Content uploaded by Vanessa M. Strike
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vanessa M. Strike on Oct 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517735169
Family Business Review
1 –45
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894486517735169
journals.sagepub.com/home/fbr
Article
Introduction
An emerging stream of academic research recognizes
that family firm decision makers do not make decisions
in isolation—they frequently rely on both internal and
external sources of advice (e.g., Reay, Pearson, & Dyer,
2013; Salvato & Corbetta, 2013; Strike, 2012, 2013).
Such advice can be provided by family members, board
members, or external professionals. Recent findings
suggest that these advisors substantially affect family
business outcomes. For instance, advisors are associated
with successful intergenerational transitions (Salvato &
Corbetta, 2013) and adaptive sensemaking (Strike &
Rerup, 2016) at the family level and decreased agency
costs (Michel & Kammerlander, 2015) and increased
performance (Naldi, Chirico, Kellermanns, &
Campopiano, 2015) at the firm level. However, while
advisors and advising have long been a mainstay of fam-
ily business practice, only recently have they begun to
garner scholarly attention.
Since the first systematic literature review on advis-
ing in family firms (Strike, 2012), the number of aca-
demic family firm articles addressing this topic has
indeed multiplied, mirroring the importance of this phe-
nomenon. However, despite the increasing number of
publications, this research stream appears to suffer from
two main shortcomings that prevent a comprehensive
understanding of family firm advising. First, the nascent
scholarly family business research on advising remains
fragmented, with little integration of the findings.
Second, in the first systematic literature review on fam-
ily firm advising, Strike (2012) provides insights in how
the type, characteristics, and competencies of the advi-
sor influence the choice of an advisor and the interven-
tion process in which different advising models might
be used. However, her review further reveals a surpris-
ing lack of academic understanding of the advising pro-
cess itself. Indeed, the processes outlined in her review
focus on advising models that primarily draw
from practitioner streams of literature, which are largely
prescriptive in nature and do not explore the underlying
735169FBRXXX10.1177/0894486517735169Family Business ReviewStrike et al.
research-article2017
1University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada
2University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
3WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Alexandra Michel, Department of Business Administration,
University of Bern, Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Email: alexandra.michel@iop.unibe.ch
Unpacking the Black Box of Family
Business Advising: Insights From
Psychology
Vanessa M. Strike1, Alexandra Michel2, and Nadine Kammerlander3
Abstract
Academic research on family business advising is gaining momentum; however, the internal structure and mechanisms
of advice giving and taking remain a black box. We conducted a systematic review that integrates findings from
family business advising with those from psychology. Advising research in psychology has focused on understanding
the subjective constructs and theoretical concepts composing the internal structures of advising. We develop an
input–process–output framework to categorize and integrate both streams of literature on advising, introduce new
concepts and variables from psychology that inform family firm advising, and identify important gaps to delineate
avenues for future family firm research.
Keywords
family firm, advising, decision making, process
2 Family Business Review 00(0)
theoretical how. Why this black box—defined as a “pro-
cess or system whose inputs and outputs (and the rela-
tionships between them) are known but whose internal
structure . . . is not well, or at all, understood”1 (see
Lawrence, 1997, for an overview)—lingers remains a
puzzle. It may well be due to the complexity of develop-
ing and measuring observable variables that are unique
to the advising process. To date, research on family firm
advising processes has not explored the underlying theo-
retical mechanisms of either how advice is provided by
advisors or how family firm decision makers contend
with it. However, understanding the how of advising is
necessary not only to advance our theoretical knowledge
about family firm advising but also to make valid pre-
dictions about the implications of such advising.
To address these shortcomings, we first review the
progress in family firm research since Strike’s (2012)
review and focus solely on academic articles. Second,
we draw on and integrate advising research from the
psychology literature. Advising lies within the roots of
behavioral psychology (Simon, 1947), and it has long
been researched by psychology scholars as part of the
decision making process (see Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006,
for a comprehensive review). While research on family
firm advising remains in its infancy, the psychology dis-
cipline has dedicated much effort to understanding the
actual processes of giving and taking advice and particu-
larly to developing variables that measure the advising
process. Psychology researchers investigate the condi-
tions under which individuals do or do not accept advice,
examine process variables that measure how advice is
utilized (e.g., Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007), provide theo-
retical frameworks to understand the advising process
(e.g., Sniezek & Buckley, 1995), and explore the roles of
moderating factors (e.g., Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2012).
To date, psychology scholars have been able to generate
a significant body of research on the antecedents and
processes of advice taking.
Given these potential synergies—and in line with
recent calls to combine and integrate family business
research with other disciplines to substantially advance
the field (James, Jennings, & Breitkreuz, 2012; Reay
et al., 2013)—the aim of this literature review is to bridge
recent literature in both fields and to thereby shed light
on the black box of the advising process. For this pur-
pose, we conduct a systematic literature review in which
we identify and analyze 88 relevant articles from both
streams. Our review reveals that articles in both literature
streams can be structured along an input–process–output
(IPO) framework that is further arranged by levels of
analysis (individual–dyad/group–organization). Input
and output variables are defined as variables that covari-
ate with one another with a change in input (e.g., related
to characteristics of the advisor) resulting in a change in
output (firm or family economic and noneconomic out-
comes). Processes and process variables refer to the
actions or steps (such as advice giving, taking, or seek-
ing) that are taken to achieve a particular output, as well
as the measurements of those actions.
Our framework reveals both similarities and differ-
ences between the two research streams and allows us to
identify important research gaps and to propose promis-
ing avenues for further research. Our contribution is
fourfold. First, we identify a major research gap in fam-
ily business research by showing how the field has
focused on input and output variables, resulting in a
black box regarding the advice giving and taking pro-
cesses in between. Second, we contribute to unpacking
this black box regarding family firm advising by intro-
ducing important constructs from the psychology litera-
ture that enable scholars to better understand, measure,
and quantify the advising process—particularly how the
advice is judged and weighted. Third, we advance the
family business literature by providing a comprehensive
IPO framework that integrates the two disciplines and
that reveals important theories, process variables, and
contextual factors that should be included in future stud-
ies. Fourth, we direct scholarly attention to the need to
conduct more studies focusing on varying levels of anal-
ysis, especially individual-level outcomes. Family firms,
owing to their idiosyncratic decision making, provide a
unique context to scrutinize and potentially extend or
adapt findings from psychology in an interesting and
relevant real-life setting.
Methods
To identify and analyze the extant advising literature, we
systematically reviewed research on family firm advis-
ing and psychology. To capture the literature on family
firm advising, we reviewed academic journals from 2011
to 2017.2 To determine whether an article should be
included, the article had to contain terms that referred to
both family firms and advising.3 We began with the fol-
lowing search engines: EBSCOhost Business Source
Premier, ABI/INFORM, JSTOR, Econlit, and Google
Scholar. To exhaust the relevant literature, we followed
citations trails that led to other contributions and reviewed
Strike et al. 3
the table of contents of Family Business Review and
Journal of Family Business Strategy. As our final step,
we sent a notice to family business listservs in order to
request unpublished papers and dissertations on family
business advising. These systematic steps enabled us to
extensively cover the recent literature on family firm
advising.
Our initial literature search unearthed 194 family
firm articles on advising. All three authors reviewed
the papers independently to determine their relevance.
We agreed on 84% of the articles and discussed the
remainder until full agreement was reached. To estab-
lish the boundaries of the review, we included only
articles that either provided conceptual advancements
in our understanding of family firm advising or
empirically tested family firm advising hypotheses.
We therefore excluded prescriptive and normative
articles; articles that focus on accounting, auditing,
mentoring, or boards (unless it did so in an advisory
capacity); articles that touch on advising only periph-
erally; and articles that do not concern advising but
that indicate that the findings provide implications for
advisors. All three authors independently reviewed
the articles and then met to discuss the studies; the
final number of relevant scholarly articles on family
firm advising was 52. Although the number of articles
shows researchers’ increasing interest in family firm
advising since the publication of the last review in
2012 (Strike, 2012), the significant number of
excluded articles also suggests that many of the arti-
cles remain prescriptive in nature and do not advance
our conceptual understanding of key constructs or
theories in advising.
To focus on the most relevant and recent articles on
advising from psychology, we used Bonaccio and
Dalal’s (2006) seminal literature review as our starting
point. We then tracked papers that cited this literature
review. Our initial search revealed 315 articles, 220 of
which discussed advice giving and/or advice taking. To
further focus our search, we concentrated our attention
on articles from peer-reviewed journals that had a 5-year
impact factor of 2.2 or higher according to Thomson
Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR),4 resulting in 51
articles. This impact factor was based on the journal
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, from Bonaccio and Dalal’s (2006) article. We
followed the same systematic process for reviewing the
articles as above. One article (Strike, 2012) was removed
because it was previously included in the literature
review on family business advising, and another 18 arti-
cles were removed because they touch on advising
issues only peripherally. Based on backward citations,
we added four articles to our literature review, resulting
in a final sample of 36 psychology articles.
In a next step, we categorized the articles with regard
to their definitions, theoretical and empirical approaches,
variables, and levels. We elaborate on the findings in the
following sections of our literature review. Each of the
authors independently categorized the studies, and we
discussed the categorization for each article until agree-
ment was reached.
Advising in the Family Business and
Psychology Literature
Defining the Advisor or the Advice?
Only a few articles that we reviewed explicitly defined
the advisor. One of the most cited definitions of advisors
in the family business literature is that of Strike (2012),
who distinguishes between three types of advisors: for-
mal advisors, informal advisors, and family firm boards.
In our categorization of family business definitions,
we classify advisors by expertise based, trust based, or
group based (see Table 1). Expertise-based advisors
consists of the formal advisors who are often externally
hired (Gordini, 2012; Salvato & Corbetta, 2013) by the
family and who are either content or process experts,
providing specialized knowledge (Naldi et al., 2015)
and services to the family firm (Perry, Ring, & Broberg,
2015). In turn, trust-based advisors may be formal or
informal; however, they are the most relied upon sources
of advice based on a long-term relationship, and they
may also include family members (Naldi et al., 2015)
and firm members, such as CFOs (Hiebl, 2013). Informal
trusted advisors are not formally hired and are found
either family internally (e.g., spouses) or externally
(e.g., close friends, key employees). These informal,
hidden advisors are assumed to garner more of the fam-
ily’s trust than formally hired advisors (Cisneros &
Deschamps, 2015). Group-based advisors include not
only boards but also new categories not previously
explicitly recognized, such as family offices (Welsh,
Memili, Rosplock, Roure, & Segurado, 2013), family
councils (Suess, 2014), communities of practice
(Sorenson & Milbrandt, 2015), and peer-advice groups
(Caspersz & Thomas, 2015), suggesting that the field is
beginning to evolve.
4 Family Business Review 00(0)
Table 1. Definitional Approaches.
Definitional
approach Advising definition Author (Year) drawing on this definition
Family business
literature
Expertise based
Business expert
advisors
Business expert advisors may be inside advisors who consist of
relatives and key nonfamily employees who work in the family
business. More often, advisors consist of external professionals,
such as accountants, lawyers, wealth advisors, HR experts, and
family enterprise advisors. These advisors work with family
enterprises in a formal capacity and are able to help family
enterprises navigate through issues that are unique to family firms.
Alderson (2009); Barbera and Hasso (2013); Benito-
Hernández, López-Cózar-Navarro, and Priede-
Bergamini (2014); Davis, Dibrell, Craig, and Green
(2013); Hiebl, Duller, and Feldbauer-Durstmuller
(2012); Lee and Danes (2012); Leung, Richardson,
and Jaggic (2014); Naldi etal. (2015); Reddrop and
Mapunda (2015); Rosensteel (2016); Salvato and
Corbetta (2013); Strike (2012); Waisner (2012)
Therapists Marriage and family therapist experts may provide additional
practical wisdom, especially when they are trained as family
business advisors.
Castanos and Welsh (2013); Cole and Johnson
(2012); Distelberg and Castanos (2012)
Mentors Advisors in the role of mentors provide psychosocial support.
Family mentors are often family-biased and emotional, while
non–family mentors provide more external, career-related advice.
Formal, external mentoring relationships are known to increase
skills, knowledge, social networks, and self-confidence.
Chrisman, Dhaenens, Marler, and Vardaman
(2017); Distelberg and Schwarz (2015); Samei and
Feyzbakhsh (2016)
Trust based
Trusted advisors Trusted advisors are defined as the most relied upon external
source of business advice for family firm members. They may
include lawyers, accountants, and consultants with whom family
members have enjoyed long-lasting professional relationships and
who are able to build trust on a relational basis. The spouse may
be one form of an often hidden trusted advisor.
Cisneros and Deschamps (2015); McCracken (2015);
Michel and Kammerlander (2015); Waisner (2012)
Most trusted
advisors
The experience and relationship of trust that develop with the
family member over a long time may allow the advisor to become
a most trusted advisor. Most trusted advisors are cited as those
being closest to family firm members and are thereby most likely
to have the strongest influence on family firm members.
Cisneros and Deschamps (2015); Strike (2013); Strike
and Rerup (2016)
CFOs Relationships with non–family CFOs as advisors are based on trust.
This relationship results in less rigid control mechanisms for the
non–family CFO.
Gurd and Thomas (2012); Hiebl (2013)
Trustees Trustees acting as advisors can be family members, the founder,
trusted advisers, or close family friends.
Scholes and Wilson (2014)
Group based
Boards One of the primary tasks of boards is to provide advice. They offer
complementary expertise to management and mediate family
conflicts; advice from external directors with functional skills and
experiences that are lacking inside the pool of family members
may be an essential element for family firms to bridge the skills
gap with nonfamily firms.
Bammens, van Giles, and Voordeckers (2011); Basco
and Rodríguez (2011); Calabro and Mussolino
(2013); Collin and Ahlberg (2012); García-Ramos
and García-Olalla (2011); Goel, Voordeckers, van
Gils, and van den Heuvel (2013); Gordini (2012);
Leung etal. (2014); Maseda, Jainaga, and Arosa
(2014); Sitthipongpanicha and Polsirib (2015);
Stockmans, Lybaert, and Voordeckers (2013);
Woods, Dalziel, and Barton (2012); Wu (2013);
Zattoni, Gnan, and Huse (2015)
Advising ecosystem
and teams
An advising ecosystem is a network of expert advisors described as
an integrated financial “ecosystem” of the family. Advising teams
are a collaborative group of advisors who ensure that family
business clients receive the most effective professional support.
These groups are based on the premise that no one group of
professional advisors has all the skills needed to work successfully
with family business clients.
Tucker (2011)
Communities
of practice
(CoP) and
peer leadership
intervention
Groups of family firm leaders who share similar concerns, problems,
and interests and who work together to deepen knowledge and
expertise. Members meet regularly to provide one another with
advice about possible solutions based on their experience in
dealing with similar challenges.
Caspersz and Thomas (2013); Sorenson and
Milbrandt (2015)
Family council A governing body of family members focused on the issues
most relevant to the owning family that intervenes on owner
knowledge. They provide advice on everything from educating
the family for their future responsibilities as owners to settling
disputes within the family.
Suess (2014)
(continued)
Strike et al. 5
Definitional
approach Advising definition Author (Year) drawing on this definition
Family offices A team of advisors who exclusively serve and represent the
interests and agenda of the family. Family offices not only preserve
wealth but also advise families toward being entrepreneurial
through new venture creation and investing entrepreneurially.
Welsh etal. (2013)
Psychology
literature
Advice based
Categorization Advice may be categorized as distinguishing between choices (“A is
better than B”) and estimations (“A will cost X”). It may include
estimated confidence of the recommendations and justifications.
Other categorizations or types of advice ordered along a single
dimension with the first being a “lower” type of advice are as
follows: solutions, meta-knowledge, problem reformulation,
validation, and legitimization.
Dalal and Bonaccio (2010)
Recommendation Advice consists of a form of recommendation or judgment
concerning a specific course of action. It may be for or against
alternatives. It includes relevant ideas, judgments, prescriptions,
and evaluative summaries that are communicated to a decision
maker (as opposed to simply acquired information), and it acts as
a key form of support provided to those who have a problem to
resolve or a decision to make.
Gino, Brooks, and Schweitzer (2012); MacGeorge,
Guntzviller, Hanasono, and Feng (2016); Sniezek
and Buckley (1995); Schrah, Dalal, and Sniezek
(2006)
Message features Advice consists of characteristics such as feasibility, politeness, or
absence of limitations.
Feng and Feng (2013)
Source based
Source An advisor is the source of advice or suggestion. The source may
come from one or multiple advisors and may have different
rankings of importance.
Bonaccio and Dalal (2006)
Solicitation Advice can be solicited or unsolicited. Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn (2012)
Cost Advice may be provided for free or sold expensively. Gino (2008)
Role The advisor’s role is as a provider of socioemotional support. Bonaccio and Dalal (2006)
Table 1. (continued)
The few definitions identified in the psychology lit-
erature refer to advice-based and source-based defini-
tions. Advice-based definitions refer to the definition of
the advice itself, for instance, by categorizing the advice,
such as offering recommendations for or against alterna-
tives versus simply communicating the acquired infor-
mation (Gino et al., 2012), or categorizing the message
features of the advice, including feasibility, politeness,
and the absence of limitations (Feng & Feng, 2013).
