1

============================

Strategic practices in family businesses:

The case of advisory boards

============================

17 May 2015

Judith van Helvert

PhD student in Business Administration

Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Family Enterprise and Ownership

Windesheim University of Applied Sciences

PO Box 10090

8000GB Zwolle, the Netherlands

T +31 88 469 7189

E jmc.beugels@windesheim.nl

Mattias Nordqvist

Professor in Business Administration and director of CeFEO at JIBS

Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Family Enterprise and Ownership

P.O. Box 1026

SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden

T +46 36 101 853

E mattias.nordqvist@jibs.hj.se

2

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies the advisory board as a strategy practice in privately-held family

businesses. As we have little understanding of the advisory board as an informal governance

mechanism, we suggest to use the strategy as practice perspective to study at a micro level

how the advisory board is used in strategizing. We come up with a framework that explains

the meaning of the advisory board as a strategy practice and show how the strategy as practice

lens can work by presenting and discussing a longitudinal in-depth case study of an

innovative medium sized family firm specialized in glue engineering that has recently started

to work with an advisory board. By applying this micro level perspective we aim to contribute

to practice by identifying the enabling and constraining factors in working with an advisory

board.

1. INTRODUCTION

The advisory board is an informal governance mechanism that we know little about

(Blumentritt, 2006; Strike, 2012). It is used primarily to provide advice to a firm’s top

managers. Because of its informal status it is a ‘safe’ way to involve outsiders in the business:

advisory boards do not have legal standing (the advice is not binding) and advisory board

members are therefore formally not allowed to participate in strategic decision making,

meaning that the decision making power remains in the hands of the owners. Also, the

advisory board can easily be dissolved if it is not working as expected (Lambrecht & Lievens,

2008). As this phenomenon is highly recommended by the practitioner literature (e.g. Jaffe,

Lane, Dashew & Bork, 1997; Pendergast, Ward & Brun de Pontet, 2011), but has received

little attention in the academic literature, it is important to support this often-repeated ‘best

practice’ with empirical assessments rather than face validity (Gersick & Feliu, 2013).We

need to assess its value by developing our understanding of it and see how it is employed. In

this paper, we draw on strategy as practice research to inform our study (Nordqvist & Melin,

2010). The strategy as practice perspective has emerged around an interest in what, at a micro

level, people actually do when strategizing (Johnson, Melin & Whittington, 2003). Nordqvist

and Melin (2010) argue that the strategy as practice perspective can be used to develop rich

and holistic understandings and useful knowledge about routines and work patterns in the

dynamics of strategy work in family businesses. It can address the need for more empirical

research on the details of strategy work in family businesses so that richer and more accurate

theoretical concepts can be generated (Astrachan, 2010; Nordqvist, 2012). The common

characteristics of family businesses, even though acknowledging that family firms are not the

3

same and that local understandings and rules of the game differ between them (Melin &

Nordqvist, 2007), motivate an investigation of the advisory board in the family business

context. Examples of such common characteristics are their longer term horizons and

persistence in strategic direction and choices and separate planning processes of family

planning and business planning that are integrated in an informal way (Nordqvist & Melin,

2010).

This study focuses on the role of the advisory board in strategy work and addresses the

following research question: how can we develop our understanding of the advisory board, as

a team of individual advisors, in family businesses by framing and consequently studying this

informal governance mechanism as a strategy practice? Research on the role of advisors in

family firms is limited (Strike, 2012; Reay, Pearson & Dyer, 2013). Even though the attention

to family firm consulting practices is significant from a practice perspective, a recent

literature review on advising family businesses shows a lack of rigorous academic research

(Strike, 2012). We know little about the efficacy (or harm) of various advisory methods and

approaches (Astrachan & McMillan, 2006). “From a research perspective it is not clear what

family firm advisors really do and how they bring value to the firm” (Reay et al., 2013, p.

209). Strike (2012) found that the available literature is very fragmented and that many of the

studies are not grounded in rigorous research methods but are based on description and

personal experiences. Moreover, she stresses the importance of connecting the various

fragments to understand the evolution of the family firm–advisor relationship, the process of

advising, and its outcomes (Strike, 2012). A special issue of the Family Business Review in

2013 was fully dedicated to the role of advisors in family firms to start addressing the

literature gap. Topics in this special issue include (1) the impact of the advisor’s goal

orientation on generating feedback from clients in order to optimize advising behavior (Davis,

Dibrell, Craig & Green, 2013), (2) the mentoring role and the staged withdrawal of advisors

in successfully developing the leadership skills of the next generation in the succession

process (Salvato & Corbetta, 2013a), (3) the effectiveness of a team approach in advising in

comparison with individual advisors (Su & Dou, 2013), (4) the influence of an ‘embedded’

external accountant on firm performance (Barbera & Hasso, 2013), and (5) the strategies and

tactics of advisors who serve on a longer period (Strike, 2013). Overall themes discussed

across these articles include the relationship between family firm advisors and the clients, the

need to be attentive to the family concerns and needs in the business, the different roles of

advisors, the influence on firm performance and family dynamics (Reay et al., 2013).

4

Moreover, Naldi, Chirico, Kellermanns, and Campopiano (2015) discuss a specific category

of advisory, namely family member advisors. They find that advisors coming from the family

have a positive relationship with performance in first-generation firms, and that this

relationship changes to an inverted U-shape in later-generation family firms. And Strike and

Rerup (2015) discuss the mediated sensemaking approach of advisors, an approach that

facilitates adaptive sensemaking by slowing down action of the directors and facilitating

doubt.

