↓ Skip to main content

Shared vision promotes family firm performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Shared vision promotes family firm performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00646
Pubmed ID
Authors

John E. Neff

Abstract

A clear picture of the influential drivers of private family firm performance has proven to be an elusive target. The unique characteristics of private family owned firms necessitate a broader, non-financial approach to reveal firm performance drivers. This research study sought to specify and evaluate the themes that distinguish successful family firms from less successful family firms. In addition, this study explored the possibility that these themes collectively form an effective organizational culture that improves longer-term firm performance. At an organizational level of analysis, research findings identified four significant variables: Shared Vision (PNS), Role Clarity (RCL), Confidence in Management (CON), and Professional Networking (OLN) that positively impacted family firm financial performance. Shared Vision exhibited the strongest positive influence among the significant factors. In addition, Family Functionality (APGAR), the functional integrity of the family itself, exhibited a significant supporting role. Taken together, the variables collectively represent an effective family business culture (EFBC) that positively impacted the long-term financial sustainability of family owned firms. The index of effective family business culture also exhibited potential as a predictive non-financial model of family firm performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 34 45%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Unspecified 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,112
of 29,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,595
of 266,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#428
of 519 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 519 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.