Source-based advice refers to task(s) of advisors,
defined, for instance, as the “source of advice or sugges-
tion” (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006, p. 128). The source may
come from more than one advisor with different rank-
ings of importance; it may be solicited or unsolicited
(Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012), provided for free
or for a fee (Gino, 2008), and include the role of the
advisor as a provider of socioemotional support
(Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). This role of a socioemotional
supporter is especially interesting, as both family firm
and psychology research has recognized the importance
of the socioemotional construct.
We summarize our findings on the definitions of the
“advisor” and the “advice” in Table 1, which provides an
overview of the commonalities and differences between the
two research streams. Overall, in family business research
the advisor is an actual individual with various characteris-
tics (e.g., experience, professional role, relationship with the
business family, formal vs. informal status) in a real-life
context. In psychology, however, the advisor as the source
of advice has an artificial role assigned typically to an
undergraduate student in an experimental setting, where the
role of the advisor as an informal or formal professional is
not specified. Precise characteristics of the advisor are not
specified, unless they are important as contingency vari-
ables for the study. Thus, the advisor definitions across both
streams are scattered, and there is no commonly agreed
upon definition of the advisor or the advice itself. While
most psychology studies are rather explicit in the form that
the advice takes, the family firm approach is broader, with
“advice” used as an umbrella term without differentiating
between different types of advice.
Theoretical Lenses
Our review reveals that there is no single comprehensive
theory to date to explain the advising process. Both the
family firm and psychology literatures have built on a
variety of theories (see Table 2). Indeed, authors draw
6 Family Business Review 00(0)
Table 2. Table of Theories.
Theory
Application of theory to explain the advice giving
and advice taking processes Sources
Family business
literature
Agency theory The constructs of informational asymmetries and
divergent goals might help better understand
the decision making process of family firms and
its influence on firm and family outcomes.
Alderson (2009); Bammens etal.
(2011); Garcia-Ramos & Garcia-
Olalla (2011); Gordini (2012);
Leung etal. (2014); Michel and
Kammerlander (2015); Wu
(2013)
Corporate
governance
Structures of formal and informal governance
that determine practices of family external and
firm internal advice seeking and taking.
Calabro and Mussolino (2013);
Leung etal. (2014); McCracken
(2015); Suess (2014), Zattoni
etal. (2015)
Decision making Advisors need to consider that decision making
processes are heterogeneous among family
firms and influenced by several (tacit) factors.
Alderson (2009); Lussier and
Sonfield (2015)
Knowledge sharing External knowledge sharing among advisors
and family businesses increases the quality of
the advising process itself and the outcome of
complex tasks such as succession.
Lansberg and Gersick (2015); Su
and Dou (2013)
Sensemaking An advisor increases the quality of the decision
making process by facilitating adaptive
sensemaking, which unfolds when doubting
sense already made.
Strike (2013); Strike and Rerup
(2016)
Resource-based
view
External advisors (e.g., accountants) increase
through their outside knowledge and access to
networks firm and family outcomes.
Alderson (2009); Bammens etal.
(2011); Barbera and Hasso
(2013); Gordini (2012); Hiebl
(2013); Hiebl etal. (2012);
Maseda etal. (2014)
Stewardship theory In family businesses, the decision maker often
does not decide purely rationally but also
considers stewardship aspects, which the
advisor has to consider while advising.
Alderson (2009); Bammens etal.
(2011); Gordini (2012); Hiebl
(2013); Naldi etal. (2015)
Psychology
literature
Advice response
theory
Characteristics of the advice itself (content,
politeness) affect the advice taker’s intention of
implementation.
Feng and Feng (2013); MacGeorge
etal. (2016)
Appraisal theory of
emotions
Decision making is not purely rational but
takes emotional aspects (fear, joy) into
consideration, which influences the advice-
assessing process.
Gino etal. (2012); de Hooge,
Verlegh, and Tzioti (2014)
Construal level
theory
An advisor who is emotionally more distant
from the problem increasingly considers
idealistic aspects while providing advice.
Danziger, Montal, and Barkan
(2012)
JAS—Judge advisor
system
The overlap of the system of the advice giver
and the system of the advice taker who judges
the advice affects the decision making process.
Bonaccio and Dalal (2006);
Budescu & Yu (2007); Gino
(2008); Sniezek and Buckley
(1995)
WOA—Weight of
advice
During the decision making process, advice
takers weight and discount pieces of advice.
The greater the “weight” of advice, the more
substantially the judge revises initial estimates
based on that advice.
Gino (2008); Gino and Moore
(2007); Schultze, Rakotoarisoa,
and Schulz-Hardt (2015);
Schrah etal. (2006); Yaniv and
Milyavsky (2007)
Strike et al. 7
from more than 50 different theories across both litera-
ture streams, often utilizing several within a single
paper, thereby indicating considerable fragmentation
within the field. The exceptions are firm-level board
studies in the family firm domain that largely build on
agency theory. A few especially insightful studies on the
individual and dyad/group level rely on the promising
concept of family firm sensemaking (Strike, 2013;
Strike & Rerup, 2016). These studies increase our under-
standing regarding how advisors are able to aid family
firm decision makers in making sense of family and firm
issues. This ability to make sense of crucial issues is
linked to decision making, which is a key focus of the
psychology advising literature.
Applied theories used primarily in the psychology
domain score high in predictability and low in general-
izability. In both research streams, midrange theories
that would comprehensively explain processes rather
than input–output relationships are largely lacking.
One important and promising concept of the psychol-
ogy advising research stream is the “Judge-Advisor
System” (JAS), which is the most widely used lens in
research on advice giving and taking (e.g., Bonaccio &
Dalal, 2006; Budescu & Yu, 2007). JAS takes a sys-
tematic approach to describing and predicting the
behavior of the different stakeholders in the advising
process. JAS is particularly useful for investigating
and understanding the nuances of the advising process,
as it allows the study of the different perspectives of all
involved stakeholders and provides a framework to
account for varying levels of overlap—in terms of
interaction, goals, or experience—between the deci-
sion maker and advisor. JAS consists of the decision
maker (the judge) and one or more advisors. JAS
researchers study the roles of decision makers and
advisors in the decision making process (e.g., Sniezek,
Schrah, & Dalal, 2004). The decision maker seeks/
receives input from one or more people acting as advi-
sors who formulate judgments or recommend alterna-
tives, but the judge makes the final decision and is
accountable for it (Sniezek & Buckley, 1995). JAS
assumes that decision making is social in nature, espe-
cially when the decisions are important and involve
uncertainty and when decision makers consult with
others in order to increase their decision quality
(Sniezek & van Swol, 2001). JAS describes many key
aspects of decision processes in hierarchical groups
and organizations; however, the focus is often on the
decision maker rather than the advisor.
Empirical Approaches
Advising has been studied by using a multitude of dif-
ferent theory building and theory testing empirical
approaches that substantially differ between family firm
and psychology studies (see Tables 3 and 4). The major-
ity of the family business advising articles reviewed are
quantitative (22 out of 52); however, nearly as many are
qualitative (16). Six of the articles are conceptual, three
are review papers, three are mixed methods papers, one
is an essay that provides scholarly commentary, and one
is an editorial (Reay et al., 2013). Common to many of
the quantitative papers is a focus on board advice and
firm-level output, such as business performance vari-
ables. Most family firm advising articles focus on U.S.
or European samples and investigate family firms and
their decision makers, including CEOs, top managers,
owners, and family members.
The vast majority of psychology articles reviewed
(31 out of 36) are based on laboratory experiments and
student samples—a finding that points to interesting
future empirical approaches for family firm researchers.
One of the identified studies is a review article (Bonaccio
& Dalal, 2006), and only four use surveys. A few papers
employ more creative data analysis techniques, such as
the analysis of postings on online parenting forums
(Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012) or simulations
(Azaria et al., 2015). A closer examination of the psy-
chology studies, however, reveals that the participants
of the experiments, in contrast to the family firm deci-
sion makers studied in the family business literature, are
mainly (undergraduate) students at the universities
where the authors are employed, which is one of the
major differences between the two fields. Moreover, the
most common geographical focus is the United States,
with a few studies focusing on Israel (Yaniv, 2004),
China (Feng & Feng, 2013), the United Kingdom
(Harvey & Fisher, 1997), and Russia (Chentsova-Dutton
& Vaughn, 2012), thus leaving large parts of the world
understudied.
Content Findings on Advising: An Input–
Process–Output Perspective
While we were reviewing the articles, an IPO frame-
work (see also Tables 3 and 4) emerged from the litera-
ture. We use this framework to structure our findings.
The constructs of both literature streams along the IPO
framework are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Structuring
8
Table 3. Literature Review on Advising Research in Family Business.
Authors (year)
Input category
(variables)
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies
Level of
analysis Method Key findings
Alderson (2009) Family attributes (G2) Decision making
(Behavior)
DMs mitigating
strategies/actions
Individual Qualitative G2 conduct a broader search for
knowledge, consult with multiple
advisors, and are more risk averse
than G1.
Bammens etal.
(2011)
Family attributes (Family
involvement)
Firm noneconomic
(Board roles and
tasks)
CEO retirement
proximity and
generational phase
Firm Review Review of the main tasks of boards: the
exercise of control and provision of
advice.
Barbera and
Hasso (2013)
Advisor attributes
(Presence of an
external accountant)
Firm economic
(Sales growth and
survival)
Advisor’s
(accountant)
degree of
acquaintance or
embeddedness
Firm Quantitative External accountants have a positive
impact on sales growth and survival.
Acquaintance works as a moderator.
Basco and
Rodríguez
(2011)
Firm attributes (Types
of family firms)
Family noneconomic
and firm economic
(Family and firm
performance)
Firm Quantitative Family firms increase their performance
if they combine family- and business-
orientation in their decision making.
Benito-
Hernández
etal. (2014)
Firm attributes (Types
of family firm, firm
size)
Firm noneconomic
(External advice
for HR and legal)
Size and nature of
firm
Firm Quantitative Family firms are more likely to use
external advice for HR
Calabro and
Mussolino
(2013)
Relational attributes
(Norms, trust, board
independence)
Firm economic
(Export intensity)
Perceptions of
competence or
integrity
Firm Quantitative Formal and informal governance
mechanisms among boards have a
positive effect on export intensity.
Caspersz and
Thomas (2013)
DM attributes
(Leadership
intervention)
Family members
noneconomic
(Leader positivity)
Network ties and
teamwork quality
Dyad/group Qualitative Positivity theory in family firm studies
can describe leadership intervention
activities by a facilitator.
Castanos and
Welsh (2013)
Advisor attributes (FB
advisors vs. therapists)
Advice giving (How
to supervise)
Individual Qualitative
(Delphi)
Provision of a supervisory model to
supervise the training of therapists as
family business consultant.
Cesaroni and
Sentuti (2017)
Advice giving
(Succession)
Decision to involve
advisors
Dyad/group Qualitative Family firms are reluctant to seek
advisors as advisors who omit the soft
issues in succession.
Cisneros and
Deschamps
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(Advisor type)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Succession)
Trustworthiness
of predecessor’s
advisor
Dyad/group Qualitative The importance of MTAs for
succession—can be either family or
nonfamily advisors
Cole and Johnson
(2012)
Advice attributes
(Family firm advising
and therapy)
Individual Conceptual An overview of similarities between
family firm and family therapy.
(continued)
9
Authors (year)
Input category
(variables)
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies
Level of
analysis Method Key findings
Collin and
Ahlberg (2012)
Firm and advisor
attributes (Board’s
family composition,
share of relationships)
Firm noneconomic
(Board’s
orientation of
control, decision
making)
Kinship ties/
nepotism (Biased
preference for
kin relatives) or
familiness of the
board
Firm Quantitative How genetic kinship and nepotism can
influence a board’s orientation toward
its different functional aspects.
Chrisman etal.
(2017)
Advice attributes
(Mentoring)
Family noneconomic
(Commitment
outcomes)
Individual,
dyad/group
Conceptual Mentoring results in different
commitment outcomes depending on
the familial status of the members.
Davis etal.
(2013)
Advisor and decision
maker attributes
(Goal orientation,
client feedback)
Advice giving
(Adaptive behavior
of advisors)
Quality of feedback
received
Individual,
dyad/group
Quantitative Feedback quality mediates the
relationships between goal orientation
and advisor behaviors.
Distelberg and
Schwarz (2015)
Advisor attributes
(Presence and
characteristics of
mentors)
Firm noneconomic
(Mentoring
benefits)
Larger ecological
factors
Individual,
dyad/group
Qualitative Qualitative assessment of
interorganizational family firm
mentoring characteristics,
relationships, and benefits.
Distelberg and
Castanos
(2012)
Family attributes (Family
involvement)
Advice giving
(Therapist
intervention)
Family firm
ecosystem
Individual Review Guidance for family therapists who
either already service or want to
begin servicing family firms.
García-Ramos
and García-
Olalla (2011)
Advisor attributes
(Board characteristics)
Firm economic
(Firm
performance)
Firm governance
(founder-led)
Firm Quantitative Board size and firm performance are
positively related in non–founder-led
family firms.
Gersick (2015) Firm and advisor
attributes (Human
capital; advisor’s
attention)
Individual Conceptual Proposes family human capital utilization
as a future area of research.
Goel etal. (2013) Advisor attributes
(Advisor empathy)
Firm noneconomic
outcomes (SEW)
Presence of external
board
Firm Quantitative Emotion of empathy in the family CEO
and SEW can have both a direct and a
moderating influence on SEW.
Gordini (2012) Firm attributes (Inside
or outside director)
Firm economic
outcomes (Firm
performance)
Generational
difference
Firm Quantitative Inside directors have a positive effect
on firm performance in G1; outside
directors have a positive effect on
G2+.
Gurd and
Thomas (2012)
Advisor attributes (Role
of family CFO)
Family noneconomic
(Family and
nonfamily
relationships)
Individual Mixed
methods
Family CFO has no role conflict and a
good relationship with other family
and nonfamily members.
(continued)
Table 3. (continued)
10
Authors (year)
Input category
(variables)
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies
Level of
analysis Method Key findings
Hiebl (2013) Firm and advisor
attributes (Family
CEO, CFO role)
Attributes of the
role receiver and
interpersonal
factors; university
degree
Individual Conceptual When there is a family CEO, the CFO
becomes more of an advisor/mentor.
Hiebl etal.
(2012)
Firm and advisor
attributes (Firm
size, role of the
accountant)
Existence of
nonfamily
management
Individual Quantitative Accountants’ roles do not differ in large
family and nonfamily firms.
Lee and Danes
(2012)
Advisor and advice
attributes (Advice
type; discipline)
Individual,
dyad/group
Qualitative Advisors from different disciplines
provide unique perspectives and
individual advice.
Leung etal.
(2014)
Firm attributes
(Independent
directors)
Firm economic
(Firm
performance)
Concentration of
family ownership
Firm Quantitative The number of independent directors
on corporate boards might not
enhance firm performance.
Lussier and
Sonfield (2015)
Firm and advisor
attributes (Firm size,
outside advisors)
Firm noneconomic
(Use of outside
advisors)
Firm Quantitative Small firms are more likely to employ
nonfamily member managers and
utilize outside advisors.
Maseda etal.
(2014)
Firm attributes (Board
composition/
independence)
Firm economic
(Firm
performance)
Board composition Firm Quantitative Inverted U-shaped relationship
between the proportion of outside
directors and firm performance.
Balance between outsiders and family
members is crucial.
McCracken
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(“Best practices”)
Firm noneconomic
(Firm
functionality)
Individual Essay The importance of structures and
practices developed by advisors
together with families.
Michel and
Kammerlander
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(number of advisors,
advisor relationship)
Firm and family
noneconomic
(Reduced agency
conflicts)
Role/involvement of
trusted advisor
Dyad/group Conceptual Need a balanced setup of the triadic
relationship among advisor, incumbent
and successor with one advisor.
Naldi etal.
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(number of family
advisors)
Firm economic
(Firm
performance)
Role of generation
that owns the firm
Firm Quantitative Inverted U-shaped relationship between
the number of advisors and firm
performance.
Perry etal.
(2015)
Firm and advisor
attributes (Firm age,
SEW, trust)
Level of financial
versus
socioemotional
wealth
Dyad/group Quantitative Younger family firms trust family
advisors more; older family firms trust
business advisors more.
Table 3. (continued)
(continued)
11
Authors (year)
Input category
(variables)
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies
Level of
analysis Method Key findings
Reay etal. (2013) Advisor and relational
attributes (Advisor
type, relationship)
Individual Editorial Editorial on family firm advising.
Advisors as “translators” of
research knowledge into practice
implementation.
Reddrop and
Mapunda
(2015)
Advisor and DM
attributes (Advisor
cost, competence)
Advice seeking
(Amount and
behavior)
Individual Mixed
methods
Cost of advice determines the
use of professional advice. Many
advisors lack “soft” skills, leading to
dissatisfaction.