One of the fragments that needs the attention of researchers is a specific form of advice,

namely advisors working in a team (Strike, 2012; Reay et al., 2013). This is an important

research area as seeking feedback from a team of advisors, on individual performance (by the

owner manager) or expertise on specific issues relevant to the business and the family, and

incorporating this in strategic decision making, can lead to better informed decisions. This

paper uses the practice lens to build our understanding of advisory boards and presents a

framework for thinking about advisory boards as a strategy practice in family businesses. We

address the micro-level influences (among which social interaction and local organizational

contexts (Langley, 1989)) on how this practice is used by family businesses and how it

develops over time. The study’s interest in and emphasis on the role of the family members,

family owners, and other actors in strategy work in family businesses (who they are, where

they meet and how they interact) aligns with the strategy as practice perspective’s ambition to

‘humanize’ the field of strategy research (Johnson, Langley, Melin & Whittington, 2007;

Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski, 2008). The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to build

on existing family business strategy theory by studying the advisory board as a strategy

practice in family businesses, thereby developing our understanding of advisory boards and

how they are employed in a family business context; and second, to contribute to the strategy

as practice literature by responding to the call for research into the way that practices are

implicated in situated strategizing activities (Jarzabkowski & Seidl, 2008) and to different

levels including the individual, the team, the organization and extra-organizational levels

(Seidl & Whittington, 2014). Empirically, we draw from case research into an advisory board

in a family business attending to various micro-level dimensions (interactions, roles, behavior,

emotions, activities, and routines). The case research focuses on an innovative medium sized

family firm specialized in glue engineering that finds itself in the early stages of management

succession. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of viewing the advisory

5

board as a strategy practice in family businesses and its relevance to the family business

strategy literature.

2. THEORY: THE STRATEGY AS PRACTICE LENSE

2.1 Promises of the strategy as practice perspective

The strategy as practice perspective aims to bypass the theoretical dichotomies in strategy

research (content versus process, deliberate versus non-deliberate, planned versus emergent,

profit-maximizing goals versus other objectives), and to understand human agency in the

construction and enactment of strategy in relation to the context (Johnson et al., 2007;

Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl & Vaara, 2010). The strategy practice lens offers a complementary

perspective to strategy process research and the more traditional strategic management

approaches that largely deduced or assumed human action from findings on macro levels of

economic and sociological inquiry: “Strategies are theorized as somehow disembodied”

(Johnson et al., 2007, p. 7). Even though strategy process research has started to open up the

black box of the firm and humanize the field of strategic management by attending to agency,

dynamics and time (Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington, 2006), critics contend that the main

unit of analysis of this research stream continues to be the whole organization and their

systems and processes, instead of the micro-level particulars of managerial activity and

practices inside these processes (Johnson et al., 2007; Balogun, Huff & Johnson, 2003;

Whittington, 1996). Because of the theoretically grounded understanding of the “recursive

interaction among people, activities, artefacts and contexts”, the practice perspective is

particularly well positioned to address organizational phenomena with relational, dynamic

and emergent characteristics (Orlikowski, 2010, p.26). It therefore has the potential to fit

strategy, which has been argued to have such relational (Cohen & Prusak, 2001), dynamic

(Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) and emergent (Mintzberg, 1994) characteristics, particularly

well.

2.2 Dimensions in defining strategy practice

To understand the advisory board as a strategy practice, we aim to provide boundaries on

what we understand a strategy or strategic practice to be, thereby focusing both on the

theoretical and empirical approach within practice theory (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011).

Reviewing the current literature on strategy practice, it is clear that the variety of views on

what a strategy practice is and the theoretical perspectives by which it can be studied, is very

6

large. A large number of studies does not define what exactly is meant by strategy practice or

how it is measured. Another observation derived from the literature is that on the one hand

practices are discussed as the situated ways of doing strategy on the micro level (the routines

involved, and the social, symbolic and material tools) through which strategy work is

accomplished (e.g. Hendry, Kiel & Nicholson, 2010; Reckwitz, 2002), and on the other hand

to be common across organizations (including institutional procedures, norms,

communication habits, systems, techniques and strategy tools, and strategy episodes) (e.g.

Whittington, 2006, Nordqvist & Melin, 2010; Jarzabkowski, Balogun & Seidl, 2007).

Furthermore, many studies still tend to argue for either/or approaches in demarcating what

practice means depending on the topic of interest. An important distinction that is made is

deliberate and purposeful strategizing versus emergent and non-deliberate strategizing

through everyday practical coping where strategic intent is immanent in action (Chia & Holt,

2006). Moreover, practice studies often focus either on discursive practices (e.g. Samra-

Fredericks, 2003, 2004, 2005; Vaara, Kleymann & Seristö, 2004; Vaara, Sorsa & Pälli, 2010)

or non-discursive practices (e.g. Browne, Sharkey-Scott, Mangematin, Lawlor & Cuddihy,

2014; Cabantous, Gond & Johnson-Cramer, 2010; Eppler & Platts, 2009). The level on which

practice is studied also differs a lot across studies. Some look at practice as a single-level

concept, focusing on activities (negotiating, coordinating), tools (strategic planning tools), or

routines (Becker, 2008). Others look at it as an inter-relational concept, something that is

done or used in relation to others or as something that it dependent hierarchically on larger

macro structures or systems. Or it is viewed as a multi-level concept at once, involving the

micro level strategizing praxis, the firm and the context (including the network of the actors,

the market, and the society at large). Seidl and Whittington (2014) have labeled these

different ontological views as micro-isolationism (single-level), flat ontology (reaching out

horizontally) and tall ontology (reaching out vertically).

Two studies specify clearly what strategy practices are and how they should be studied. One

was found in early strategy as practice work of Jarzabkowski (2003), who even distinguishes

between strategy practice and strategy practices. She views practices as the infrastructure

through which micro strategy and strategizing occurs (habits, artefacts, modes of acting),

generating an ongoing stream of strategic activity that is practice. The second study identified

was Whittington (2006), who suggests a framework based on the three core concepts of

practice theory, strategy praxis, strategy practice and strategy practitioners, to integrate the

intra- and extra-organizational levels in strategy research and stress the interrelatedness of

7

strategy practices to activity and actors. To define practices, he follows Reckwitz (2002) by

saying that practices guide strategy activity and include shared routines of behavior,

traditions, norms and procedures for thinking, acting, and using things. He adds that practices

include both the tacit and informal, and the explicit and formal and argues that practices are

multilevel. Jarzabkowski’s (2003) interpretation of practice, explaining it as the strategic

activity, is similar to what Whittington (2006) calls praxis.

