept of family are critical to the perceptions of justice, fairness, and equity in the family firm (Bengtson et al., 2005; White & Klein, 2002).

Operational Definitions