Rosensteel
(2016)
Advisor attributes
(Advisor role, tasks)
Firm noneconomic
(Successful
business transfer)
Individual Qualitative Overview of how advisor support in
ownership transfer can contribute to
a positive social change.
Salvato and
Corbetta
(2013)
Advisor attributes
(Leadership style,
support for successor)
Advice giving
(Leadership
development)
Family member
noneconomic
(Successor’s skills)
Advisor’s transitional
leadership role
Dyad/group Qualitative Transitional leadership role by advisors
helps move the succession process
forward.
Samei and
Feyzbakhsh
(2016)
Advice attributes
(Mentoring functions)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Successor’s
competencies)
Individual Qualitative The application of mentoring functions
to the development of a successor’s
competencies.
Sitthipongpanicha
and Polsirib
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(Board age, diversity,
political ties)
Firm economic
(Firm value)
Family CEO
and board
characteristics
Firm Quantitative Diversity in boards of directors is
positively related to family CEO-run
firm value.
Sonfield and
Lussier (2012)
DM attributes
(Percentage of female
managers/owners)
Decision making
(Use of advisors)
Firm Quantitative In firms with a higher percentage of
female managers, the use of outside
advisors does not change.
Sorenson and
Milbrandt
(2015)
Family attributes
(Learning in university
programs)
Family noneconomic
(Family firm
member
knowledge)
Class structure Dyad/group Qualitative Transgenerational learning is needed for
the evolution of education. Transition
between communities of practice
(CoP) and learning communities (LCs)
is crucial.
Stockmans etal.
(2013)
Firm attributes
(Proportion of outside
directors; CEO
duality)
Firm economic
(Earnings
management)
Presence of agency
conflict
Firm Quantitative Conflicts between controlling and
noncontrolling shareholders, a higher
proportion of outside directors and
CEO nonduality reduce earnings
management.
Strike and Rerup
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(Social position,
orientation)
Advice giving
(Mediated
sensemaking)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Adaptive
sensemaking)
Structural and
contextual features
Dyad/group Qualitative Mediated sensemaking: the social
position, orientation, and actions used
by the advisor to facilitate adaptive
sensemaking.
Table 3. (continued)
(continued)
12
Authors (year)
Input category
(variables)
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies
Level of
analysis Method Key findings
Strike (2013) Advisor attributes
(Presence of a Most
Trusted Advisor)
Advice giving (MTA
advising process)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Firm governance)
Characteristics and
competencies of
MTA
Dyad/group Qualitative How advisors capture attention,
influence attention, and help family
members interrelate and mindfully
govern the firm.
Su and Dou
(2013)
Advice and advisor
attributes (Advice
quality, knowledge
sharing)
Mechanisms
to improve
knowledge sharing
Dyad/group Qualitative Underlying mechanisms through which
knowledge sharing among advisors
enhances the quality of advising
services.
Suess (2014) Family and firm
attributes (Family/
firm governance
mechanisms)
Firm economic
and family
economic (Firm
performance)
Family’s focus on
either preserving/
harvesting or
increasing family
wealth
Firm Review Review revealing heterogeneity in family
governance-related topics such as
boards, ambiguity regarding causality
between governance aspects and
related factors.
Tucker (2011) Family and relational
attributes
(Relationship conflict)
Advice taking
(Influence of
emotions)
Relationships
between advisor
and family member
Individual Conceptual Insights and recommendations based on
the author’s experiences working as
an advisor.
von Krosigk
(2015)
Advice giving
(Facilitating
discussions)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Successful
succession)
Individual Qualitative Role of the advisor is often more that
of a facilitator of conversations.
Waisner (2012) Advisor attributes
(Advisor role in
succession; advisor
selection criteria)
Family member
noneconomic
(Better
understanding of
each other)
Individual Qualitative To advise family firms successfully,
factors such as chemistry with the
family business leader, trust, values,
and the involvement of nonbusiness
spouses are crucial.
Welsh etal.
(2013)
Family attributes
(Generational
involvement)
Family and firm
noneconomic
(Ent. orientation)
Leading generations Firm Mixed
methods
Model depicting how different
generations exhibit different
perceptions of entrepreneurship
concerning family offices.
Woods etal.
(2012)
Firm attributes (Outside
board members)
Firm noneconomic
(Escalation of
commitment)
Supportive
intermediaries
who contribute to
strategic decision
making
Firm Conceptual How outside board members influence
the antecedents and moderate the
processes that lead to escalation of
commitment.
Wu (2013) Firm attributes (Board,
family/nonfamily CEO)
Firm economic
(Board
compensation;
firm performance)
Firm Quantitative Board compensation increases as board
members have increasing family ties.
Having family on a board increases
performance.
Zattoni etal.
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(Family involvement;
board tasks)
Firm economic
(Firm
performance)
Board processes
and tasks (Effort
norms, use of
knowledge,
conflicts)
Firm Quantitative Family involvement has a positive
impact on effort norms and the use
of knowledge, as well as a negative
impact on conflicts.
Table 3. (continued)
13
Table 4. Literature Review on Advising Research in Psychology.
Authors (year) Input Category (variables)a
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies Level of analysis Method Key findings
Azaria, Rabinovich,
Goldman, and
Kraus (2015)
Advice attributes (Key
pieces of information)
Advice giving
(Strategically revealing
information)
Advisor’s persuasion strategy/
persuasiveness
Dyad/group Experiments Advisor agents are able to successfully
persuade DMs to select an option
more beneficial for the advised.
Benjamin and
Budescu (2015)
Advisor attributes (Learning
mode: advisor experience
vs. description)
Advice giving (Advice
content and quality;
advisor confidence);
Advice taking (DM
confidence; advice
utilization frequency)
Contextual attributes/
decision attributes (Decision
environment whether they are
in a risky or uncertain domain)
Dyad/group ExperimentsbAdvisors who have learned from
experience are more risk adverse in
their advice and share more about the
learning process versus advisers who
have learned from description and
share more substantive information.
Bonaccio and Dalal
(2010)
Advisor attributes (Advisor
expertise, confidence and
intentions; other sources
of advice)
Decision making
(Information on
DM’s evaluations of
advisors; information
regarding alternatives)
Contextual attributes/decision
attributes (Conditions of
positive/negative information
and missing information)
Dyad/group ExperimentsbAdvisor expertise and advisor
intentions are important for advice
taking, particularly under conditions
of missing information.
Bonaccio and Dalal
(2006)
Advisor attributes and
DM affects (DM/advisor
confidence; pre-advice
DM decision; solicited vs.
unsolicited advice)
Advice taking (Advice
utilization; discounting;
advice weighting;
DM and advisor
interaction)
Individual, dyad/
group
Review The Judge Advisor System (JAS)
is an important framework for
understanding advising.
Brandts, Groenert,
and Rott (2014)
Advisor attributes (Advisor
experience/information
advantage)
Decision choice
(Decision to
enter; gender)
Gender and performance of DM
(Weak-performing/strong-
performing)
Individual ExperimentsbAdvice can increase the gender gap in
decision making, particularly for high-
performing women.
Brooks, Gino, and
Schweitzer (2015)
Advice attributes (Task
difficulty), Advisor
attributes (Egocentrism
and expertise)
Advice seeking
(Influence of seeking
advice)
Advisor’s
reaction
(Perception of
advice seeker’s
competence)
Task difficulty and advisor
attributes (Egocentrism and
expertise)
Individual Experiments Individuals are reluctant to seek
advice because they fear appearing
incompetent. DMs appear more
competent when the task is difficult
and when they ask expert.
Budescu and Yu
(2007)
Advice seeking (DMs
aggregate advice from
multiple, advisors;
advisor agreement)
DM reaction
(DM
confidence)
DMs perception of event
predictability and advisor
attributes (Advisor consensus;
confidence)
Dyad/group ExperimentsbWith multiple advice sources, DMs will
aggregate the advice; DM’s confidence
is highest when advisors agree and
show high levels of confidence.
Camachoa, de
Jonga, and
Stremersch
(2014)
Adherence
to advice
(Unintentional
and reasoned)
Cultural effects (Autonomy vs.
embeddedness; egalitarian
vs. hierarchical; mastery vs.
harmonious)
Dyad/group,
Organizational
Quantitative Decisional empowerment decreases
adherence to expert advice.
Chentsova-Dutton
and Vaughn
(2012)
Advisor attributes
(Likelihood of giving
advice; culture)
Advice giving (Whether
or not advice is
solicited)
Decision attributes/advice giving
conditions (Whether the advice
is solicited and perceived to be
supportive)
Individual Survey Advice giving is culturally embedded.
(continued)
14
Authors (year) Input Category (variables)a
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies Level of analysis Method Key findings
Dalal and Bonaccio
(2010)
Advisor attributes (Advice
alternatives; type
of decision; advisor
expertise/credibility)
Advice giving (Cue
wording), Advice
taking (DM reactions
to recommendations)
DMs motives (Maximizing
accuracy and maintaining
autonomy) and differences
(Individual and situational)
Individual ExperimentsbResearch needs to differentiate between
recommendations for/against options,
recommendations concerning how to
make decisions, and alternatives.
Danziger etal.
(2012)
Advisor attributes (High- vs.
low-level construal of the
dilemma)
Advice giving (Idealistic
vs. realistic
recommendations)
Advisor attributes (Construal
level)
Individual ExperimentsbAdvisors are more psychologically
distant from a problem, providing
recommendations through a broad
perspective.
de Hooge etal.
(2014)
DM attributes (Positive
and negative emotions),
Advisor attributes (Ability
of advisor)
Advice taking
(Agreement with
advisor depends on
emotion of DM)
Perceived ability of the advisor Individual ExperimentsbAnger and pride emotions decrease
advice taking, shame and positive
other-focused (gratitude) emotions
increase advice taking.
Effron and Miller
(2015)
Advisor attributes
(Committing and suffering
for a misdeed)
Advice taking (Advisors
strategically highlight
suffering to gain
standing)
DMs perception of advisor
standing and self-righteousness
Individual ExperimentsbSuffering from a misdeed gives advisors
the legitimacy to advise against it. If
advisors performed misdeeds but did
not suffer from them, the DM reacts
angrily.
Feng and Feng
(2013)
Advice attributes
(Response efficacyc,
feasibility), Advisor
attributes (Expertise,
trustworthiness, culture)
Advice taking
(Recipient’s evaluation
of advice quality in
Chinese vs. American
cultural groups)
Cultural effects (American vs.
Chinese); levels of individualism
and levels of collectivism
Individual,
organizational
ExperimentsbAdvice content and source
characteristics are positively linked to
advice taking. For U.S. respondents,
the content features were more
important, whereas for the Chinese
respondents, source features were
most important.
Feng and
MacGeorge
(2010)
Advice attributes (Message
factors), Advisor
attributes (Source
factors), Decision
attributes (Problem
seriousness)
Advice taking (Evaluation
of advice quality,
facilitation of
coping, intention to
implement advice)
Message factors (Politeness,
response efficacy, feasibility,
absence of limitations, and
confirmation)
Dyad/group SurveysbSource and message factors affect
advice taking. Advice is defined not
only by what it says but also how it
is delivered; message factors matter
more than source factors, and being
an expert or close to the DM is
critical.
Gino etal. (2012) DM affects (Anxiety, anger;
self-confidence)
Advice seeking and
advice taking
(Receptivity,
reliance; information
processing; conflict of
interest)
DM/Advice recipient’s self-
confidence
Individual ExperimentsbAnxiety increases DMs’ tendency to
seek for and use advice and decreases
their capability to differentiate
between “good” and “bad” advice.
Gino, Shang, and
Croson (2009)
Relational attributes
(Similarity between
advisor and DM)
Decision making (Judging
others’ behavior and
one’s own actions)
Advice attributes (Perceived
informativeness of advice)
Dyad/group Experiments DMs are more reliant on similar
advisors when judging their own
activities and on different advisors
when judging those of others.
Table 4. (continued)
(continued)
15
Authors (year) Input Category (variables)a
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies Level of analysis Method Key findings
Gino (2008) Advice attributes (Cost of
advice)
Advice taking (Advice
weighting, discounting,
sunk cost)
DMs perception of advice quality
and cognitive dissonance
Individual ExperimentsbBecause of sunk-cost considerations,
DMs utilize paid advice more than
free advice.
Gino and Moore
(2007)
Decision attributes (Task
difficulty)
Advice taking (Advice
overweighting/
underweighting)
Advice taking conditions
(Optional vs. compulsory)
Individual ExperimentsbDMs overweight advice on difficult tasks
and discount advice on easy tasks.
Harvey and Fisher
(1997)
DM attributes (DM
experience), Advisor
attributes (Experience);
Decision attributes
(Importance); Advice
attributes (Type)
Advice taking (Three
components of advice
taking: accepting help,
shift and improving
judgment, sharing
responsibility)
Advisor attributes (Expertise) Dyad/group ExperimentsbAll of the participants took some
advice, but novices took more
advice than did more experienced
decision makers; advice was sought
mostly from experienced advisors;
experienced judges were better in
judging advice.
MacGeorge etal.
(2016)
Advisor attributes
(Characteristics); Advice
attributes (Message
content and politeness)
Advice utilization
(Situational and
recipient factors)
Situational factors (Seriousness
of advice recipient’s problem);
Advice recipient’s traits/
attributes (Gender)
Individual ExperimentsbIndirect influence mediated by message
characteristics (content, politeness).
Women’s intention to implement is
more strongly influenced by message
content than men’s.
Mobbs etal. (2015) Advisor attributes (Number
of advisors)
Advice taking
(Acceptance of advice;
winning [right] advice;
selection among
advised options)
Advisor’s
reaction
(Advisor brain
activity)
Advice giving conditions/
situational factors (Self-
relevance situations)
Dyad/group Experiments Having one’s advice accepted results
in a specific brain activity leading to
the “reward area.” Effect is strongest
when only one advisor’s advice is
accepted.
Rader, Soll, and
Larrick (2015)
DM attributes (DM opinion);
Advisor attributes
(Confidence)
Advice taking (Forming
of independent
opinions)
Advisor attributes (Confidence
in advice)
Individual Experiments Push-away effect: DMs who could
not form their own opinion before
receiving advice deviate more from
the advice than those who form an
advanced opinion.
Reich and Tormala
(2013)
Advice attributes (number
of advice sources); DM
attributes (Attitude to
advice); Advisor attributes
(Advisor trust)
Advice taking (Weighting
conflicting advice
conditions; argument
strength and quality;
message consistency)
DM reaction
(Persuasive
impact)
Advice giving conditions/
decision attributes (Strength/
quality of argument); Advisor
trustworthiness
Individual Experiments Contradicting oneself can lead
to increased persuasiveness.
Contradictions introduce a persuasive
advantage only when they come from
a single source and when trust is high.
Sah, Loewenstein,
and Cain (2013)
Advisor attributes (Conflict
of interest)
Advice utilization (Trust
in the advice, pressure
to comply with advice)
Advice disclosure conditions
(Disclosure from external
source); Decision attributes/
advice taking conditions
(Decision done in private)
Dyad/group Experiments Disclosure of conflicting interest results
in increased pressure to comply with
advice, and pressure is reduced if
disclosure is made by an external
party, if the disclosure is not common
knowledge, if the DM can change the
decision in the future.
Table 4. (continued)
(continued)
16
Authors (year) Input Category (variables)a
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies Level of analysis Method Key findings
Schrah etal. (2006) Decision attributes (Access
to expert advice; task
complexity)
Decision making (DMs’
information acquisition
processes; expert
advice)
Advisor training and task
complexity
Individual ExperimentsbDMs seek advice with increasing task
complexity, agreement with advisors
increased; advice sought to confirm
and scrutinize; advice taken to
increase accuracy, not to minimize
effort.
Schultze etal.
(2015)
DM attributes and Advice
attributes (Distance
between initial opinion
and advice)
Advice utilization
(Advice utilization/
weighting, confidence
in DM’s opinion)
Advisor attributes (Competence) Dyad/group ExperimentsbCurvilinear relationship between
distance of advice and initial opinion
and advice taking. Advice is weighted
less when the distance is low or high.
Seiders, Flynn,
Berry, and Haws
(2014)
Advice giving
(Frequency, negative
consequences,
efficacy)
Advice
adherence
(Adherence
intentions;
time and cost
to serve)
Perceived self-efficacy of advice
recipients and perceived efficacy
of advisor
Dyad/group Quantitative Frequency of advice giving and focus
on negative implications increase the
patient’s adherence to the doctor’s
advice.
Sniezek and Buckley
(1995)
Advice attributes (Decision
making settings/type of
options)
Advice taking (Impact of
advice vs. DM’s initial
choice)
Decision choice
(Decision
accuracy)
Advisor confidence and
disagreements
Dyad/group ExperimentsbDependent, independent and cued
decision making settings lead to
differences in terms of decision
accuracy.
Tost etal. (2012) Advisor attributes
(Perceived power;
expert/novice advisors);
DM attributes
(Competitiveness;
confidence; mood)
Advice weighting
(Discounting/weighing
advice)
DMs affect (Feelings of
competitiveness and
confidence)
Individual ExperimentsbDMs with low or medium perceived
levels of power discount expert
advice less than novice advice; DMs
with perceived high levels of power
discount advice from all advisors
(unless they are in a cooperative
mood).