Instead of focusing on specific characteristics or levels of practice in studying strategy,

Whittington (2006, 2007) strongly argues for an inclusive view on strategy practices. Building

our understanding of strategy practices in family businesses by applying a practice lens

requires such an inclusive view as it is the specific context with multiple influences of the

family on the business that affects strategy making. These influences can be captured by two

arguments derived from empirical findings (Nordqvist & Melin, 2010). First, family

businesses have characteristics that make them ‘special cases of strategic management’

(Sandberg, 1992; Nordqvist, 2012; Fletcher, 2002). For instance, the business and the family

evolve simultaneously over time (Gersick, Davis, McCollom-Hampton & Lansberg, 1997),

implying that both the future of the business and the future involvement of the family in the

business need to be planned for in parallel (Carlock & Ward, 2001). Second, family values,

priorities and interests are likely to have an impact on the strategy work of most family

businesses (Sorenson, 2013; Hall, Melin & Nordqvist, 2006; Koiranen, 2002) via the social

interaction between family and non-family members. To capture these family influences on

the business strategy and the use of strategy practices fully, we should be careful not to

exclude any details and particularities in advance that we do not know about. Whittington’s

(2006) inclusive view on practice, including both context-specifics and institutional aspects,

its relation to action, thinking and talking, and both building and dwelling aspects of

strategizing, is therefore highly relevant to develop our understanding of strategy practices in

family businesses. The next section discusses in detail what an advisory board is and how it

can be viewed as a strategy practice.

3. ADVISORY BOARDS AS A STRATEGY PRACTICE IN FAMILY BUSINESSES

3.1 What is an advisory board?

Advisory boards consist of a particular group of people (mostly outsiders, but it can also

include family member advisors (Naldi et al., 2015)) of which the composition ideally is

8

informed by its tasks and the required expertise and network of its members (Blumentritt,

2006; Strike, 2012). Advisory boards are an accessible governance instrument and an

alternative to formal supervisory boards for owner-managers of family businesses who want a

sounding board that critically evaluates proposals and plans and brings in critical resources

such as expertise, skills and a network, but at the same time want to remain in charge of

strategic decision making themselves (Lambrecht & Lievens, 2008). Strike (2012) identifies

advisory boards as a specific advisory type, arguing that via an advisory board family firms

can gain the benefits of multiple advisors with diverse expertise. Generally, the advisory

board is put together to explore strategic issues, dilemmas and problems, and to provide input

and recommendations on these issues for the directors of the business (Strike, 2012).

Advisory boards thereby function as a sounding board to the owner-manager(s), the

management board, and possibly other stakeholders such as the family members (Su & Dou,

2013). But as the role of outside advisors need to be further clarified (Gersick & Feliu, 2013),

advisory boards might just as well perform other board tasks such as control and providing

legitimacy. Or, in the specific situation of the family business, provide a position for the

incumbent or for other family members to somehow frame their influence. Formally, advisory

boards are not involved in the actual decision making. Also, advisory boards are not

authorized to appoint and dismiss the CEO (Lambrecht & Lievens, 2008). But even though

the advisory board is officially not involved in the decision making, it supports the

preparation phase in which short term and long term strategic plans and activities are

discussed. The engagement of the advisory board members in strategy is therefore expected to

be high.

3.2 Why would family businesses want to work with an advisory board?

Previous research on advisors, including advisory boards, has revealed that they can be

important resources for the family business (Strike, 2013). They provide counsel regarding

strategy, planning, firm performance, compensation, family conflicts and succession (Strike,

2012). When the advisory board is viewed as a resource which is assigned the task to combine

and optimize the capabilities that a family business is able to develop and the efforts that

actors make in support of those activities, it can potentially support organizational

performance (Gedajlovic, Carney, Chrisman, & Kellermanns, 2012). Operating within the

interface of family, business, and ownership dynamics, family firms face a unique set of

dilemmas (Reay et al., 2013). The specific issues that family businesses face and advisory

boards need to address are therefore different from non-family businesses, including for

9

example succession of leadership and/or ownership and conflict resolution because of

intersecting personal and business issues. These issues often cross the boundaries of the three

systems present in the family business – that is, family, business, and ownership (Tagiuri &

Davis, 1982). Following Strike (2012), this implies that family business advisors need to

acknowledge and work with the emotions of the family members, that they need to balance

personal and business interests as family members are either voluntary or involuntary

involved, that they must be wary to assess on the basis of norms of loyalty and reciprocity,

that the relationship between the advisor and the family business members is more personal

and based on trust and that advice should not be solely profit oriented but oriented to protect,

nurture and develop the members, and that because of a general resistance to change, family

business advisors should balance immediate change needs and the long term needs. So, it is

important that competent advisors are selected for the job as they themselves need to navigate

through the overlapping systems that potentially result in conflicts and increased cognitive

challenges. Moreover, they need to be sensitive to the ‘family business culture’, including

both the rational and emotional influences (Strike, 2013).

Especially when brought together in multidisciplinary teams, advisors can help to understand

the issues that result from the overlap of family and business (Swartz, 1989) and respond to

holistic needs that derive from the overlap of the family, business and ownership systems in

family businesses (Thomas, 2002; Sharma, Melin, & Nordqvist, 2013; Su & Dou, 2013).

Based on qualitative data from interviews with advisors, Su and Dou (2013) argue that the

quality of services provided by advisors to family businesses through a teamwork approach is

indeed far more effective to services provided by independent professionals. By sharing their

knowledge via teamwork, advisors can improve the quality of their service because it

improves the accuracy of issue identification, a more systematic analysis of the issue is

achieved, it leads to an integrated total solution and increases the credibility of the provided

solution (Su & Dou, 2013). Advisory boards can also be used as a transitional stage towards a

formal board, to help overcome family fears about losing control (Lambrecht and Lievens,

2008; Gersick & Feliu, 2013). Whereas this idea about the use of the advisory board as a

transition towards formality makes sense and can be a promising governance route for family

businesses to take when they grow or professionalize, it is not backed up by any empirical

assessments. Blumentritt (2006) has examined the relationship between the existence of

advisory boards and the use of strategic planning and succession planning in family

businesses. He found that family businesses with advisory boards are much more likely to

10

engage in formal strategy processes and in identifying successors than are family businesses

that do not have an advisory board. He did not find similar effects for a formal board of

directors.

3.3 An integrative framework on advisory boards as a strategy practice

Going back to the dimensions of strategy practice as identified in section 2.2, in the specific

situation of an advisory board, the practice can be specified as an arena in which practitioners

come together during advisory board meetings (the flows of activity; praxis) and draw on and

work with (a set of) other practices (such as strategic planning, formal strategy analyses etc.)

in strategizing. We have tried to visualize this in Figure 1, building on the framework

developed by Whittington (2006). The figure shows that the advisory board as a strategy

practice is a multilevel concept, including micro-level activities, interactions and dynamics,

both at the team and individual level.

Figure 1: Praxis, practices and practitioners integrated in the advisory board arena

(based on Whittington, 2006)

As Strike (2012) notes, advice giving, seeking, and taking (or leaving) are related and

reciprocal activities, whereas the literature has only viewed the advising process from the

stance of the advisor. In order to understand what leads to effective advising, it is important

11

that the triggers and enablers that lead to advice-seeking and advice-taking/advice-leaving

behavior are identified (Strike, 2012). Next to these influences on the individual and team

level, the arena as a strategy practice operates in relation to its organizational context in terms

of output and the extra-organizational field, drawing from extra-organizational practices and

practitioners. This multiple level (tall) ontology (Seidl and Whittington, 2014) of the strategy

as practice perspective can support in distinguishing between influences on the family firm

level and forces at the institutional level on how the practice is performed. The strategy as

practice perspective thereby offers the potential to reveal important links between micro and

macro level aspects of strategy work (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009; Whittington, 2006).

Moreover, in line with Langley’s (1989) findings that formal analytical practices are

inextricably linked to social interaction and local organizational contexts, Figure 1 shows the

embeddedness of the advisory board practice in the organizational context (the horizontal

relatedness of the practice) implying that it operates in relation to other, both formal and

informal, strategic arenas.

The figure builds on the framework provided by Whittington (2006), who distinguishes three

interrelated core themes as part of a whole: the practices of both organizations and their wider

social fields (practices), people’s actual activity in practice (praxis) and the actors on whose

skills and initiative activity depends (practitioners) (Whittington, 2006). The practices are

indicated by the numbers (in this example 1 to 4), the praxis are represented by the meetings

(I to V), and the practitioners are indicated by the consonants (A to F). Practice number 1 is

the advisory board. For various reasons, the owner manager(s) and their families can decide to

start working with an advisory board. They draw on some institutionalized interpretation of

what this governance mechanism means and they bring it to the firm. The practitioners in the

figure above include both representatives from the family business, typically the owner

manager(s) and other top managers or influential family members (for example the former

generation), and outsiders. In the first meeting, the outsiders (C, D and E) sit together with the

insiders (A and B). In the third meeting, an extra outsider joins the meeting and leaves again

after having provided his or her input. This can for example be the accountant who is asked

by the advisory board members to present the financial figures of the last year. While

strategizing in the context of the advisory board, the practitioners draw upon a set of practices

available from their organizational and extra-organizational contexts. Whittington (2006)

explains that these practices are likely to comprise both locally generated routines and

practices from outside that become internalized.

12

The output flowing from the meetings is expected to flow back into the organization in

multiple ways: by the decisions that are taken after consulting the advisory board members,

by new contacts that are initiated by the advisory board members, or new expertise that is

used in other arenas. The interrelatedness of the advisory board to its organizational context

indicates that the practice of the advisory board is broader than the arena. However, the arena

is an important aspect of the practice, as the input of the advisors is mainly discussed within

the arena of the strategy board meeting. Moreover, the practice is not static, but it evolves and

develops over time, as indicated by the arrow at the bottom of the figure. Many things in and

around the arena can change: the practices used, the practices themselves, the practitioners

involved, the interaction between them, the topics discussed, but also the location or the

duration of the meeting itself. Part of these changes and developments will result from

rational considerations. However, it is also likely that changes result from less deliberate and

explicit ways of strategizing. So even though the framework does not explicitly refer to forms

of strategizing, the way of strategizing in the advisory board arena and the development of the

advisory board as a strategy practice is expected to include both explicit and implicit aspects

of strategizing and both formal and informal aspects of strategizing.

By presenting a case study of a family business that has recently started working with an

advisory board we aim to reinforce our conceptualization of the advisory board as a strategy

practice and illustrate how the framework can be used to develop plausible explanations of

how family business owner-managers seek and work with advise in their strategy work.

4. THE CASE OF LEAN & SONS1

4.1 Method

The empirical study is based on in-depth case research into a family business that has recently

started to work with an advisory board, which was selected to secure complete access to the

phenomenon under study. As the case study method is used as an illustration to show how the

advisory board can be seen as a strategy practice, including the practitioners, the interactions

between them, the practices used during the meetings, and the influences from the

organizational and institutional level, there is no need for a comparison of multiple cases. The

case involves a family business where the family involvement in the advisory board is high,

1 The name as well as other details of the family business have been changed to preserve anonymity.

13

deliberately exaggerating the specifics of the contextual influences. Empirical material was

gathered from several primary and secondary sources. The first author conducted an interview

with the owner-manager of one and a half hour, an interview with the family of two hours,

observation and attendance of five job interviews with potential candidates for the advisory

board, observation and attendance of two advisory board meetings in the research site, casual

conversations, site visits, and in between telephone and email contact. The interviews were

audiotaped and detailed notes were taken from all observed meetings. Also company reports,

strategic plans, newspaper articles and the web were used. The empirical material was

gathered over the course of 18 months.

4.2 Case illustration

Lean & Sons is an innovative medium sized family firm specialized in glue engineering. It

uses gluing and surface-treatment technologies to ensure durable bonds for any combination

of materials. Lean & Sons has four innovations underlying its activities, including plasma

treatment, linerless labels, biodegradable plugs and label tape. The firm was founded in a

small village, called Meerssen, 1996 by Leo and his wife Anne. The first two letters of their

forenames can be found in the company name. Leo, who had always been involved in the

world of adhesives, was ready for a new challenge. He felt that he did not get the opportunity

to develop his ideas and that there was little room for his creativity in the job that he had at

the time, and therefore decided to start his own company. He started a small-scale production

in a barn at his family home developing gluing technologies. Leo soon developed his first

products and attracted clients. He applied a hot melt to carpet tiles, followed by a cover sheet,

using a machine developed by himself. The result was a self-adhesive carpet tile. His clientele

soon developed and the farmyard could no longer accommodate the trucks, prompting him to

move the company to Maastricht. This is a central and easily accessible location in Limburg.

Together with his first employees, Leo built up a standard range of gluing equipment, and in

five years’ time he started developing and producing his own machines. Today the company

is organized in three different units: special products, engineering, and R&D. Two of their

three children now work in the company, his son Jim (27 years old) and youngest daughter

Sophie (24). Jim has the ambition to take over the leadership of the firm when he is older, but

wants to become more knowledgeable and experienced first. However, Leo wishes to step

down soon because he wants to spend more time with his family and especially with his first

grandchild (the child of his eldest daughter Jane (31)). Moreover, he wants to spend more

time on doing what he really likes, namely developing new products.