Tzioti, Wierenga,
and van Osselaer
(2014)
Advice attributes (Intuitive
vs. analytical); Advisor
attributes (Seniority);
Decision attributes (Task
type)
Advice utilization
(Utilization of intuitive
advice)
Advisor attributes (Level of
seniority); Decision attributes/
situational factors (Intuition-
inducing task)
Individual Experiments The utilization of intuition-based advice
depends on advisor seniority and
the type of task. Typically, decision
makers value analytical advice more.
Table 4. (continued)
(continued)
17
Authors (year) Input Category (variables)a
Process category
(variables)
Output category
(variables) Contingencies Level of analysis Method Key findings
van Swol (2009) Advisor attributes
(Confidence); DM
attributes (Suspicions of
advisor goals)
Advice utilization
(DM primed to be
suspicious; ability
to detect advisor
motives)
Advisor attributes (confidence) Individual ExperimentsbDMs who are suspicious about advisors’
motives are less likely to accept
advice, but they are not better than
nonsuspicious DMs at detecting
motives.
Webb (2011) Advisor attributes (Advisor
characteristics: gender,
culture)
Decision making
(Underlying beliefs,
prejudices, undesirable
influences)
Advice task
(Locating a
token)
Advisor attributes
(Trustworthiness)
Dyad/group ExperimentsbDMs are more likely to follow advice of
male advisors and perceive them as
more trustworthy.
Yaniv (2004) DM, advisor and advice
attributes (DM vs. advisor
opinion; advice distance)
Advice taking
(Weighting,
discounting)
Advice recipient/DM attributes
(Level of knowledge); Advice
attributes (Advice distance)
Individual ExperimentsbTaking advice increases the accuracy of
decision making: DMs egocentrically
discount advice; this is more the case
for knowledgeable DMs and distant
advice.
Yaniv and
Kleinberger
(2000)
DM attributes (DM opinion);
Advisor attributes
(Advisor reputation)
Advice taking (Weighting
and discounting)
Advice taking condition (When
feedback was given/not given to
advice recipients)
Individual Experiments Advice increases accuracy; discounting
is sensitive to the quality of the DM’s
estimates and the quality of the
advice Building a good reputation
takes longer than destroying a good
reputation.
Yaniv and Milyavsky
(2007)
Advice attributes (Distance
of advice from DM
opinion)
Advice taking
(Discounting: DM use
advice self-centeredly)
Decision attributes (Revision rule
used by DM)
Individual ExperimentsbRevising one’s opinion based on advice
increases the accuracy of the final
decision. With multiple sources of
advice, DMs discount distant ones.
aDue to space constraints, we do not include all variables, but we provide an example of those used in the respective studies. The full list of variables is available from the authors upon request. bStudies
using experiments/surveys drawing on student samples. cThe extent to which the advised course of action is capable of solving or alleviating the recipient’s problematic situation.
Table 4. (continued)
18
Table 5. Family Business Categorization of Variables.
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Representative examples of authors (year)
Input Family attributes Generation; Family involvement; Education;
Family governance mechanisms
Alderson (2009); Bammens etal. (2011); Distelberg and Castanos (2012);
Lansberg and Gersick (2015); Sorenson and Milbrandt (2015); Suess
(2014); Welsh etal. (2013)
DM attributes Leadership intervention; Feedback;
Competence; Gender
Caspersz and Thomas (2013); Davis etal. (2013); Reddrop and Mapunda
(2015); Sonfield and Lussier (2012)
Advisor attributes Advisor presence; Number; Type (therapist,
accountant, family); Discipline; Cost;
Role; Tasks; External versus internal;
Characteristics; Empathy; Attention;
Trustworthiness; Goal orientation; Share
of relationships; Leadership style; Successor
support; Board member age, diversity,
political ties; Social position, orientation;
Knowledge sharing
Barbera and Hasso (2013); Castanos and Welsh (2013); Cisneros and
Deschamps (2015); Cole and Johnson (2012); Collin and Ahlberg (2012);
Davis etal. (2013); Distelberg and Schwarz (2015); García-Ramos
and García-Olalla (2011); Gersick (2015); Goel etal. (2013); Gurd
and Thomas (2012); Hiebl (2013); Hiebl etal. (2012); Lee and Danes
(2012); Lussier and Sonfield (2015); Michel and Kammerlander (2015);
McCracken (2015); Naldi etal. (2015); Perry etal. (2015); Reay etal.
(2013); Rosensteel (2016); Reddrop and Mapunda (2015); Salvato and
Corbetta (2013); Samei and Feyzbakhsh (2016); Sitthipongpanicha and
Polsirib (2015); Strike (2013); Strike and Rerup (2016); Su and Dou
(2013); Waisner (2012); Zattoni etal. (2015)
Firm attributes Type of family firm; Firm size; Firm age;
Board composition (family, internal,
external); Human capital; Family CEO; CEO
duality; SEW; Firm governance mechanisms
Basco and Rodríguez (2011); Benito-Hernández etal. (2014); Collin and
Ahlberg (2012); Gersick (2015); Gordini (2012); Hiebl (2013); Hiebl
etal. (2012); Leung etal. (2014); Lussier and Sonfield (2015); Maseda
etal. (2014); Perry etal. (2015); Stockmans etal. (2013); Suess (2014);
Woods etal. (2012); Wu (2013)
Relational attributes Norms, trust, board independence;
Relationship; Relationship conflict
Calabro and Mussolino (2013); Reay etal. (2013); Tucker (2011)
Advice attributes Mentoring; Type; Quality Chrisman etal. (2017); Lee and Danes (2012); Su and Dou (2013)
Process Advice giving How to supervise; Succession; Adaptive
behavior of advisors; Therapist
intervention; Facilitation of transition;
Leadership development; Mediated
sensemaking; MTA advising process;
Mechanisms to improve knowledge sharing;
Facilitating discussions
Castanos and Welsh (2013); Cesaroni and Sentuti (2017); Davis etal.
(2013); Distelberg and Castanos (2012); Lansberg and Gersick (2015);
Salvato and Corbetta (2013); Strike (2013); Strike and Rerup (2016); Su
and Dou (2013); von Krosigk (2015)
(continued)
19
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Representative examples of authors (year)
Advice taking Influence of emotions Tucker (2011)
Advice seeking Amount and behavior Reddrop and Mapunda (2015)
Decision making Behavior; Use of advisors Alderson (2009); Sonfield and Lussier (2012)
Output Firm noneconomic Roles and tasks of Boards; HR and legal
external advice; Decision to involve
advisors; Succession; Board’s orientation
of control and decision making; Mentoring
benefits; SEW; Use of outside advisor;
Firm functionality; Reduced agency
conflicts; Successor’s competencies; Firm
governance; Entrepreneurial orientation;
Escalation of commitment
Bammens etal. (2011); Benito-Hernández etal. (2014); Cesaroni and
Sentuti (2017); Cisneros and Deschamps (2015); Collin and Ahlberg
(2012); Distelberg and Schwarz (2015); Goel etal. (2013); Lussier and
Sonfield (2015); McCracken (2015); Michel and Kammerlander (2015);
Rosensteel (2016); Samei and Feyzbakhsh (2016); Strike (2013); von
Krosigk (2015); Welsh etal. (2013); Woods etal. (2012)
Firm economic Sales growth and survival; Firm performance;
Export intensity; Firm value; Earnings
management; Board compensation
Barbera and Hasso (2013); Basco and Rodríguez (2011); Calabro and
Mussolino (2013); García-Ramos and García-Olalla (2011); Gordini
(2012); Leung etal. (2014); Maseda etal. (2014); Naldi etal. (2015);
Sitthipongpanicha and Polsirib (2015); Stockmans etal. (2013); Suess
(2014); Wu (2013); Zattoni etal. (2015)
Family noneconomic Family performance; Leader positivity;
Succession; Commitment outcomes; Family
and nonfamily relationships; Reduced
agency conflicts; Successor’s competencies;
Family firm member knowledge; Adaptive
sensemaking; Family governance;
Better understanding of each other;
Entrepreneurial orientation
Basco and Rodríguez (2011); Caspersz and Thomas (2013); Chrisman
etal. (2017); Cisneros and Deschamps (2015); Gurd and Thomas (2012);
Michel and Kammerlander (2015); Salvato and Corbetta (2013); Samei
and Feyzbakhsh (2016); Sorenson and Milbrandt (2015); Strike (2013);
Strike and Rerup (2016); von Krosigk (2015); Waisner (2012); Welsh
etal. (2013)
Family economic Firm performance on family wealth Suess (2014)
(continued)
Table 5. (continued)
20
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Representative examples of authors (year)
Contextual
factors/
interaction
effects
Decision maker DMs mitigating strategies/actions; Network
ties and teamwork quality; Quality of
feedback; Attributes of the role receiver
and interpersonal factors; University degree
Alderson (2009); Caspersz and Thomas (2013); Davis etal. (2013); Hiebl
(2013)
Advisor Advisor’s (accountant) degree of
acquaintance or embeddedness;
Trustworthiness of predecessor’s
advisor; Kinship ties/nepotism (biased
preference for kin relatives) or familiness
of the board; Role/involvement of trusted
advisors; Advisor’s transitional leadership
role; Structural and contextual features;
Advisor’s characteristics/competencies
Barbera and Hasso (2013); Cisneros and Deschamps (2015); Collin and
Ahlberg (2012); Michel and Kammerlander (2015); Salvato and Corbetta
(2013); Strike (2013); Strike and Rerup (2016)
Firm CEO retirement proximity and generational
phase; Size and nature of firm; Firm
governance; Board processes and tasks;
Perceptions of competence or integrity;
Presence of external board; Generational
difference; Existence of nonfamily
management; Concentration of family
ownership; Board composition; Family
CEO and board characteristics; Presence of
agency conflicts; Supportive intermediaries
Bammens etal. (2011); Benito-Hernández etal. (2014); Calabro and
Mussolino (2013); García-Ramos and García-Olalla (2011); Goel etal.
(2013); Gordini (2012); Hiebl etal. (2012); Leung etal. (2014); Maseda
etal. (2014); Naldi etal. (2015); Sitthipongpanicha and Polsirib (2015);
Stockmans etal. (2013); Woods etal. (2012); Zattoni etal. (2015)
Ecosystem Ecological factors; Family firm ecosystem Distelberg and Schwarz (2015); Distelberg and Castanos (2012)
Family Level of financial versus socioemotional
wealth; Class structure; Family’s focus on
preserving/harvesting or increasing family
wealth; Leading generations
Perry etal. (2015); Sorenson and Milbrandt (2015); Suess (2014); Welsh
etal. (2013)
Relational Relationships between advisor and family Tucker (2011)
Table 5. (continued)
21
Table 6. Psychology Categorization of Variables.
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Authors (year)
Input Advisor attributes Experience versus description; Expertise; Ability; Confidence;
Intentions; Credibility; Trust; Characteristics; Gender;
Information advantage; Egocentrism; Likelihood of giving
advice; Culture; High versus low level construal of the
dilemma; Committing and suffering for a misdeed; Source
factors; Number of advisors; Conflicts of interest; Perceived
power; Expert versus novice advisors; Reputation
Benjamin and Budescu (2015); Bonaccio and Dalal (2010);
Brandts etal. (2014); Brooks etal. (2015); Chentsova-
Dutton and Vaughn (2012); Dalal and Bonaccio (2010);
Danziger etal. (2012); de Hooge etal. (2014); Effron and
Miller (2015); Feng and Feng (2013); Feng and MacGeorge
(2010); Harvey and Fisher (1997); MacGeorge etal.
(2016); Mobbs etal. (2015); Rader etal. (2015); Reich and
Tormala (2013); Sah etal. (2013); Tost etal. (2012); van
Swol (2009); Webb (2011); Yaniv and Kleinberger (2000)
Decision maker
attributes
Self-confidence; Pre-advice DM decision; Positive and negative
emotions; Anxiety; Anger; Self-confidence; Experience; DM
opinion; Attitude to advice; DM distance between initial
opinion and advice; Competitiveness; Mood; Suspicions of
advisor goals
Bonaccio and Dalal (2006); de Hooge etal. (2014); Gino
etal. (2012); Harvey and Fisher (1997); Rader etal.
(2015); Reich and Tormala 2013); Schultze etal. (2015);
Tost etal. (2012); van Swol (2009); Yaniv and Kleinberger
(2000)
Advice attributes Key pieces of information; Solicited versus unsolicited advice;
Sources; Number of advice sources; Task difficulty; Response
efficacy and feasibility; Message factors; Cost; Type; Message
content and politeness; Distance between initial opinion and
advice; Intuitive versus analytical; Distance of advice from
DM opinion; Advice alternatives
Azaria etal. (2015); Bonaccio and Dalal (2006); Bonaccio
and Dalal (2010); Brooks etal. (2015); Feng and Feng
(2013); Feng and MacGeorge (2010); Gino (2008); Harvey
and Fisher (1997); MacGeorge etal. (2016); Reich and
Tormala (2013); Schultze etal. (2015); Sniezek and
Buckley (1995); Tzioti etal. (2014); Yaniv (2004); Yaniv
and Milyavsky (2007)
Decision attributes Problem seriousness; Task difficulty; Task complexity;
Importance; Access to expert advice; Intuitive versus
analytical
Feng and MacGeorge (2010); Gino and Moore (2007);
Harvey and Fisher (1997); Schrah etal. (2006); Tzioti etal.
(2014)
Relational
attributes
Similarity between advisor and DM Gino etal. (2009)
(continued)
22
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Authors (year)
Process Advice giving Strategically revealing information; Advice content and quality;
Advisor confidence; Whether advice is solicited; Idealistic
versus realistic recommendations; Cue wording; Frequency;
Negative consequences; Efficacy
Azaria etal. (2015); Benjamin and Budescu (2015);
Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn (2012); Dalal and Bonaccio
(2010); Danziger etal. (2012); Seiders etal. (2014)
Advice taking DM confidence; Advice utilization frequency; Advice
utilization; Advice utilization: Situational and recipient
factors; Advice utilization: Trust in the advice, pressure to
comply with advice; Advice utilization/weighting: confidence
in DM’s opinion; Utilization of intuitive advice; Advice
utilization: DM primed to be suspicious; Ability to detect
advisor motives; Discounting; Discounting: DM use advice
self-centeredly; Advice weighting; Advice overweighting/
underweighting; Weighting conflicting advice conditions; DM
and advisor interaction; DM reactions to recommendations;
Agreement with advisor depending on emotion of DM;
Advisors strategically highlight suffering to gain standing;
Recipient’s evaluation of advice quality in Chinese versus
American cultural groups; Evaluation of advice; Quality,
facilitation of coping, intention to implement advice; Reliance;
Information processing; Sunk cost; Three components
of advice taking: accepting help, shifting and improving
judgment; Sharing responsibility; Acceptance of advice;
Winning (right) advice; Selection among advised options;
Forming of independent opinions; Argument strength and
quality; Message consistency; Impact of advice versus DM’s
initial choice
Benjamin and Budescu (2015); Bonaccio and Dalal (2006);
Dalal and Bonaccio (2010); de Hooge etal. (2014); Effron
and Miller (2015); Feng and MacGeorge (2010); Feng and
Feng (2013); Gino (2008); Gino etal. (2012); Gino and
Moore (2007); Harvey and Fisher (1997); MacGeorge
etal. (2016); Mobbs etal. (2015); Rader etal. (2015);
Reich and Tormala (2013); Sah etal. (2013); Schultze etal.
(2015); Sniezek and Buckley (1995); Tost etal. (2012);
Tzioti etal. (2014); van Swol (2009); Yaniv (2004); Yaniv
and Kleinberger (2000); Yaniv and Milyavsky (2007)
Decision making Information on DM’s evaluations of advisors; Information
regarding alternatives; Judging others’ behavior and one’s
own actions; DMs’ information acquisition processes; Expert
advice; Underlying beliefs, prejudices, undesirable influences
Bonaccio and Dalal (2010); Gino etal. (2009); Schrah etal.
(2006); Webb (2011)
Advice seeking How seeking advice influence; DMs aggregate advice from
multiple advisors; Advisor agreement; Conflict of interest
Brooks etal. (2015); Budescu and Yu (2007); Gino etal.
(2012)
(continued)
Table 6. (continued)
23
IPO category
General variable
category Variable details Authors (year)
Output Decision choice Decision to enter; Gender; Decision accuracy Brandts etal. (2014); Sniezek and Buckley (1995)
Advisor’s reaction Perception of advice seeker’s competence; Advisor brain
activity
Brooks etal. (2015); Mobbs etal. (2015)
DM reaction DM confidence; Persuasive impact Budescu and Yu (2007); Reich and Tormala (2013)
Adherence to
advice
Unintentional and reasoned; Adherence intentions; Time and
cost to serve
Camachoa etal. (2014); Seiders etal. (2014)
Advice task Locating a token Webb (2011)
Contextual
factors/
interaction
effects
Advisor attributes Persuasion strategy/persuasiveness; Egocentrism and
expertise; Consensus; Confidence; Construal level;
Perceived ability of the advisor; Expertise; Competence;
Level of seniority; Trustworthiness; Disagreements; Advisor
training; Perceived efficacy of advisor
Azaria etal. (2015); Brooks etal. (2015); Budescu and Yu
(2007); Danziger etal. (2012); de Hooge etal. (2014);
Harvey and Fisher (1997); Rader etal. (2015); Reich
and Tormala (2013); Schrah etal. (2006); Schultze etal.