14

“A few years ago, when I thought about taking the firm one step further, I wanted to have this

extra building, exclusively focusing on R&D activities. We want to be active in the first

phases of developing new products, that is what I really like”…. “I just turned 61, I still want

to work for a number of years, but not as the director of the firm. Discussing this with Jim, we

concluded that it would be good to look for an director of operations who manages the firm

for the next few years, I do not like managing, instead of selling the firm. Jim is still too

young to do it” (Leo, December 2013)

Leo felt that an advisory board can support in coaching his children in the business, can

support him in taking the company to the next step in terms of growth, and can help searching

for a competent external director who can fill up the years before Jim is ready to take over.

That is why he organized a family meeting at home to discuss the possibility of setting up an

advisory board. Although Leo strongly felt that an advisory board would be helpful in

addressing his needs, he wanted to make sure that the other family members agreed on this.

“I would like continuity and growth of the firm, and the family members should be and

remain to be the owners, that is what I would really like” (Leo, December 2013)

Whereas Jim was a bit skeptic at first on what the added value of the advisory board could be,

in the weeks following this meeting the family members agreed that they would proceed with

the idea of setting up an advisory board consisting of three outsiders. They started discussing

which expertise was required from the advisory board members and they developed a

document describing the purpose of the advisory board, its roles and tasks, and a profile of the

external members that they were looking for. They aimed for a person with a financial

background and financial expertise, a person with a technical background focusing on product

innovation, and an experienced entrepreneur. Moreover, the family members were very clear

in their wish that there should be at least one female advisory board member. This document

was then circulated via a network of practitioners active in advisory boards and boards of

supervisors, but also social media such as LinkedIn were used. Over the summer, job

interviews were held with a selection of 6 candidates and these interviews were attended by

Leo, Jim and Sophie. The outcomes of the meetings were discussed together with Anne and

Jane and they collectively selected the three members for their advisory board, of whom the

female candidate was appointed as the chairwoman. After the selection was made, the persons

15

were invited for an informal meeting to get to know each other and also to meet Anne and

Jane. Eight months after the family meeting, the first advisory board meeting was held.

The first advisory board meeting was attended by the three outsiders and all members of the

family. Prior to the meeting a number of documents were distributed by email, including the

agenda for the meeting, a suggestion for the advisory board regulation, the annual accounts of

2011 to 2013, the core values of the business, and a personnel ‘handbook’ which is a

document explaining the background of the organization, the regulations and rules, and the

reward systems. Moreover, the external advisory board members explicitly requested to

discuss a number of issues, including the ambition and vision of the firm, its commercial

activities (they indicated via email that they sensed that Leo and his family have important

questions in relation to commerce), and the role of Leo in the near future. Following this

email from the advisory board members, Sophie sent an early draft of a commercial draft

developed by one of the key employees in sales, Mark. The regulations of the advisory board

and the commercial plan were the two issues that were discussed in detail during the first

meeting. While discussing the regulations, the practitioners all agreed on issues like the

position (rights and duties) of the directors (with the prospect of having an external director in

the future), on attendance of specific actors like the accountant, term of membership and

evaluation, the right of owners to attend the advisory board meetings, the frequency of

meetings and the intention to act and behave transparently. The second issue was discussed

during the second half of the meeting. It turned out that up until now there had not been any

real need to worry about commerce and that a commercial plan did not exist. The plan

developed by Mark focused on the internal organization, not mentioning the word customer

once. The business had been very successful in introducing new innovative products and

customers had found their way to Lean & Sons.

However, the potential of selling the products to new customers seemed enormous to the

advisory board members. Leo indicated that he did not have the skills and abilities himself to

put the products in the market and that he expected the new external director to take this on.

The external advisory board members challenged both Leo and Jim, who is responsible for

one of the specific products, in several ways: (1) much money is invested in innovation and

R&D, why not in attracting good commercial people, (2) there is not much knowledge about

the external market and on what the customers want, (3) commerce is a profession (Leo

suggested that the controller perhaps could write a good commercial plan, but changed his

16

mind during the meeting agreeing with the advisory board members), (4) high dependence on

one huge customer, (5) the core characteristics of the products and their market position

should be thought through strategically (sustainable, high quality etc.), and (6) criteria should

be developed to analyze whether a new project is worthwhile to invest in.

The second meeting was held three and a half months later. In the meantime, the management

team had held a strategy-away-day where they discussed the feedback received by the

advisory board members on their commercial activities. So, for the second meeting,

commerce was back on the agenda to discuss the progress made. Other items on the agenda

included strategic plans for both Lean Engineering and Lean R&D and (again) the core values

of the business. The meeting started however with a discussion on current issues in the firm.

Leo informed the advisory board members that Mark had become ill and would not be able to

return to work any time soon. As Mark’s position is closely related to commercial activities

the discussion then quickly moved to new sales vacancies for account managers. Leo and

Jane, responsible for HRM activities, had decided that they needed an account manager for

international business and an account manager focusing on the Netherlands. They had found

some persons interested, but those guys demanded high salaries. A number of issues

discussed during the first meeting were addressed again: the importance of investing in high

quality personnel and the wish to become less dependent on one big customer. Additional

aspects that were discussed included (1) the mismatch between the ambition in the strategic

plans and the competencies of current personnel, (2) the extent to which ambition is supported

by the family members, and (3) Mark’s position. Mark, who supervises the sales department,

has an internal focus, neglecting the developments externally (also reflected by his

‘commercial’ plan). At the same time, Mark was skeptical about what the new account

managers should and could bring to the firm and the salary that this person were supposed to

receive (which would be higher than Mark’s). Jim, showing loyalty to Mark, asked why the

advisory board members had the impression that Mark did not do a good job. According to

Jim, Mark performed well, especially in comparison to other colleagues. One of the advisory

board members then explained that a single internal focus would be harmful for the

commercial activities to be developed and that the comparison to the colleagues could just as

well imply that their performance might be questionable too. Following the discussion on

commercial activities, Leo brought in a question about starting to sell machines abroad. The

advisory board members fed him with a discussion on the risks involved and suggestion on

how to further work out this proposition. The next topic discussed were the core values,