(2015); Seiders etal. (2014); Sniezek and Buckley (1995);
Tzioti etal. (2014); van Swol (2009); Webb (2011)
Decision maker
attributes
Gender; DM performance (weak vs. strong); DM perception
of event predictability; DM motives (maximizing accuracy
and maintaining autonomy) and differences (individual
and situational); DM perception of advisor standing and
self-righteousness; DM perception of advice quality and
cognitive dissonance; DM self-confidence; DM feelings of
competitiveness and confidence; DM level of knowledge;
Perceived self-efficacy
Brandts etal. (2014); Budescu and Yu (2007); Dalal and
Bonaccio (2010); Effron and Miller (2015); Gino (2008);
Gino etal. (2012); MacGeorge etal. (2016); Seiders etal.
(2014); Tost etal. (2012); Yaniv (2004)
Advice attributes Whether the advice is solicited and perceived to be
supportive; Message factors (politeness, response efficacy,
feasibility, absence of limitations, and confirmation);
Perceived informativeness of advice; Advice distance
Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn (2012); Feng and
MacGeorge (2010); Gino etal. (2009); Yaniv (2004)
Decision attributes Task difficulty; Intuition-inducing task; Revision rule used by
DM; Seriousness of problem; Task complexity; Strength/
quality of argument
Brooks etal. (2015); MacGeorge etal. (2016); Reich and
Tormala (2013); Schrah etal. (2006); Tzioti etal. (2014);
Yaniv and Milyavsky (2007)
Environmental/
conditional
attributes
Decision environment whether they are in a risky or uncertain
domain; Conditions of positive/negative information
and missing information; Cultural effects (autonomy vs.
embeddedness; egalitarian vs. hierarchical; mastery vs.
harmonious); Cultural effects (American vs. Chinese); Levels
of individualism and levels of collectivism; Advice taking
conditions (optional vs. compulsory); Advice taking condition
(when feedback was given/not given to advice recipients);
Advice giving conditions (self-relevance situations); Advice
disclosure conditions (disclosure from external source);
Decision conditions (decision done in private)
Benjamin and Budescu (2015); Bonaccio and Dalal (2010);
Camachoa etal. (2014); Feng and Feng (2013); Gino and
Moore (2007); Mobbs etal. (2015); Reich and Tormala
(2013); Sah etal. (2013); Yaniv and Kleinberger (2000)
Table 6. (continued)
24 Family Business Review 00(0)
the literature using an IPO framework allows us to cat-
egorize the variables from both the family business and
psychology literature, revealing patterns and gaps both
across and within both disciplines. Below, we discuss
our major findings following the IPO structure for fam-
ily business and psychology research.
Input Variables. For input-related variables, both litera-
ture streams investigate variables that are related to the
attributes of the actors in the advising process, namely,
the advisor and the decision maker as well as with the
relational aspects. Both fields have equally studied the
advisor attributes and have drawn complementary con-
clusions (see Tables 5 and 6). For example, family firm
studies have highlighted the importance of an advisor’s
neutral role (Michel & Kammerlander, 2015) for under-
standing family firm members’ motives and emotions
(Goel et al., 2013) and the importance of characteristics
such as loyalty, commitment, qualifications, indepen-
dence, objectivity, and sensitivity (Reddrop & Mapunda,
2015). Psychology research on advising, in turn, has
emphasized the importance of the advisor’s trustworthi-
ness (e.g., Feng & Feng, 2013; Feng and MacGeorge,
2010). Decision maker attributes are more often studied
in psychology and only rarely in family business (see
Table 5 for exceptions). The psychology literature finds,
for example, that the emotions of the decision maker
play an important role in advice taking: anger and pride
decrease decision makers’ advice taking, whereas shame
and gratitude increase advice taking (de Hooge et al.,
2014). While both research streams have dedicated
much effort to understanding such individual-level input
factors, dyad/group-level input factors such as relational
attributes have surprisingly rarely been studied in either
field. Exceptions reveal that relational norms, such as
trust in the advisor, affect export intensity (Calabro &
Mussolino, 2013) or that similarity between the advisor
and decision maker increases advice taking (Gino et al.,
2009).
Psychology research has strongly focused on attri-
butes of the decision/task and attributes of the advice;
such studies are largely missing in research on family
firm advising. Psychology scholars have argued and
empirically shown, for instance, that task difficulty
(Gino & Moore, 2007) or task importance (Harvey &
Fisher, 1997) affect a decision maker’s willingness to
follow advice. In addition, message features, such as the
politeness with which the advice is communicated (Feng
& Mac George, 2010), the cost of advice (Gino, 2008),
the number of advising sources (Reich & Tormala,
2013), and the distance of advice (defined as how much
the advisor’s recommendation differs from the decision
maker’s initial “gut” feeling; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv &
Milyavsky, 2007), influence advice taking.
While psychology research lacks organizational-
level studies on input factors, family firm research has
highlighted specific firm attributes and family attributes.
These studies reveal, for instance, that smaller (Lussier
& Sonfield, 2015) family firms seek outside advice
more often. The advice taking of family firms is further
affected by the presence, role, and tasks of boards
(Bammens et al., 2011; Collin & Ahlberg, 2012).
Process Variables. Both family business and psychology
advising researchers have dedicated at least some effort
to understanding advice giving processes. The few avail-
able family business studies have examined the pro-
cesses of how advisors support the family business by
facilitating family firm transition during succession
(Lansberg & Gersick, 2015; von Krosigk, 2015) and
how advisors’ interim leadership positions can foster
smooth succession (Salvato & Corbetta, 2013). More-
over, family business studies shed light on the advice
giving process by studying the advisor’s behavioral
adaptation (Davis et al., 2013) and by investigating how
advisors capture and guide attention (Strike, 2013) or
mediate the decision maker’s sensemaking (Strike &
Rerup, 2016). Instead of studying the advisor’s role and
behavior along the process, psychology studies paid
attention to understanding the impact of an advisor’s
specific “framing” of advice (Dalal & Bonaccio, 2010)
and communication (Benjamin & Budescu, 2015) as
well as the frequency with which the advisor provides
recommendations throughout the process (Seiders et al.,
2014).
In addition to advice giving, psychology research has
also produced an impressive number of studies on
advice taking and decision making—a research area
understudied among family business scholars. In par-
ticular, the psychology literature has largely focused on
studying what decision makers actually do with the
advice that they receive. For example, it reveals that cer-
tain emotions of the decision maker can either increase
or decrease his or her likelihood to take the advice (de
Hooge et al., 2014) and his or her perceived pressure to
comply with the advice (Sah et al., 2013). Moreover,
Strike et al. 25
psychology studies on decision making show that deci-
sion makers often evaluate the advisor (Bonaccio &
Dalal, 2010) and his or her specific behavior (Gino
et al., 2009) instead of the advice itself. One of the most
frequently studied process variables in psychology
research on advice taking is advice weighting.
Psychology research has developed a systematic mea-
sure of the advisor’s influence on the decision maker’s
advice taking: the “weight of advice” (WOA; e.g., Gino,
2008; Tost et al., 2012; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000).
While not a process in itself, WOA is a process variable,
since it systematically captures the extent to which the
respondent follows advice.
In contrast to psychology studies, family business
studies on advice taking and decision making emphasize
the influence of personal or contextual aspects on how
family firm members take decisions. Sonfield and
Lussier (2012), for example, show that female managers
are more likely to rely on group as opposed to individual
decision making. Moreover, Alderson (2009) finds that
compared with the founder, the second generation is
more rational and deliberate in its decision making, con-
ducts a broader search for knowledge, and is more likely
to turn to others for advice. As such, process variables in
family firm advising often include the firm and, to a
lesser degree, family level, whereas psychology research
investigates the micro-foundations of advice giving and
advice taking mostly at the individual or dyad (advisor
and decision maker) level.
A niche topic of process studies relates to advice
seeking. A family business study shows that family firm
decisions makers are less inclined to ask for advice
when it is costly, when they have experienced bad advice
in the past, and when the advisor lacks soft skills
(Reddrop & Mapunda, 2015). Psychology studies dive
deeper into the antecedents of advice seeking by explor-
ing the decision maker’s cognitive and emotional pro-
cesses. Exemplary studies have found that anxiety and
conflicts of interest influence advice seeking (Gino
et al., 2012) and that decision makers are less likely to
seek advice when tasks are perceived to be easy because
they fear appearing incompetent (Brooks et al., 2015).
Output Variables. While output variables play an impor-
tant role in both family firm and psychology studies, the
focus and level of the studied variables substantially dif-
fer across these disciplines. Family business research
mainly focuses on the family and firm level and on
(external) outcomes, such as the firm or family economic
and noneconomic consequences of the advising process.
Psychology research, however, mostly focuses on indi-
vidual-level outcomes, with an emphasis on actor-,
advice-, and decision-related (internal) outcomes.
Studies on firm economic outcomes typically investi-
gate the effect of advising on classical outputs such as
sales growth and survival (Barbera & Hasso, 2013) or
firm performance (Naldi et al., 2015). In contrast, stud-
ies on firm noneconomic outcomes investigate complex
output measures, such as board effectiveness (Bammens
et al., 2011), human resource and legal affairs (Benito-
Hernández et al., 2014), and socioemotional wealth
(Goel et al., 2013).
Family business research on family-member eco-
nomic outcomes focuses on the effect of advising on
family wealth (Suess, 2014), whereas that on family-
member noneconomic outcomes explores how the attri-
butes of the advisor, the advice, and the advising process
lead to outcomes such as positivity among family busi-
ness leaders (Caspersz & Thomas, 2013), increased
commitment among family members (Chrisman et al.,
2017), and greater successor skills (Salvato & Corbetta,
2013) and competencies (Samei & Feyzbakhsh, 2016).
These studies thus recognize that advice giving and tak-
ing have an additional emotional, psychological, or edu-
cational effect on family members that goes beyond the
potential monetary benefit associated with better deci-
sion making.
In stark contrast, studies from psychology focus their
outcomes on the individual level, particularly the advi-
sor, the decision maker, or the advice and decision. With
regard to advice- or decision-related outcomes, psychol-
ogy studies research the antecedents underlying whether
the advice was followed or rejected. They also investi-
gate various outcome possibilities (“advice discount-
ing,” i.e., the advice was partly but not completely
followed) in between rejection and acceptance. Further
studies investigate whether the decisions taken are actu-
ally more accurate or correct when advice is followed.
Moreover, psychology researchers have also studied the
effect on the decision maker, such as his or her level of
confidence after advice taking (Budescu & Yu, 2007).
Concerning outcomes related to the advisor’s behavior,
advisor egocentrism and expertise have been found to
positively moderate the relationship between a decision
makers’ engagement in advice seeking and his or her
appearance of competence (Brooks et al., 2015).
26 Family Business Review 00(0)
Discussion, Opportunities for Future
Research, and Conclusion
In her review, Strike (2012) finds that the literature on
family firm advising is principally prescriptive in nature,
largely consisting of contributions written by practitio-
ners, and calls for studies with increased academic rigor.
The lack of academic validation coincides with the small
number of empirical studies in the field until 2012. In
her review, Strike (2012) develops a framework consist-
ing of advisor characteristics and types, the intervention
process and advising models, and outcomes. Her frame-
work reveals a great need for the development of a theo-
retical understanding of the internal processes and
systems of advising answering how and why questions
that remain so elusive.
Since 2012, the scholarly literature on family busi-
ness advising has moved forward considerably. There
have been numerous insightful qualitative studies on,
for example, how advisors can increase a successor’s
competencies (Salvato & Corbetta, 2013) or how they
slow down the decision making process to allow for
greater sensemaking (Strike & Rerup, 2016). There have
also been increasingly quantitative contributions inves-
tigating the relationship between advisors and firm eco-
nomic outcomes (e.g., Barbera & Hasso, 2013; Calabro
& Mussolino, 2013; Naldi et al., 2015). However, much
work remains to be done to unpack the black box of the
process and internal structures of family firm advising.
By drawing on research on advising in psychology, we
begin to address many of these enquiries.
While this literature review reveals that research
within both the family firm and psychology literature
has made substantial progress in understanding advis-
ing, the two disciplines have largely worked in isola-
tion,5 signifying the notable opportunities for future
research and mutual learning. To date, family firm
scholars have primarily explored the relationship
between advising input and firm/family economic and
noneconomic outcomes. In contrast, psychology schol-
ars have staunchly emphasized the process of advice
taking. Family firm advising research has mainly taken
a firm-level, general management approach to under-
standing advising, while psychology researchers have
focused on individual-level micro-foundations, such as
emotions—which have started to pervade family firm
research only recently (Shepherd, 2016). Whereas the
family firm literature might suffer from a sweeping
approach to advising that does not enable the isolation
of effects (e.g., separating egocentric discounting from
discounting due to inferior advice quality), the value
provided by psychology research is diminished by its
fragmented empirical and theoretical approach, which
impedes a holistic understanding of the advising process
and its neglect of context, as illustrated by the focus on
student samples.
Both family firm research and psychology research
have therefore explored the same phenomenon, namely,
advising, but from different perspectives. The two disci-
plines ask different questions and rely on alternate theo-
ries and methodological approaches. These differences
provide an opportunity for family firm advising research
to draw on insights from psychology to fill the black box
of advising. Below, we identify nine research gaps fol-
lowing the IPO framework and levels of analysis and
derive 27 research questions with an overall aim to
inspire future work on family firm advising.
Future Research Opportunities Derived From
the IPO Framework
Table 7 and the ensuing section identify a blueprint to
guide future scholars. Figures 1 and 2 provide a graphi-
cal overview of the emphasis of extant family business
(Figure 1) and psychology (Figure 2) research on advis-
ing. In detailing the nine salient research gaps, this
review identifies constructs, theories, and methodologi-
cal approaches from psychology that inform family
business research on both advising and family firm–spe-
cific idiosyncrasies, such as emotional attachment, fam-
ily-centered goals, and owner-managers’ experience,
that might provide an interesting context for advising
studies. The research agenda is not all inclusive; how-
ever, it focuses on highly relevant and interesting
research questions that will aid future scholars in unlock-
ing and deepening our understanding of the internal
structures and processes held within the black box of
family business advising.
Inputs of Effective Family Business Advice Giving. With
few exceptions (Cole & Johnson, 2012; Lee & Danes,
2012), “advice” is generally treated as a blanket con-
cept in the family firm literature, with little thought
given to teasing out the specific attributes of the
advice, advisor, or environment of the advising pro-
cess. Conversely, psychology advising research both
recognizes and disentangles the various attributes of
the advice and the advisor as well as their impact on
27
Table 7. Overview of Research Opportunities Derived From the IPO Framework.
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
Input
What attributes should
the advice have, and
how should it be given
to increase its likeliness
of implementation
and its efficacy for the
family business?
1. What types of advice (e.g.,
information vs. recommendation
vs. instruction) and message
content are most effective
when provided to family firm
decision makers, and how can
their preferences be explained
theoretically?
Family firm decision makers pursue
idiosyncratic goals; those goals
might influence their preference
for specific advice attributes and
message features.
Advice response
theory
Use the advice attributes
identified by psychology
research—such as cost of
advice, message type, and
message features—to scrutinize
the preferences of family firm
decision makers
2. Why do family firm decision
makers prefer certain advice
attributes but not others? Does
their preference depend on the
decision makers’ socioemotional
wealth considerations?
Family firm decision makers are
typically experts with regard
to their firm and industry; they
thus possess much higher levels
of expertise than the decision
makers of psychology samples.
Construal level
theory
Use the advice response theory
and the construal level theory
that have been frequently applied
by psychology scholars to explain
family firm decision makers’
preferences
3. How do preferences for specific
message features vary across
family firms depending on, for
example, the generation involved?
Moreover, much is at stake for
family firm decision makers. As
such, they are more likely to
be emotionally tied to the firm
and motivated to take “the right
decision” than psychology study
participants.
Resource-based
view (RBV)
Socioemotional
wealth
What types of
advisors with which
competencies do family
business decision
makers trust the most?
4. Do family firm decision makers
vary in their preference for
certain advisor attributes, and
how can such heterogeneity be
explained?
Family firm decision makers
are typically much older and
much more experienced than
psychology study participants.
This could influence their
preferences.
Agency theory Combine the advisor
characteristics studied frequently
in family firm research (e.g.,
role, professional background)
with the characteristics studied
frequently by psychology research
(e.g., frequency of interaction,
own experience with problem)
to obtain a more fine-grained
understanding on desired (or
undesired) advisor characteristics
(continued)
28
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
5. What soft skills do family firm
advisors need for the family to
accept his or her advice?
Family firm decision makers are
known to strive for long-term
trust-based relationships. This
could influence their preference
for/against specific advisors.
Construal level
theory
6. How many and which types of
advisors do family firm decision
makers prefer to involve in their
decision making processes?
Knowledge
sharing
Resource-based
view (RBV)
How do contingencies
such as organizational
and family attributes
(i.e., level of
knowledge, goals,
emotional attachment)
or cultural aspects
affect advice taking in
family firms?
7. How do preferences for specific
types of advice depend on the
emotional attachment of a
decision maker?
Several family firms are known
to be “inward-looking” and to
avoid publicity. Such a culture
might affect their advice taking
behavior.
Appraisal theory
(of emotions)
Use insights from the psychology
advising literature on how
culture shapes, for example, the
preference for advice seeking and
advice giving
8. How does the level of advice
taking of family firm decision
makers depend on cultural
aspects?
Moreover, family firms in cultures
where failure is more tolerated
might be more open than those
in countries where failure is
stigmatized. Given the family’s
frequent desire to maintain a
positive image, these cross-
country differences are likely
more salient for such decision
makers than other decision
makers.
Institutional
theory
9. How can institutional theories
explain the varying success of
different types of family firm
advisors across the globe?
Socioemotional
wealth
Table 7. (continued)
(continued)
29
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
Process
Which factors
influence the advice
taking preferences
of individual family
members, and how
do they affect family
business decision
making?
10. How does the individual family
decision maker “weigh the
advice,” and how does this
affect the family firm’s decision
making?
The advice taking behavior of next
generation family firm leaders
might depend on how they have
been raised, what stories were
told about the business, and
whether the incumbent still has
an important role in the business
after succession.
Agency theory Introduce “intermediary”
constructs and variables such as
weight of advice to the family
business context in order to
better understand the decision
making process in such firms
11. How can we explain the
cognitive mechanisms that take
place throughout the advice
taking process?
Appraisal theory
(of emotions)
Conduct nuanced studies on the
effect of emotions in the decision
making process and use theories
from psychology to explain the
processes
12. How do the answers to the
above-mentioned questions
depend on the age, experience,
generation, leadership style, and
identity of the family members?
Sensemaking
Weight of advice
How do relational
aspects increase or
decrease the advice
taking behavior of
family business decision
makers?
13. How do family firm decision
makers handle advice provided
by different types of advisors
with different characteristics?
Family firm decision makers often
value relationship ties more than
experience or skills, as succession
literature has shown. Such
preferences could also affect how
they handle advice provided by
different types of advisors.
JAS—Judge
advisor system
Use the judge-advisor system
as a helpful framework to
systematically grasp the relations
of the actors in the advice giving
and advice taking process.
14. How does, for instance, the
professional experience of the
advisor affect the family firm’s
perception of the quality of
advice?
In addition, the power constellation
among the involved family
members might affect their advice
taking and decision making.
Knowledge
sharing
15. With whom does the family
firm decision maker interact
throughout the advice taking
process?
Sensemaking
Table 7. (continued)
(continued)
30
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
Which family and
business internal and
external contingency
factors affect advice
taking and ultimately
organizational-level
decision making
behavior?
16. How does the decision making
process depend on family firm
or task characteristics?
Most psychology literature has
focused on decision making in
rather private settings where
individuals need to take decisions
for themselves. However,
decision making and advice taking
behavior could strongly differ
if the advice is given not in a
private but in business setting
and if more than one individual—
maybe with diverging goals and
backgrounds, as in family firms—
is involved.
Appraisal theory Understanding such processes in
detail requires studies that cross
levels. To answer this research
gap, organizational- and group-
level constructs and findings from
family business research might
be combined with the individual-
level perspective of psychology
research
17. How do decision making
preferences and advice taking
priorities change over the
over the lifecycle of the family
business?
Corporate
governance
18. How do organizational routines
and procedures affect individual
advice taking in family firms?
Socioemotional
wealth
Stakeholder and
stewardship
theories
Output
How does advice
taking affect individual
decision making
accuracy and ultimately
family business
economic outcomes?
19. How does advice taking affect
the accuracy of decision making
in family firms?
Most psychology studies have
focused on rather “simple”
tasks, such as answering
questions regarding history.
The advice taking behavior
and the implications of advice
taking might be different if the
application is within a more
complex setting, such as family
firms with multidimensional
consequences (economic/non-
economic, family, firm)
Corporate
governance
Introduce concepts such as
emotional support into family
firm advising research as an
alternative outcome
Table 7. (continued)
(continued)
31
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
20. How can family firms improve
their advice taking and decision
making accuracy by considering
advice?
Performance
theories
Study the amount of advice taking
or deviation from the initial
considerations of the decision
maker rather than the more
distant proxies of advice taking
(e.g., firm performance) that have
been investigated thus far
21. How does decision accuracy
based on advice eventually affect
organizational performance?
Emotional
support
How does advice taking
and decision making
among family members
influence family
outcomes?
22. How does advice taking
or rejecting affect various
dimensions of family
functionality?
Family firm decision making
typically affects not only the
firm and the decision maker but
potentially (at least indirectly)
also family members. Especially
in cases that an advisor is only
trusted by few family members or
if the level of advice discounting
varies among family members,
this might have an effect on family
relations.
Corporate
governance
Use of individual psychology
theories, such relationship
conflict theories, to explain
how advice taking affects family
outcomes
23. Under what conditions are
family relationships strengthened
during advising processes?
Relationship
conflict theories
Build on the advice characteristics
and advisor characteristics
identified by psychology research
to gain a more fine-grained
understanding of the relationships
24. What types of advisors
are particularly effective
in strengthening these
relationships?
Stewardship
theory
Table 7. (continued)
(continued)
32
Research gaps within
IPO framework Specific research questions
Unique family business
characteristics Relevant theories
Exemplary application of psychology
constructs to inform FB research
How does advice taking
affect the family
business’ noneconomic
outcomes?
25. How does advice taking or
rejecting affect the relationship
between the advisor and the
decision maker?
In psychology studies, the advisor
is mostly an a priori unknown
individual without any further
relationship with the decision
maker after the advising process.
This is different in family firms,
where the decision makers
often have long-standing
relationships with the advisor
before the advising takes place
and—often—continue a private
and professional relationship
afterward. As such, the decision
maker–advisor relationship
deserves much more attention in
family business settings.
Corporate
governance
Investigate advisor characteristics,
such as conflict of interests and
the disclosure thereof, to study
his or her effectiveness in advice
giving
26. What consequences do
inaccurate advice giving and a
lack of disclosure of interests
have in the family firm context?
Disclosure of
interests
27. How is trust building between
the advisor and decision maker
affected by prior advising?
Stakeholder
theory
Stewardship
theory
Table 7. (continued)
Strike et al. 33
individual-level outcomes. Understanding the role of
these attributes in the family firm advising context is
one of the precursors to developing and testing theo-
ries of when family firms are willing to seek for and
take advice. While effective advice giving can improve
family firms’ performance (e.g., García-Ramos &
García-Olalla, 2011; Gordini, 2012; Naldi et al.,
2015), ineffective advice giving might lead to the
rejection of the advice or the advisor and even the
decision maker’s unwillingness to request and accept
advice in the future. Advice (or advisor) rejection is
not only financially costly to the family firm but it also
detracts managerial attention from firm-level strategic
issues (Benito-Hernández et al., 2014). Thus, it is
important for family business research to increase its
understanding of how input aspects, such as the advice
itself (Research Gap 1), attributes of the advisor
(Research Gap 2), or contingency factors (Research
Gap 3), affect family business advice taking outcomes
on an individual, dyad/family, and organizational
level.
Research Gap 1: What attributes should the advice
have, and how should it be given in order to increase
its likeliness of implementation and its efficacy for
the family business?
Psychology research distinguishes among informa-
tion, recommendation, and instruction (Gino et al.,
2012). Existing experimental studies reveal that student
respondents prefer advice in the form of recommenda-
tions for an option and information on the options but
not in the form of pure instruction (Dalal & Bonaccio,
2010). Drawing from these insights, family business
scholars could explore which advice attributes are
viewed as particularly valuable by family firm decision
Figure 1. Focus of extant family business literature on advising.
34 Family Business Review 00(0)
makers—who are typically more experienced than stu-
dent participants and who follow different goals than
decision makers in firms with different ownership struc-
ture; for example, they show a strong desire to retain
control (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012).
Moreover, depending on the task seriousness, “much
[more] is at stake” for those such individuals (compared
with student respondents and decision makers in firms
with other ownership structures), as family wealth is
often tied to the firm’s performance (Anderson, Mansi,
& Reeb, 2003).
As such, one might assume that family firm decision
makers value recommendations more than instructions
and pay particular attention to message content and
information depth. Family firm researchers should thus
test the effectiveness of advice that varies in cost (Gino,
2008), type (Gino et al., 2012), quality (Yaniv &
Kleinberger, 2000), and features (e.g., politeness;
MacGeorge et al., 2016), when it is provided to family
firm decision makers. To develop a comprehensive
model of attributes preferred by family firm decision
makers, advice response theory from psychology (Feng
& Feng, 2013; MacGeorge et al., 2016; see Table 2)
might provide a useful framework. However, the prefer-
ence for certain advice features might not only differ
between family firm decision makers and student
respondents; there might also be considerable variation
among the groups of family firms depending on, for
instance, the generation active in the firm or the family
members’ varying levels of socioemotional wealth
(Berrone et al., 2012; Sonfield & Lussier, 2012). To the-
oretically understand the preferences of (different) fam-
ily firms, construal level theory (Danziger et al., 2012)
might be useful, as one could argue that members of first
and later generations perceive their firms differently. In
sum, key questions related to Research Gap 1 center on
what types of advice and message content are most
effective for family firm decision makers (Research
Figure 2. Focus of extant psychology literature on advising.
Strike et al. 35
Question 1), why family firm decision makers prefer cer-
tain advice attributes (Research Question 2), and how
those preferences vary across family firms (Research
Question 3).
Research Gap 2: What types of advisors with which
competencies do family business decision makers
trust the most?
In addition to advice attributes, advisor attributes
deserve more attention among family firm researchers.
While prior family firm research has focused on advisor
attributes such as their formal versus informal status
(Naldi et al., 2015) and their professional backgrounds
(e.g., Barbera & Hasso, 2013; Strike, 2013), psychology
research has revealed additional important advisor attri-
butes, such as expertise, trustworthiness, confidence,
similarity (Feng & Feng, 2013), seniority (Tzioti et al.,
2014), and motives (van Swol, 2009), which all affect
the advice taking. Given that family firm decision mak-
ers are typically considered to be reluctant to take advice
(Michel & Kammerlander, 2015; Naldi et al., 2015),
family firm researchers and practitioners should aim to
understand which advisor attributes are preferred by
those individuals and why.
However, given that family firm decision makers are
mostly older and more experienced than the participants
in psychology studies, who are typically undergraduate
students, insights from psychology on advisor prefer-
ences might not be directly transferrable to the family
firm setting. Since family firm decision makers value
long-term and trust-based relationships (Berrone et al.,
2012; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005), it would be
interesting to study whether and under which conditions
family firm decision makers place more emphasis on the
advisor’s expertise (e.g., Bonaccio & Dalal, 2010) ver-
sus the level of mutual trust (e.g., Perry et al., 2015;
Waisner, 2012). Combining theoretical insights from the
resource-based view and agency theory (Michel &
Kammerlander, 2015) with findings from construal level
theory (Danziger et al., 2012) and knowledge sharing
(Su & Dou, 2013) might be helpful for predicting which
advisor attributes increase family firm decision makers’
willingness to take advice.
Moreover, it would be thought provoking to study
which advisor attributes are particularly helpful to
achieve positive outcomes at both the individual (e.g.,
satisfaction and confidence) and firm (e.g., performance)
levels. Psychology studies based on construal level the-
ory have shown that the level of idealism versus pragma-
tism in advice giving depends on various factors, such as
the advisor’s distance from the problem (Danziger et al.,
2012). Extending this work in the family firm area, future
studies might aim to identify which advisors are able to
best understand both the rational and emotional side of
the family business and which advisors are thus able to
provide targeted advice. For example, in a situation such
as succession, where a strategic-oriented perspective is
required (Salvato & Corbetta, 2013), outside advisors
might be particularly valuable. Moreover, building on
Effron and Miller’s (2015) psychology work, which
shows that advisors who have personally gone through a
similar, challenging situation in the past benefit from
increased legitimacy, research may also study whether
former family firm owner-managers are particularly
effective or ineffective advisors. In sum, future research
might thus focus on questions such as whether family
firm decision makers vary in their preference for certain
advisor attributes and, if so, why (Research Question 4),
what soft skills are required for a family business advisor
(Research Question 5), and how many and which types of
advisors that family firms prefer (Research Question 6).
Research Gap 3: How do contingencies such as
organizational and family attributes (i.e., level of
knowledge, goals, emotional attachment) or cultural
aspects affect advice taking in family firms?
The effectiveness of advice giving for family firm
decision makers might also strongly depend on contin-
gency factors—related to the family, firm, or (cultural)
context. Psychology research has continuously empha-
sized the role of emotions (e.g., fear, joy) in decision
making (de Hooge et al., 2014), which might differ
between first and later generations (Ling & Kellermanns,
2010) as well as between “business-first” and “family-
first” (Basco & Pérez Rodríguez, 2009) family firms.
Using such findings from psychology research, the fam-
ily firm advising literature might aim to understand
under which contingency factors family firm decision
makers are more or less willing to accept advice (or
advisors) with specific attributes. Appraisal theory
(Gino et al., 2012) constitutes a useful framework to
systematically study how variance in family firms’ focus
on emotions causes heterogeneous advice and advisor
preferences in family firms.
36 Family Business Review 00(0)
In addition to firm- and family-level contingencies,
psychology research has also highlighted the important
role of cultural differences in explaining the varying
effectiveness of advice giving (Camachoa et al., 2014).
For instance, individuals from the Russian culture are
much more open to unsolicited advice than American
study participants (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012).
Such insights, adapted to the family firm context and
their specific structures and goals, might be able to
explain why successful family firm advising practices
might not be easily transferred from one geographical
context to another. For instance, in cultures in which
failure is tolerated or even perceived positively as part of
an entrepreneurial learning process, family firm deci-
sion makers—who are often rather concerned about
their reputation (Berrone et al., 2012)—might exhibit
different advice seeking and taking behaviors from those
in cultures in which failure is stigmatized. Combining
institutional theory with prior psychology findings pro-
vides a strong theoretical and empirical basis to investi-
gate how cultural differences affect advice giving and
taking in family firms. Thus, it would be particularly
stimulating to gain further insights on, for example, how
emotional attachment affects preferences for a certain
type of advice (Research Question 7), how cultural
aspects affect family business advice taking (Research
Question 8), and how institutional theories might help
explain the varying success of advisors (Research
Question 9).
Process Aspects of Family Business Members’ Decision
Making. One of the most striking findings of our litera-
ture review is the lack of family firm studies on advising
processes (instead of relations between input and
output)—a topic well covered by psychology, mostly on
the individual and dyad (advisor-advisee) levels. To
build up precise and generalizable theory on family firm
advising, knowledge on the process at all levels is, how-
ever, required. Given the importance of knowledge on
advising processes—since only a nuanced understand-
ing thereof will provide valuable insights into the emo-
tional and cognitive processes taking place among
family firm decision makers when considering advice—
we identify important research gaps with regard to this
process. In particular, we aim to increase our under-
standing of how individual judgements (Research Gap
4), relational factors between advisor and decision
maker (Research Gap 5), and organizational advice
evaluation influenced by contingent factors (Research
Gap 6) affect decisional outcomes among all three levels
of analysis.
Research Gap 4: Which factors influence the advice
taking preferences of individual family members,
and how do they affect family business decision
making?
To explore the individual-level cognitive mecha-
nisms while taking advice, the psychology literature
has developed interesting and insightful concepts to
capture and measure what decision makers actually
“do” with the advice that they have received. Instead of
the binary approach that is still prevalent in family firm
research (i.e., advice is either followed or not followed),
psychology scholars distinguish between different lev-
els of accepting or rejecting advice. Acknowledging the
continuous nature of the advice taking process, psy-
chology researchers find that decision makers rarely
fully accept or reject advice; rather, they tend to “dis-
count” advice provided by others (Schrah et al., 2006).
Consequently, their final decision is often a combina-
tion of decision makers’ initial own “gut feeling” and
the (discounted) advice. To capture the influence of a
piece of advice on a decision maker, psychology schol-
ars have developed the concept of WOA, which is a
quantifiable, measurable construct and thus an impor-
tant element of any empirical work on psychology
advising. WOA is defined as
WOAFinal estimateinitialestimate
Advice initialestimate
=
−
−
In the case of family firm succession, an incumbent
might think about handing over the business to his or her
successor in 15 years. In such a case, the initial estimate
is “15.” If the advisor suggests an earlier succession,
already taking place within 5 years, this number (5) is
called the “advice.” Having received such advice, the
incumbent “weighs” the advice, based on his or her
judgment of the advisor’s expertise and trustworthiness.