17

meant especially to inform the new external director about the family business culture. Leo

then continued by informing the advisory board members that first introductory meetings had

been held with potential candidates for his successor, the position of director. The role of the

advisory board in selecting the director was discussed consequently. The actors agreed that

the advisory board can support in the selection, but that Leo and his family should indicate

beforehand on which issues they had doubts and that the eventual decision should be taken by

the owners themselves. The advisory board members indicated that they understood the

candidates’ request to share in ownership, but they strongly advised not to go along with this

and search for alternatives, for example by profit sharing. The meeting was closed by the

chairperson who asked if someone wanted to bring in any other points for discussion. Jane,

Leo’s eldest daughter, then indicated that there were family tensions related to her future

marriage and differences of opinion on the marital conditions that would be agreed upon. She

was very emotional in addressing this and asked for the advice of the outside members. The

advisory board members reacted by stressing the importance of being well informed on these

issues (as they can be very complicated and therefore difficult to oversee the consequences of

different options) and on being able to express and hear each other’s ideas on this. The

chairperson concluded by saying that she would plan talks with all of the children

individually.

In the next section, we intend to analyze the case described above by applying the framework

explaining the meaning of the advisory board as a strategy practice (Figure 1).

5. DISCUSSION

As both Figure 1 and the case itself show and describe the developments over time in starting

to work with an advisory board, our discussion of the case retraces these developments. When

Leo and his family decided to start working with an advisory board, they enacted upon

information received during a seminar at a university. Leo and Jim learned about the

phenomenon of the advisory board, thought about it and discussed its potential added value

for the family business with the other family members and the management team of the

business. They thereby brought an extra-organizational strategy practice (Whittington, 2006)

to the business (the light blue area in the framework). The involvement of the family at this

stage was high, as Leo’s eldest daughter and wife were also involved in the decision making

process. Before the advisory board started to operate, the practice was adjusted to the needs of

18

the specific situation. First, the purposes and tasks of the advisory board were specified: the

advisory board members should (a) help in finding a new director of operations who is

supposed to fill the leadership gap between now and five to ten years time when the next

generation is expected to succeed their father in leading the business, and (b) should help

grow the business to the next phase by developing commerce. Second, the family needed to

decide which expertise was needed of the advisory board members. They agreed to look out

for three outside and independent advisory board members, of whom at least one woman,

with specific areas of expertise, while all five members of the family would attend the

meetings. Third, they decided on how they wanted the advisory board to operate: 4 to 5

meetings a year, they wanted one of the outsiders to be chairman too, they developed a

contract with the rules and regulations agreed upon, planned to work with an agenda, and

thought about organizing a meeting after the members were selected to see if the persons

would get along well.

After this ‘preparation’ phase, the practice started to operate (it entered the light green area in

the framework). The practice took time to develop and is still in development now (only

meeting I and II have taken place so far); over time the practitioners get to know each other,

relationships are built up and develop, and practitioners (especially the outside members) get

more informed about the firm, the family members involved and the issues the firm faces. In

the case, both business and family issues were discussed in both meetings. Whereas the first

meeting was more informative on the topic of commerce, the discussion on the topic during

second meeting already had more depth and let to real input for decisions to be made by Leo

and his family. Also the interpersonal dynamics and emotions develop over time, and the way

how the owner manager and the family members ask for feedback, perceive and deal with it.

Jim showed a defensive attitude when the performance of one of his close colleagues was

discussed and Jane apparently felt comfortable enough to bring in a quite sensitive issue

already during the second meeting. She was not afraid to show her emotions and deliberately

asked the independent outsiders on a difference of opinion between her and the other family

members, indicating a high level of trust. Concerning the extra-organizational practitioners

(the outsiders in the advisory board), they brought extra-organizational practices to the

business, such as the commercial plan and a checklist of what should be in it.

Not only the practice of the advisory board itself is formed over time (including the practices

of the individuals involved, changes in the composition of the advisory board, and changes in

19

individuals who attend the meetings), but episodes of strategic praxis on the firm level might

develop and adjust over time too (Whittington, 2006). Moreover, the advisory board

influences and is influenced by the context in which it operates. It will collaborate with the

directors, members of the management team and family members. In the case for example, the

solicitor was contacted by the chairwomen after the second meeting to address the issue raised

by Jane. Also, the accountant will attend part of the next meeting. Members of the advisory

board will at least work with each other inside the arena of the advisory board, and possibly

also outside of it. For example in the case, the three outside advisory board members contact

each other to discuss the issues suggested by the family for the agenda of the meeting. They

send in their reaction via email prior to the meeting. The outcomes of the advisory board

discussions will transcend to other arenas in the family business such as the shareholders’

meeting, family meetings and business meetings. The feedback on the commercial activities

received during the first meeting appeared to be important input for the strategy-away day.

Since an important function of the advisory board and therefore the job of its members is to

perform an advisory role and provide feedback, tensions can evolve. Although family

business that start working with an advisory board show active feedback seeking behavior, it

can be difficult to receive critical feedback. It might take time for them to become accustomed

to working with the advisory board and then perhaps later see and understand that it might

help improving things. Advisory board members often have an ongoing trusted advising

capacity, in the sense that they are not brought in for a specific task or project where the

beginning and end is defined (Strike, 2013), but with the intention to build up a long-term

relationship. Strike (2013) notes that the advice process of such long-term trusted advisors has

been understudied in the family business field, but that studies from other disciplines suggest

that advisors are important to the attention structure of social systems because they can

channel organizational members’ attention and influence the flow of information within

organizations (e.g. Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Arendt, Priem, & Ndofor, 2005).

6. IMPLICATIONS & CONTRIBUTIONS

Studying advisory boards as a strategy practice in family businesses aims to understand the

process of advising when performed as a team: seeking advice, giving advice, taking and

leaving advice. Two examples from the case description illustrate this. Firstly, during the first

meeting, all three of the outside advisory board members asked critical questions in relation to

the commercial plan. They agreed on the lack of external awareness of the writer of the plan.

20

Jim showed difficulty in receiving this ‘negative’ feedback on the performance of one of his

close colleagues, also during the second meeting. However, since the experts came up with

strong arguments and agreed with one another in order to achieve the goal of improving

commerce (an instrumental motive), it might be easier to convince Jim in in the future in

comparison with a single advisor being critical (Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle, 2003).