He or she might ultimately decide for an “in-between”
solution of, for instance, handing over the business in 9
years (i.e., “final estimate”). In such a case, the WOA
would be calculated as (9 − 15)/(5 − 15) = 0.6. If an
incumbent rejects the advice (i.e., decides for succession
in 15 years), the WOA is 0, whereas if the advice is
Strike et al. 37
accepted (i.e., decision for succession in 5 years), WOA
equals 1. Hence, the WOA reflects the impact of the
advice on the ultimate decision. Prior work shows, for
instance, that the WOA is generally larger for close ver-
sus distant advice (e.g., in the above-mentioned exam-
ple, a suggestion of 13 years is called close advice,
whereas 2 years would be perceived as distant advice;
Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007) and smaller if the decision
maker perceives his or her power to be high (Tost et al.,
2012).
The WOA might be a useful tool for family firm
researchers seeking to generate a more nuanced under-
standing of the individual-level advice taking processes
in family firms and aiming to understand individual
decision preferences in such firms (e.g., Reay et al.,
2013). One could assume that while many of the WOA
findings of psychology scholars may also hold true in
the family firm context, the specific socioemotional
aspects in those firms (e.g., Berrone et al., 2012) might
add an additional layer of complexity. In particular, it
might be interesting to use the concept of WOA to study
how family firm decision makers handle what advice
they receive; under which conditions they accept, dis-
count, or reject the advice; and how these relationships
depend on individual-level characteristics, such as goals,
leadership style, and personality. However, family-level
variables, such as the power constellation and conflicts
among family members, might also affect advice taking
preferences. Scholars might apply the concept of WOA
not only to decisions regarding succession timing as
mentioned in the example above but also to sales price
considerations, investment decisions, compensation-
related issues, and other strategic questions. In sum, we
particularly strive for a better understanding of how the
individual family decision maker “weighs” the advice
(Research Question 10), how we can explain family firm
decision makers’ cognitive mechanisms when taking
advice (Research Question 11), and how factors such as
the age, experience, generation, and leadership style of
the family firm decision makers influence their advice
taking preferences (Research Question 12).
Research Gap 5: How do relational aspects increase
or decrease the advice taking behavior of family busi-
ness decision makers?
Advising is a process that not only includes one indi-
vidual (the decision maker) but at least a second actor
(the advisor). As such, relational aspects, such as mutual
trust and acknowledgment of the other individuals’ com-
petencies, play a major role in the advice giving and
advice taking processes. Psychology research, for
instance, has shown that decision makers who are
knowledgeable about the advisor’s own learning tech-
niques surprisingly discount the advice to a higher
degree (Benjamin & Budescu, 2015), whereas disclo-
sure of conflicting interests by the advisor counterintui-
tively increases decision makers’ advice taking (Sah
et al., 2013), as decision makers perceive high social
pressure for compliance in such cases.
In the family firm context, such relational aspects are
likely to be even more important, given the emphasis
that family firm members place on trusted relationships
with family and firm internal and external stakeholders
(Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005). Moreover, the rela-
tionships that need to be considered in a family firm
advising context are more complex than those in situa-
tions typically explored by psychology researchers:
while psychology studies typically concern dyadic rela-
tionships between one (or few) advisors and one deci-
sion maker, in family firms, advising other stakeholders
such as other influential family members needs to be
considered (Michel & Kammerlander, 2015).
Adapting and extending JAS from psychology
(Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006; Sniezek and Buckley, 1995)
to family firm advising provides a thorough theoretical,
systemic framework to study these relationships, their
antecedents, and their consequences. For instance, JAS
might be used to explain why certain family firm deci-
sion makers prefer advisors with certain competencies
and backgrounds. JAS differentiates between two sys-
tems, namely, the system of the advisor and the system
of the judge (decision maker), that overlap during the
advising process. As such, it might also help explain and
predict the points in the process during which the advi-
sor is able to provide socioemotional support (Bonaccio
& Dalal, 2006) and stimulate sensemaking among fam-
ily firm decision makers (Strike & Rerup, 2016). JAS
might be particularly useful when striving to understand
the interactions among various advisors (e.g., formal
and informal advisors) as well as decision makers (e.g.,
incumbent and successor), their conflicts, their sense-
making, and ultimately the decision making processes in
the family firm. In sum, future research might shed light
on how family firm decision makers handle advice pro-
vided by different types of advisors (Research Question
38 Family Business Review 00(0)
13), how aspects such as the professional experience of
the advisor affect the perceived quality of the advice
(Research Question 14), and with whom the decision
maker interacts while taking advice (Research Question
15).
Research Gap 6: Which family and business internal
and external contingency factors affect advice taking
and ultimately organizational-level decision making
behavior?
Similar to the input factors, the advice taking and
decision making processes at the individual, family, and
firm levels likely depend on a series of contingency fac-
tors. For instance, Schrah et al. (2006) reveal that the
task itself, namely, its complexity, affects the advice tak-
ing process; when tasks are complex, decision makers
are more likely to accept advice. Moreover, temporal
aspects play an important role. Decision makers with the
opportunity to form their own opinion before advice is
provided are more likely to accept advice (Rader et al.,
2015).
In contrast to the time-constrained, isolated advising
and decision making situation in psychology experi-
mental studies, family firm advising and decision mak-
ing occurs in a much more complex setting. Thus, we
would expect an even larger number of individual-, fam-
ily-, firm-, industry-, and country-level contingencies to
shape the processes, which thus deserve more scholarly
attention. Such factors include individual- and family-
level goals (Berrone et al., 2012), educational and pro-
fessional backgrounds (Sorenson and Milbrandt, 2015;
Su & Dou, 2013), generations involved (Alderson,
2009), family rules (Distelberg & Castanos, 2012), trust
(Perry et al., 2015), and the family’s and firm’s history
(Perry et al., 2015). In addition, specific industry charac-
teristics and cultural aspects might affect advice taking
at the individual level and, ultimately, decision making
at the family and organizational levels. To theoretically
understand heterogeneity within family firms’ advising
processes on multiple levels, appraisal theory of emo-
tions may provide valuable insights into how family-
specific contingencies emotionally affect the advice
taking and decision making process at the organizational
level (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2014). Given the increased
interest of family business researchers in emotions
(Astrachan & Jaskiewicz, 2008; Shepherd, 2016), repli-
cating and extending extant psychology studies on emo-
tions in advising processes in the family firm context
might provide valuable insights for both researchers and
practitioners. In particular, we need a better understand-
ing of how family firm or task-specific characteristics
affect individual advice taking (Research Question 16),
how decision making priorities might change over the
lifecycle of the family firm (Research Question 17), and
how organizational routines and procedures affect indi-
vidual advice taking in family firms (Research Question
18).
Output Aspects of Family and Business Advice Taking. Most
output-related family business studies focus on the orga-
nizational level of analysis by exploring the economic
consequences of advising, such as profitability, growth,
and liquidity (Holt, Pearson, Carr, & Barnett, 2016), and
noneconomic consequences, such as board tasks (Bam-
mens et al., 2001), board characteristics (García-Ramos
& García-Olalla, 2011), and board independence (Zat-
toni et al., 2015). With the exception of Salvato and Cor-
betta (2013), family business advising research has
neglected to study the individual-level consequences of
advising. This gap is surprising, as individual-level
advice taking remains the micro-foundation for group-
related strategic discussions within family firm and ulti-
mately firm-level decision making. Psychology advising
research might serve as a blueprint for future family firm
research in this regard; psychology researchers have
empirically studied not only a broad range of individual-
level outcomes, such as decision quality (Feng & Feng,
2013; Gino, 2008), but also relational aspects, such as
the trust of the advisee in the advisor (Reich & Tormala,
2013). In the following, we outline three outcome-
related research gaps relevant for future family firm
advising that might be inspired by psychology work in
seeking answers with respect to how advice taking
affects decision making accuracy among family firm
decision makers (Research Gap 7), how the advice tak-
ing of family members influences family-related out-
comes (Research Gap 8), and how advice taking affects
firms’ noneconomic outcomes (Research Gap 9).
Research Gap 7: How does advice taking affect
individual decision making accuracy and ultimately
family business economic outcomes?
To date, we still lack a clear understanding of how
advising can increase decision making accuracy at the
individual level and, ultimately, how it can positively
affect family business economic outcomes. Going
Strike et al. 39
forward, such knowledge is required because empirical
family firm studies investigating organizational perfor-
mance outcomes directly, instead of considering indi-
vidual-level decision making as intermediate step, might
be biased by unobserved firm- or industry-level factors
that are unrelated to the advising process per se.
Psychology research has dedicated much effort to theo-
rizing and measuring decision making accuracy. For
instance, prior studies show that advice taking generally
increases decision accuracy (Yaniv, 2004), and this
effect is even strengthened when decision makers con-
tinuously revise their own opinions based on the advice
that they receive (Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007).
Measuring “advice accuracy” in a family firm con-
text is more challenging than doing so in experimental
settings, given the often multifaceted nature of the deci-
sions and the interplay of both rational and emotional, as
well as short-term and long-term, factors. Nevertheless,
accepting this scholarly challenge and finding ways to
measure and study the quality of advice—and ultimately
the quality of decisions when advice is accepted—are
also promising for the family firm field. Answering
questions related to the quality of advice taking, the
accuracy of decision making, and ultimately the effects
on firm performance bridges the disciplines of psychol-
ogy, finance, and family firm management, and it will
allow us not only to understand important cognitive and
strategic processes within the organization but also to
provide valuable recommendations to family firm prac-
titioners. To fill such research voids, family firm
researchers might build on the concept of socioemo-
tional support (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006), which
acknowledges that advisors might provide family firm
decision makers with not only fact-based but also social
and emotional support.
Moreover, the direction from individual- to organiza-
tional-level decision making might not be purely
straightforward in family firms, given the involvement
of other family members and firm-internal and firm-
external stakeholders who might participate in decision
making after the advising process has concluded. The
question regarding what happens to group decision mak-
ing if one group member has received advice before-
hand remains largely unstudied not only in family firm
but also in psychology research. Thus, future research
might seek answers to questions such as how does advice
taking affect the accuracy of family firm decision mak-
ing (Research Question 19), how can family firms
improve their decision making accuracy (Research
Question 20), and how does decision accuracy based on
advice taking eventually affect organizational perfor-
mance (Research Question 21).
Research Gap 8: How does advice taking and deci-
sion making among family members influence fam-
ily outcomes?
A further important but thus far understudied dimen-
sion of outcome variables is the family level (e.g.,
Distelberg & Castanos, 2012; Reay et al., 2013). As with
any social interaction, advice accepting (or rejecting)
affects not only the organizational level but also the
family level, particularly with regard to noneconomic
outcomes. For instance, family members might disagree
on a specific advisor or piece of advice, and thus, the
outcome of the individual-level advice taking process
can also affect relationships among family members.
The reliance on or rejection of a specific advisor by one
or more family members might also affect the trust lev-
els among the family and its confidants.
While psychology research has only marginally stud-
ied outcomes at the dyad or group level, it still provides
insightful findings that might help sharpen further
research agendas. For instance, prior studies show that
decision makers vary tremendously in their capabilities
to differentiate between “good” and “bad” advice (Gino
et al., 2012). To advance the understanding of family
firm advising, it would be interesting to combine psy-
chology findings regarding advising with relationship
conflict theories (Gino et al., 2012) and theories and
insights from family science (e.g., Olson & Gorall,
2003). In sum, future research could address questions
such as how does advice taking or rejecting affect family
functionality (Research Question 22), under what condi-
tions are family relationships strengthened during advis-
ing (Research Question 23) and what types of advisors
are particularly effective in strengthening these rela-
tionships (Research Question 24).
Research Gap 9: How does advice taking affect the
family business’s noneconomic outcomes?
Noneconomic outcomes deserve more scholarly
attention not only at the family level but also at the orga-
nizational level. Given their nonfinancial goals (Berrone
et al., 2012), family firms offer a unique setting to study
the organizational-level noneconomic outcomes of
advice taking.
40 Family Business Review 00(0)
Psychology research has revealed that advice taking
has a substantial effect on important (individual-level)
noneconomic outcomes, such as increased competence
(Brooks et al., 2015), and confidence (Budescu & Yu,
2007). As such, one might speculate that advice taking
also affects competences aggregated at the organiza-
tional level or even the way in which organizational
members and outsiders perceive the company (family
firm identity and family firm image). While psychology
research has mostly studied advising situations in which
the advisor and decision maker meet only once (i.e., for
the advising session), family firm members and advisors
often enjoy a trusted and long-term relationship (Michel
& Kammerlander, 2015). As such, studying the effect
of—either helpful or harmful—advice giving to family
members on the relationship between members of the
family firm and the advisor is of utmost relevance for
our understanding of family firm advising.
Future research endeavors could build on insights on
relationship conflicts, from research on the family busi-
ness (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006), family therapy
(Cole & Johnson, 2012), and individual psychology
(Gino et al., 2012), to shed light on the noneconomic
consequences of the advice taking process. The con-
struct of disclosure of interests from psychology
(Benjamin & Budescu, 2015; Sah et al., 2013) could
help provide a more profound understanding of how
advisors’ disclosure of their own interest increases
advice taking. Such findings might be combined with,
for example, stewardship theory (e.g., Gordini, 2012;
Hiebl, 2013) to further explain how advisors on a long-
term basis serve family firms to their best. Important
questions concerning this research gap are thus how
does advice taking or rejecting affect the relationship
between the advisor and the decision maker (Research
Question 25), what consequences do inaccurate advice
giving and a lack of disclosure of interests have in the
family firm context (Research Question 26), and how is
trust building between the advisor and decision maker
affected by prior advising (Research Question 27).
Contributions and Conclusion
With our review, we provide a fourfold contribution in
bridging two disciplines and bringing novel insights to
family business research. First, we address the black box
within family business advising: the internal structures
that are not well understood. To advance the field, addi-
tional theoretical constructs are required. However,
these theoretical constructs are often loosely specified or
unmeasured, creating a black box filled with vague,
untested theories (Lawrence, 1997).
Second, in unlocking this black box, we introduce
new constructs and theories to the family business litera-
ture. Scholars from psychology have dedicated signifi-
cant effort over the past four decades to understanding
the advising processes and developing process variables.
In research on family business advising, advice has been
treated as a binary variable that is either taken or rejected.
Psychology introduces a gradation or continuum, in
addition to the processes in which advice is given, the
message factors, and the weighting of the advice. We
elaborate on constructs such as the WOA (Gino &
Moore, 2007) and theories such as JAS (Bonaccio &
Dalal, 2006) in detail while focusing on how they can
inform the family business literature and providing
explicit examples regarding how they can contribute to
studies in the family business context.
Third, we summarize and integrate our findings in an
overarching IPO framework, emphasizing the impor-
tance of contextual factors and interaction variables.
The field of family business advising has primarily
focused on the inputs and outputs (e.g., Naldi et al.,
2015), which is not unusual for a nascent research field.
As the field continues to advance, research questions
require more than a predictor and an outcome.
Psychology, in contrast, has studied processes in more
detail. We advance family business literature by inte-
grating the findings of the two fields into a comprehen-
sive (IPO) framework. Hence, our review identifies a
multitude of IPO variables across individual–dyad/
group–organizational levels of analysis. We identify and
categorize these variables across both the family busi-
ness and psychology advising literature and provide a
concise overview of the similarities and differences of
constructs used in both literature streams. We utilize the
variables to identify research gaps and develop future
research opportunities, and in this way, we identify the
need for mediators/moderators (which we label contex-
tual factors/interaction variables) to aid in explaining the
links between inputs and outputs.
Fourth, this review reveals that the current literature
on family firm advising heavily relies on the family/firm
level of analysis but has devoted little attention to the
individual level. In turn, psychology research focuses on
the individual and dyad level of analysis. The theories
utilized by family business research are also largely at
the firm level (e.g., corporate governance), while
Strike et al. 41
psychology research relies on individual-level theories
(e.g., construal-level theory). We identify and discuss
these differences in levels of analysis and the resulting
research gaps, proposing thought-provoking multilevel
research questions with theoretical bases as avenues for
both family business and psychology researchers inter-
ested in advising.
In summary, our review demonstrates that while aca-
demic research on family firm advising is rapidly gain-
ing momentum, the process, as Strike (2012) notes,
remains shielded. In establishing its footing over the
past 5 years, academic research on family firm advising
has focused on input and predominantly organization-
level output variables, resulting in a black box regarding
the advising process itself. To understand the process of
advising, Strike (2012) calls for the development of an
initial core set of variables. To advance the field and
identify not only these core variables but also the mech-
anisms leading from input to output, we have shown that
the psychology literature offers the utmost help:
Researchers from this discipline have long studied how
advice is given, judged, and weighted and have devel-
oped constructs and frameworks across alternate levels
of analysis that provide exciting and fruitful opportuni-
ties for future scholarly research on family firm
advising.
Acknowledgments
We thank Jurise Athena Oliveros for her research assistance
while developing this article. Moreover, we are grateful to the
four guest editors of this special issue Allison W. Pearson,
Daniel Holt, Tyge Payne, and Pramodita Sharma as well as
two anonymous reviewers who all provided excellent guid-
ance and challenged us to develop this article further.