Studying the practice of the advisory board on a micro level over time can help in building on

existing family business strategy theory by identifying why and how family members open up

to outsiders and use their questioned and unquestioned feedback in strategizing. Over time the

outside members will have to show their credibility in discussing different issues. The second

example of the advising process can be found in the fact that Jane addressed a sensitive family

issue at the end of the second meeting. It is striking that Jane already trusted the outside

members enough to discuss the issue after meeting only twice. We question whether trust

needs a process to develop and to be sustained (Sundaramurthy, 2008) or whether in specific

situations there can be instant trust. In relation to the team approach in advising in this

situation was that the advisory board members brought in different knowledge, information

and experiences which were complementary and helped all family members in feeling that

their interests were governed (Thomas, 2002; Su & Dou, 2013).

Next to providing insight in the process of advising via a team approach in the family

business context via the practice lens, another theoretical contribution of this study is that it

addresses and identifies the specific contextual influences of the family business on the

advisory board as a strategic arena. This specific situation of a business in which the family

involvement is high accentuates the contextual family factors that enable and / or constrain

how the advisory board operates and functions (for example by the issues discussed), and how

its output resulting from the meetings flows back into the organizational and familial context.

Moreover, the study gives meaning to strategy as practice perspective by providing a

framework that explains the advisory board as a strategy practice in the family business,

including multiple levels of analysis (individuals, team, organization and extra-organization).

This study seeks to bridge the current gap between theory and practice, by using the practice

perspective as a lens to develop our understanding of the advisory board, as a team of

individual advisors, in family businesses. “Growing evidence suggests that organizational and

management research produces knowledge that is distant from management practice, rather

than knowledge that helps advance that practice” (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011, p.338). Our

21

understanding of the advisory board can be further developed by gaining access to and using

process-oriented data (Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Daily, Dalton, & Cannella Jr., 2003). A

methodological contribution of this study therefore lies in its longitudinal, processual

approach.

Our research has important implications for practice. As suggested by Gersick and Feliu

(2013), it is important to empirically assess the recommendations done by consultants and

advisors. By developing our understanding of the advisory board as an informal governance

mechanism in family business and identify its output in different contexts, we can assess

whether the advisory board can be an interesting alternative or complement to a board of

directors or a board of supervisors. Furthermore, identifying the enabling and constraining

factors for owner-managers and their families in working with an advisory board can inform

owner-managers who want to start working with an advisory board how to maximize the

potential value of the advisory board and family businesses that already have an advisory

board can thereby evaluate their boards and improve their performance.

We therefore recommend future studies to use the framework and to apply it to different

situations of family businesses that work with an advisory board. By performing multiple case

studies, comparing the functioning of the advisory board as a strategy practice in different

contexts, with different levels of commitment of family members, facing different strategic

challenges, future research might identify the general underlying mechanisms that influence

the functioning of the advisory board as a practice in strategy.

REFERENCES

Arendt, L. A., Priem, R. L., & Ndofor, H. A. (2005). A CEO-adviser model of strategic

decision making. Journal of Management, 31(5), pp. 680-699.

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., &VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review

of research on feedbackseeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,

29(6), pp. 773-799.

Astrachan, J. H. (2010). Strategy in family business: Toward a multidimensional research

agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), pp. 6-14.

Astrachan, J. H., & McMillan, K. S. (2006). United States. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook

of family business & family business consultation: A global perspective (pp. 347-363).

Binghamton: NY: International Business Press.

Balogun, J., Huff, A. S., & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological

challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 197-

224.

22

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From Intended Strategies to Unintended Outcomes: The

Impact of Change Recipient Sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), pp. 1573-

1601.

Barbera, F., & Hasso, T. (2013). Do we need to use an accountant? The sales growth and

survival benefits to family SMEs. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 271-292.

Becker, M. C. (2008). The past, present and future of organizational routines: introduction to

the Handbook of Organizational Routines. In M. C. Becker (Ed.). Handbook of

organizational routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Berent-Braun, M. M., Bus, C. A. C. J., Van Dijk, C. C., Van Druten, E. W. J. A., Flören, R.

H., Van den Hurk, Y., . . . Webbink, R. (2013). Goed ondernemingsbestuur bij

familiebedrijven: Baker Tilly Berk NV/Nyenrode Business Universiteit.

Blumentritt, T. (2006). The relationship between boards and planning in family businesses.

Family Business Review, 19(1), pp. 65-72.

Bottomley V., Bingham K., Thorning-Lund S., & Slattery R. (2014). The Role of Advisory

Boards - Who, what, why and how? London: Odgers Berndtson.

Bourque, N., & Johnson, G. (2008). Strategy workshops and 'away days' as ritual. In G. P.

Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational

Decision Making (pp. 552-564). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, A. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2013). A narrative approach to strategy-as-practice.

Business History, 55(7), pp. 1143-1167.

Browne, S., Sharkey-Scott, P., Mangematin, V., Lawlor, K., & Cuddihy, L. (2014). Adapting

a book to make a film: how strategy is adapted through professional practices of

marketing middle managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10), pp. 949-

973.

Butler, R. (1997). Stories and Experiments in Social Inquiry. Organization Studies, 18(6), pp.

927-948.

Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-P., & Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010). Decision Theory as Practice:

Crafting Rationality in Organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11), pp. 1531-1566.

Calkoen, W. J. L. (2012). The one-tier board in the changing and converting world of

corporate governance. A comparative study of boards in the UK, the US and the

Netherlands. Deventer: Kluwer.

Carlock, R.S., & Ward, J.L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business. Parallel

planning to unify the family and business. New York: Palgrave.

Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as Practical Coping: A Heideggerian Perspective.

Organization Studies, 27(5), pp. 635-655.

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: how social capital makes organizations

work. New York: Harvard Business Review Press.

Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C.A. (2004). The board of directors in family firms: one size fits all?

Family Business Review, 17(2), pp. 119-134.

Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., & Cannella Jr, A.A. (2003). Corporate governance: decades of

dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), pp. 371-382.

Davis, W.D., Dibrell, C., Craig, J.B., & Green, J. (2013). The effects of goal orientation and

client feedback on the adaptive behaviors of family enterprise advisors. Family

Business Review, 26(3), pp. 215-234.

23

Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual Strategizing: The Systematic Use of

Visualization in the Strategic-Planning Process. Long Range Planning, 42(1), pp. 42-

74.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory.

Organization Science, 22(5), pp. 1240-1253.

Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as Practice and the Narrative Turn. Organization

Studies, 32(9), pp. 1171-1196.

Fletcher, D. (2002). A network perspective of cultural organising and “professional

management” in the small, family business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development, 9(4), pp. 400-415.

Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: understanding

boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management

Review, 24(3), pp. 489-505.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of

family firm research: taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of

Management, 38(4), pp. 1010-1037.

Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., McCollom-Hampton, M., Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to

generation: life cycles of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Gersick, K. E., & Feliu, N. (2013). Governing the family enterprise: practices, performance

and research. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of

Family Business: Sage Publications Ltd.

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). What is strategy-as-practice. In D.

Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy

as Practice (pp. 1-20): Cambridge.

Gomez, M.-L., & Bouty, I. (2011). The Emergence of an Influential Practice: Food for

Thought. Organization Studies, 32(7), pp. 921-940.

Hall, A., Melin, L., & Nordqvist, M. (2006). Understanding strategizing in the family

business context In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X. Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook

of Research on Family Business (pp. 253-268). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hendry, K., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: a strategy as practice

view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), pp. 33-56.

Herepath, A. (2014). In the Loop: A Realist Approach to Structure and Agency in the Practice

of Strategy. Organization Studies, 35(6), pp. 857-879.

Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation. The human side of corporate

governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Jaffe, D.T., Lane, S., Dashew, L., & Bork, D. (1997). The CPA as family adviser. Journal of

Accountancy, 183(5), 42-50.

Jarratt, D., & Stiles, D. (2010). How are Methodologies and Tools Framing Managers'

Strategizing Practice in Competitive Strategy Development? British Journal of

Management, 21(1), pp. 28-43.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic Practices: An Activity Theory Perspective on Continuity

and Change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 23-55.

24

Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping Strategy as a Structuration Process. The Academy of

Management Journal, 51(4), pp. 621-650.

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: the challenges of a practice

perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), pp. 5-27.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy.

Organization Studies, 29(11), pp. 1391-1426.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: a review and future directions

for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), pp. 69-95.

Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice, research

directions and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction. Journal of

Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 3-22.

Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 Years of Age But Still Entrepreneurially Active in Business:

Exploring the Values and Family Characteristics of Old Finnish Family Firms. Family

Business Review, 15(3), pp. 175-187.

Lambrecht, J., & Lievens, J. (2008). Pruning the family tree: an unexplored path to family

business continuity and family harmony. Family Business Review, 21(4), pp. 295-313.

Langley, A. (1989). In search of rationality: the purposes behind the use of formal analysis in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), pp. 598-631.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 57-84.

McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20(1),

pp. 47-74.

Melin, L., & Nordqvist, M. (2007). The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: the case of

the family business. Strategic Organization, 5(3), pp. 321-333.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press.

Naldi, L., Chirico, F., Kellermans, F.W., & Campopiano, G. (2015). All in the family? An

exploratory study of family member advisors and firm performance. Family Business

Review, forthcoming.

Nordqvist, M. (2005). Understanding the role of ownership in strategizing; a study of family

firms. Jӧnkӧping: Jӧnkӧping International Business School.

Nordqvist, M. (2012). Understanding strategy processes in family firms: Exploring the roles

of actors and arenas. International Small Business Journal, 30(1), pp. 24-40.

Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). The promise of the strategy as practice perspective for

family business strategy research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), pp. 15-

25.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In

D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Strategy as Practice (pp. 23-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pendergast, J.M., Ward, J.L., & Brun de Pontet, S. (2011). Building a successful family

business board. A guide for leaders, directors, and families. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

25

Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (2006). Strategic management: the strengths

and limitations of a field. Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Reay, T., Pearson, A.W., & Dyer, W.G. (2013). Advising family enterprise: examining the

role of family firm advisors. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 209-214.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist

theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp. 243-263.

Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013a). Transitional leadership of advisors as a facilitator of

successors' leadership construction. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 235-255.

Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013b). Strategic content and process in family business. In P.

Sharma, L. Melin, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Family Business

(pp. 295-320). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as Lived Experience and Strategists’ Everyday

Efforts to Shape Strategic Direction*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 141-

174.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2004). Managerial elites making rhetorical and linguistic 'moves' for a

moving (emotional) display. Human Relations, 57(9), pp. 1103-1143.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic Practice, 'Discourse' and the Everyday Interactional

Constitution of 'Power Effects'. Organization, 12(6), pp. 803-841.

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: theorizing through

practical rationality Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp. 338-360.

Sandberg, W. R. (1992). Strategic Management's Potential Contributions to a Theory of

Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(3), pp. 73-90.

Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda:

Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), pp. 1407-1421.

Sorenson, R. L. (2013). Values in Family Businesses. In P. Sharma, L. Melin, & M.

Nordqvist (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Family Business (pp. 463-479). London:

Sage Publications Ltd

Strike, V. M. (2012). Advising the family firm: reviewing the past to build the future. Family

Business Review, 25(2), pp. 156-177.

Strike, V. M. (2013). The most trusted advisor and the subtle advice process in family firms.

Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 293-313.

Strike, V.M., & Rerup, C. (2015). Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal,

forthcoming.

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

investigation from the family business advisor's perspective. Family Business Review,

26(3), pp. 256-270.

Sundaramurthy, C. (2008). Sustaining trust within family businesses. Family Business

Review, 21(1), pp. 89-102.

Swartz, S. (1989). The challenges of multidisciplinary consulting to family-owned businesses.

Family Business Review, 2(4), pp. 329-331.

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. A. (1982). The advantages and disadvantages of the family business.

26

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.

Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-533.

Thomas, J. (2002). Freeing the shackles of family business ownership. Family Business

Review, 15(4), pp. 321-336.

Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., & Seristö, H. (2004). Strategies as Discursive Constructions: The

Case of Airline Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp. 1-35.

Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: a critical

discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization.

Organization, 17(6), pp. 685-702.

Van Ees, H., & Postma, T.J.B.M. (2004). Dutch boards and governance: a comparative

institutional analysis of board roles and member (s)election procedures. International

Studies of Management and Organization, 34(2), pp. 90-112.

Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), pp. 731-735.

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization

Studies, 27(5), pp. 613-634.

Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy process: family differences and the

sociological eye. Organization Studies, 28(10), pp. 1575-1586.

Whittington, R. (2010). Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D.

Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy

as Practice (pp. 109-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.