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.
Notes
1. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/black-box.
html
2. We selected the 2011 to 2017 period to capture the extant
literature on family business advising since Strike’s
(2012) review.
3. We used the following search terms that referred to fam-
ily firms: family business, family firm, family enterprise,
family influence, family control, family owner, family
owned, family managed, family member, founder, gen-
eration, private, and closely held. The search terms used
to capture advice were advice, advise, advisor, adviser,
advising, counsel, therapy, professional expert, mediate,
consult, and mentor.
4. JCR is recognized as a leading source of citation report-
ing that “offers a systematic, objective means to critically
evaluate the world’s leading journals, with quantifiable,
statistical information based on citation data. By com-
piling articles’ cited references, JCR helps to measure
research influence and impact at the journal and category
levels, and shows the relationship between citing and
cited journals.” http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-
services/scholarly-scientific-research/research-manage-
ment-and-evaluation/journal-citation-reports.html
5. The authors conducted a co-citation analysis for the
two literature streams and found no substantial overlap
between the two disciplines. Details on the co-citation
analysis may be requested from the authors.
References
Alderson, K. (2009). Exploring the complexities of family busi-
ness decision making: How the second generation makes
decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella
University, Minneapolis, MN.
Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding
family ownership and the agency cost of debt. Journal of
Financial Economics, 68, 263-285.
Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns
and emotional costs in privately held family businesses:
Advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business
Review, 21, 139-149.
Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Goldman, C. V., & Kraus, S.
(2015). Strategic information disclosure to people with
multiple alternatives. ACM Transactions on Intelligent
Systems and Technology, 5(4), Article No. 64.
Bammens, Y., van Gils, A., & Voordeckers, W. (2011). Boards
of directors in family businesses: A literature review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 13, 134-152.
Barbera, F., & Hasso, T. (2013). Do we need to use an accoun-
tant? The sales growth and survival benefits to family
SMEs. Family Business Review, 26, 271-292.
Basco, R., & Pérez Rodríguez, M. J. (2009). Studying the
family enterprise holistically: Evidence for integrated
family and business systems. Family Business Review,
22, 82-95.
42 Family Business Review 00(0)
Basco, R., & Rodriguez, M. (2011). Ideal types of family
business management: Horizontal fit between family and
business decisions and the relationship with family busi-
ness performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
3, 28-37.
Benito-Hernández, S., López-Cózar-Navarro, C., & Priede-
Bergamini, T. (2014). Examining the relationship between
firm size and external advice on legal matters and human
resources by family businesses. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 16, 483-509.
Benjamin, D., & Budescu, D. (2015). Advice from experience:
Communicating incomplete information incompletely.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(1), 36-49.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (2012).
Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical
dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future
research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279.
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. (2006). Advice taking and decision
making: An integrative literature review, and implications
for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. (2010). Evaluating advisors: A
policy-capturing study under conditions of complete and
missing information. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 23, 227-249.
Brandts, J., Groenert, V., & Rott, C. (2014). The impact of
advice on women’s and men’s selection into competition.
Management Science, 61, 1018-1035.
Brooks, A., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Smart people
ask for (my) advice: Seeking advice boosts perceptions of
competence. Management Science, 61, 1421-1435.
Budescu, D., & Yu, H. (2007). Aggregation of opinions based
on correlated cues and advisors. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 20, 153-177.
Calabro, A., & Mussolino, D. (2013). How do boards of direc-
tors contribute to family SME export intensity? The role
of formal and informal governance mechanisms. Journal
of Management and Governance, 17, 363-403.
Camachoa, N., de Jonga, M., & Stremersch, S. (2014). The
effect of customer empowerment on adherence to expert
advice. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
31, 293-308.
Caspersz, D., & Thomas, J. (2013). Developing positivity in
family business leaders. Family Business Review, 28, 60-
75.
Castanos, C., & Welsh, D. (2013). Training marriage and fam-
ily therapists as family business advisors: A supervisory
model. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 19(1), 1-
40.
Cesaroni, F. M., & Sentuti, A. (2017). Family business succes-
sion and external advisors: The relevance of “soft” issues.
Small Enterprise Research, 24, 167-188.
Chentsova-Dutton, Y., & Vaughn, A. (2012). Let me tell you
what to do: Cultural differences in advice giving. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 687-703.
Chrisman, J., Dhaenens, A., Marler, L., & Vardaman, J. (2017).
Mentoring in family businesses: Toward an understanding
of commitment outcomes. Human Resource Management
Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2017.05.005
Cisneros, L., & Deschamps, B. (2015). The role of advisors
and the sequence of their actions in sibling team succes-
sion. Management, 18, 282-308.
Cole, P., & Johnson, K. (2012). A perfect fit: Connecting fam-
ily therapy skills to family business needs. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 63-71.
Collin, S., & Ahlberg, J. (2012). Blood in the boardroom:
Family relationships influencing the functions of the
board. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3, 207-219.
Dalal, R., & Bonaccio, S. (2010). What types of advice do
decision makers prefer? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 11-23.
Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic
advice and pragmatic choice: A psychological distance
account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 1105-1117.
Davis, W., Dibrell, C., Craig, J., & Green, J. (2013). The
effects of goal orientation and client feedback on the
adaptive behaviors of family enterprise advisors. Family
Business Review, 26, 215-234.
de Hooge, I., Verlegh, P., & Tzioti, S. (2014). Emotions in
advice taking: The roles of agency and valence. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 246-258.
Distelberg, B., & Castanos, C. (2012). Levels of interventions
for MFTs working with family businesses. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 72-91.
Distelberg, B., & Schwarz, T. (2015). Mentoring across fam-
ily-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 28, 193-
210.
Effron, D., & Miller, D. (2015). Do as I say, not as I’ve done:
Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advis-
ing others against it. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 131(6), 16-32.
Feng, B., & Feng, H. (2013). Examining cultural similarities
and differences in responses to advice: A comparison of
American and Chinese college students. Communication
Research, 40, 623-644.
Feng, B., & MacGeorge, E. (2010). The influences of message
and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication
Research, 37, 553-575.
García-Ramos, R., & García-Olalla, M. (2011). Board char-
acteristics and firm performance in public founder- and
nonfounder-led family businesses. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 2, 220-231.
Strike et al. 43
Gersick, K. E. (2015). Essay on practice: Advising family
enterprise in the fourth decade. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 39, 1433-1450.
Gino, F. (2008). Do we listen to advice just because we paid
for it? The impact of advice cost on its use. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 234-245.
Gino, F., Brooks, A., & Schweitzer, M. (2012). Anxiety,
advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious moti-
vates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 497-512.
Gino, F., & Moore, D. (2007). Effects of task difficulty on use
of advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(1),
21-35.
Gino, F., Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). The impact of infor-
mation from similar or different advisors on judgment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
108, 287-302.
Goel, S., Voordeckers, W., van Gils, A., & van den Heuvel, J.
(2013). CEO’s empathy and salience of socioemotional
wealth in family SMEs: The moderating role of external
directors. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An
International Journal, 25(3-4), 111-134.
Gordini, N. (2012). The impact of outsiders on small family
firm performance: Evidence from Italy. World Journal of
Management, 4(2), 14-35.
Gurd, B., & Thomas, J. (2012). Family business manage-
ment: Contribution of the CFO. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18, 286-304.
Harvey, N., & Fisher, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting
help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
70, 117-133.
Hiebl, M. R. (2013). Bean counter or strategist? Differences in
the role of the CFO in family and non-family businesses.
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 147-161.
Hiebl, M. R., Duller, C., & Feldbauer-Durstmuller, B. (2012).
Do management accountants play a different role in fam-
ily firms? Empirical evidence on management accoun-
tants’ qualifications and roles in family and non-family
firms. International Journal of Business Research, 12,
94-103.
Holt, D., Pearson, A., Carr, J., & Barnett, T. (2016). Family
firm(s) outcomes model: Structuring financial and non-
financial outcomes across the family and firm. Family
Business Review, 30, 182-202.
James, A. E., Jennings, J. E., & Breitkreuz, R. S. (2012).
Worlds apart? Rebridging the distance between family
science and family business research. Family Business
Review, 25, 87-108.
Kellermanns, F., & Eddleston, K. (2006). Corporate entre-
preneurship in family firms: A family perspective.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 809-830.
Lansberg, I., & Gersick, K. (2015). Educating family busi-
ness owners: The fundamental intervention. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 14, 400-413.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). Perspective—The black box of orga-
nizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1), 1-22.
Lee, J., & Danes, S. (2012). Uniqueness of family therapists
as family business systems consultants: A cross-disciplin-
ary investigation. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy,
10(1), 16-31.
Leung, S., Richardson, G., & Jaggic, B. (2014). Corporate
board and board committee independence, firm perfor-
mance, and family ownership concentration: An analysis
based on Hong Kong firms. Journal of Contemporary
Accounting & Economics, 10(1), 16-31.
Ling, Y., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). The effects of fam-
ily firm specific sources of TMT diversity: The moderat-
ing role of information exchange frequency. Journal of
Management Studies, 47, 322-344.
Lussier, R., & Sonfield, M. (2015). “Micro” versus “small”
family businesses: A multinational analysis. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise, 22, 380-396.
MacGeorge, E., Guntzviller, L., Hanasono, L., & Feng, B.
(2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions
with friends. Communication Research, 43, 211-231.
Maseda, A., Jainaga, T., & Arosa, B. (2014). Impact of out-
siders on firm performance over different generations
of family-owned SMEs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 53, 1203-1218.
McCracken, K. (2015). Best practice myths and trusted advis-
ers. Journal of Family Business Management, 5, 130-139.
Michel, A., & Kammerlander, N. (2015). Trusted advisors
in a family business’s succession-planning process—An
agency perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
6(1), 45-57.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the
long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great
family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Mobbs, D., Hagan, C., Yu, R., Takahashi, H., FeldmanHall,
O., Calder, A., & Dalgleish, T. (2015). Reflected glory
and failure: The role of the medial prefrontal cortex
and ventral striatum in self vs. other relevance during
advice giving outcomes. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 10, 1323-1328.
Naldi, L., Chirico, F., Kellermanns, F., & Campopiano, G.
(2015). All in the family? An exploratory study of family
member advisors and firm performance. Family Business
Review, 28, 227-242.
Olson, D., & Gorall, D. (2003). Circumplex model of marital
and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family pro-
cesses: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed.) (pp.
514-548). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Perry, J., Ring, J., & Broberg, J. (2015). Which type of advi-
sors do family businesses trust most? An exploratory
44 Family Business Review 00(0)
application of socioemotional selectivity theory. Family
Business Review, 28, 211-226.
Rader, C., Soll, J., & Larrick, R. (2015). Pushing away
from representative advice: Advice taking, anchoring,
and adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 130(C), 26-43.
Reay, T., Pearson, A., & Dyer, G. (2013). Advising family
enterprise: Examining the role of family firm advisors.
Family Business Review, 26, 209-214.
Reddrop, A., & Mapunda, G. (2015). Family busi-
nesses: Seekers of advice. Journal of Family Business
Management, 5, 209-214.
Reich, T., & Tormala, Z. (2013). When contradictions fos-
ter persuasion: An attributional perspective. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 426-439.
Rosensteel, C. (2016). Factors involved in successful second-
generation legacy perpetuation in independent insurance
agencies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden
University, Minneapolis, MN.
Sah, S., Loewenstein, G., & Cain, D. (2013). The burden of
disclosure: Increased compliance with distrusted advice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 289-
304.
Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013). Transitional leadership
of advisors as a facilitator of successors’ leadership con-
struction. Family Business Review, 26, 235-255.
Samei, H., & Feyzbakhsh, A. (2016). The effect of mentoring
on successor nurturing in family businesses. Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 25, 211-231.
Scholes, L., & Wilson, N. (2014). The importance of family
firm trusts in family firm governance. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 38, 1285-1293.
Schrah, G., Dalal, R., & Sniezek, J. (2006). No decision maker
is an island: Integrating expert advice with information
acquisition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
19(1), 43-60.
Schultze, T., Rakotoarisoa, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2015).
Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice
on advice utilization. Judgment and Decision Making, 10,
144-171.
Seiders, K., Flynn, A., Berry, L., & Haws, K. (2014).
Motivating customers to adhere to expert advice in pro-
fessional services. Journal of Service Research, 18(1),
39-58.
Shepherd, D. A. (2016). An emotions perspective for advanc-
ing the fields of family business and entrepreneurship
stocks, flows, reactions, and responses. Family Business
Review, 29, 151-158.
Simon, H. A. (1947). A comment on “The Science of Public
Administration.” Public Administration Review, 7, 200-203.
Sitthipongpanicha, T., & Polsirib, P. (2015). Do CEO and
board characteristics matter? A study of Thai family
firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6, 119-129.
Sniezek, J., & Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive con-
flict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 159-174.
Sniezek, J. A., Schrah, G. E., & Dalal, R. S. (2004). Improving
judgement with prepaid expert advice. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 173-190.
Sniezek, J. A., & van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence,
and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 288-307.
Sonfield, M., & Lussier, R. (2012). Gender in family business
management: A multinational analysis. Journal of Family
Business Management, 2, 110-129.
Sorenson, R., & Milbrandt, J. (2015). A family affair—
Teaching families versus individuals: Insights gained
from 24 years of family business education. Academy of
Management & Education, 14, 366-384.
Stockmans, A., Lybaert, N., & Voordeckers, W. (2013). The
conditional nature of board characteristics in constraining
earnings management in private family firms. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 4, 84-92.
Strike, V. (2012). Advising the family firm: Reviewing the
past to build the future. Family Business Review, 25, 156-
177.
Strike, V. (2013). The most trusted advisor and the subtle
advice process in family firms. Family Business Review,
26, 293-313.
Strike, V., & Rerup, C. (2016). Mediated sensemaking.
Academy of Management Journal, 59, 880-905.
Su, E., & Dou, J. (2013). How does knowledge sharing among
advisors from different disciplines affect the quality of the
services provided to the family business client? An inves-
tigation from the family business advisor’s perspective.
Family Business Review, 26, 256-270.
Suess, J. (2014). Family governance: Literature review and the
development of a conceptual model. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 5, 138-155.
Tost, L., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. (2012). Power, competitive-
ness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
117(1), 53-65.
Tucker, J. (2011). Keeping the business in the family and
the family in business: “What is the legacy?” Journal of
Family Business Management, 1(1), 65-73.
Tzioti, S., Wierenga, B., & van Osselaer, S. (2014). The effect
of intuitive advice justification on advice taking. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 66-77.
van Swol, L. (2009). The effects of confidence and advisor
motives on advice utilization. Communication Research,
36, 857-873.
von Krosigk, B. (2015). Exploring dialogic approaches to
family business succession consulting: A workshop illus-
tration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Adler School
of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Strike et al. 45
Waisner, C. (2012). Through the eyes of the family: A collec-
tive case study of family business consulting (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Antioch University, Culver City,
CA.
Webb, T. (2011). Advice taking as an unobtrusive measure of
prejudice. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 953-963.
Welsh, D., Memili, E., Rosplock, K., Roure, J., & Segurado,
J. (2013). Perceptions of entrepreneurship across gene-
rations in family offices: A stewardship theory perspec-
tive. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 213-226.
Woods, J., Dalziel, T., & Barton, S. (2012). Escalation of
commitment in private family businesses: The influence
of outside board members. Journal of Family Business
Strategy, 3(1), 18-27.
Wu, C. (2013). Family ties, board compensation and firm
performance. Journal of Multinational Financial
Management, 23, 255-271.
Yaniv, I. (2004). Receiving other people’s advice: Influence
and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 93, 1-13.
Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision
making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
83, 260-281.
Yaniv, I., & Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using advice from multiple
sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 104-120.
Zattoni, A., Gnan, L., & Huse, M. (2015). Does family
involvement influence firm performance? Exploring the
mediating effects of board processes and tasks. Journal of
Management, 41, 1214-1243.
Author Biographies
Vanessa M. Strike is the CIBC professor in Applied Business
Family Studies and the Academic Director of the Business
Families Centre at the Sauder School of Business, University of
British Columbia. She received her PhD from the Ivey Business
School, Western University. Her research focuses on gover-
nance, sensemaking, and advising in family firms. Her articles
have been published, amongst others, in Academy of Management
Journal, Journal of Management Studies, and Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice (E mail: vanessa.strike@sauder.ubc.ca).
Alexandra Michel, PhD, is postdoc researcher at the University
of Bern, Switzerland. She received her PhD in philosophy of
management at the Center for Family Business, University of
St. Gallen, Switzerland. Her research focusses on advisors in
family firms, family firm succession and private equity in fam-
ily firms (e-mail: alexandra.michel@iop.unibe.ch).
Nadine Kammerlander is professor of family business at
WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar,
Germany, where she also leads the institute of family business.
She received her PhD in management from the Otto Friedrich
University in Bamberg, Germany. Her research interests focus
on innovation, governance, and leadership in family firms and
her articles have been published, amongst others, in Academy
of Management Journal and Academy of Management Review
(e-mail: nadine.kammerlander@whu.edu).
