Fusing Family and Firm

Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Family Business Strategy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfbs
Fusing family and rm: Employee perceptions of perceived homophily,

organizational justice, organizational identication, and organizational
commitment in family businesses
Anna F. Carmon a,*, Amy N. Miller b,1, Amber N.W. Raile c,2, Michelle M. Roers d
a
Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus, 4601 Central Avenue, Columbus, IN 47203, United States
North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5075, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5075, United States
North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5075, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5075, United States
d
Sanford Health, 801 Broadway Drive, Fargo, ND 58122, United States
b
c
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Family business
Interpersonal justice
Informational justice
Homophily
Organizational identication
Organizational commitment
Social identity theory has been applied to many organizational contexts, including family businesses.
However, the current study is one of the rst to explore the organizational identication of non-family
member employees. Based on previous research, it seems likely that, for family business employees,
organizational identication mediates the relationship between organizational justice, homophily, and
commitment. This study proposes a model of identication for family business employees based on
these considerations. Although the current study did not conrm the proposed model, an alternative
model is discussed.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Extant research has established a strong connection between
employee commitment and rm productivity and performance
(Muse, Rutherford, Oswald, & Raymond, 2005; Whiteld & Poole,
1997). Organizational commitment is a strong belief in the
organizations goals and values, a willingness to work on behalf
of the organization, and a desire to maintain membership in the
organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). This sense
of commitment among employees could be used not only to
preserve the longevity of their businesses, but also to create a
positive working environment for employees.
Whether employees perceptions of how similar they see
themselves to other employees and whether they believe they
are treated fairly should affect how identied and committed they
become to their organizations. Perceptions of organizational
justice and homophily likely will contribute to how connected
individuals feel with the family businesses for which they work.
Previous research has found strong, positive correlation between
perceptions of organizational justice and perceptions of co-worker
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 348 7213.

E-mail addresses: acarmon@iupuc.edu (A.F. Carmon),
amy.n.miller@ndsu.edu (A.N. Miller), amber.raile@ndsu.edu (Amber N.W. Raile),
michelleroers@hotmail.com (M.M. Roers).
1
Tel.: +1 701 231 8586.
2
Tel.: +1 701 231 7705.
1877-8585/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.10.003
identication, satisfaction, and support as well as affective

commitment (Byrne, 2003; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). While prior research
has focused on these constructs within the context of non-family
rms, little to no research has addressed them within a family
business context.
Organizational identication has been researched in family
businesses. However, much of previous research only considers the
identity development and identity conict of family member
employees (Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Reay, 2009; Shepherd &
Haynie, 2009a, 2009b; Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008), as they
are the employees who constantly struggle to manage their family
and organizational identities simultaneously within their family
businesses. However, more than 80% of employees of family
businesses are non-family members (Mass Mutual, 2007). It is
likely that non-family member employees struggle to nd their
place within the family business for which they work as they do
not necessarily have in-group status due to their lack of
membership in the founding family. Therefore, research needs
to consider how this identity development process may affect all
family business employees, not just those related to the founding
family.
Recently, scholars have begun to examine the role of nonfamily member employees (Astrachan & Keyt, 2003; Barnett &
Kellermans, 2006; Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 2003). Family and
non-family employees compare themselves to each other as
they develop their roles and identities within their organizations.
A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223
Non-family employees within family businesses likely provide

additional challenges non-family rms may not face in terms of
creating a strong sense of identication and commitment among
family and non-family members alike.
The development of family and business identities as either
separate or integrated entities of family member employees affects
non-family employees perceptions and work experiences. If the
founding familys family and business identities are seen as
integrated, non-family employees may be given limited access to
managerial opportunities, limited contributions to organizational
decision-making, and limited presence on governing boards
(Lubatkin, Schulze, Ling, & Dino, 2005; Schulze, Lubatkin, & Dino,
2003b). On the other hand, if the founding familys family and
business identities are viewed as separate, non-family employees
are likely to have a larger, more important presence in family
businesses (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008). Other research
suggests family businesses should develop a family business
meta-identity addressing who they are as a family business,
rather than developing who they are as a family and who they are
as a business separately (Reay, 2009; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009a). If
they are able to do this, family businesses will be more likely to be
able to create a strong sense of organizational identication and
commitment where all family business employees perceive
themselves as not only similar in values, beliefs and attitudes,
but as also treated fairly within the organization.
To understand more thoroughly how family business employees come to identify with and come to be committed to their family
businesses, we decided to draw on social identity theory (SIT),
based in intergroup theory (Tajfel, 1982). Social identity theory
explains how individuals compare themselves to members of their
social groups as well as to other social groups (Tajfel & Turner,
1986) in order to develop a series of social identities, including
their organizational identities. Family business employees must
compare themselves to both non-family member and family
member employees in order to develop their unique identities and
come to identify with their organizations.
Family business employees are likely to form their perceptions
of organizational identication and commitment based on their
perceptions of how they are treated within their family businesses
and whether or not that treatment varies among employees.
Employees will likely focus on their perceptions of organizational
justice and homophily to determine how connected to their
organizations they feel. Organizational justice is the perception of
whether individuals are treated with respect based on the
decision-makers and the policies in their organizations (Colquitt,
2001; Scott, Colquitt, & Zata-Phelan, 2007). Similarly, individuals
base their perceptions of homophily on how similar they see their
attitudes, values, and backgrounds to others in their organizations
(Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954; McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975).
See Table 1 for more clarication of the current studys constructs.
When employees identify with their family business, they are
likely to be committed to the family business as identication has
211
been linked to both work satisfaction and lower turnover rates,

and, ultimately, commitment (van Dick et al., 2004). Employees
perceptions that they are members of a cohesive organization
tend to lead to a more productive workplace (Fleming, 2000;
Richter, Van Dick, & West, 2004). Therefore, through addressing
family business employees perceptions of justice and homophily,
both researchers and practitioners may come to better understand their experiences in order to create better working
environments within family businesses. To this end, the current
study tests test whether ones status as a family member or
non-family member employee affects perceptions of organizational justice, homophily, organizational identication, and
commitment.
Further, it will also test whether organizational identication
mediates the relationship between organization justice and
homophily and organizational commitment.
2. Literature and hypotheses
2.1. Family businesses
For the purposes of this study, a family business is dened as: a
business governed and/or managed with the intention to shape
and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition
controlled by members of the same family or a small number of
families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across
generations of the family or families (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma,
1999, p. 25). The focus of this denition is the role of the family
within a family business. As such, families as owners are likely to
affect the development of a strong sense of organizational
identication among their employees differently than owners of
non-family rms.
Family business owners have the opportunity to aid their
families and their businesses by developing a family business
meta-identity in order to address who they are as a family
business, rather than developing who they are as a family and who
they are as a business separately (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009a).
Through the development of this meta-identity, family businesses
are able to use the intersection of the business and families to
benet not only the business, but also the psychological well-being
of the family (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009b). For instance, family
values such as commitment, loyalty, and supportiveness will likely
benet the business, while an in-depth knowledge of family
personalities, values and beliefs, and weaknesses will allow family
businesses to make decisions for the benet of the family. Further,
this meta-identity allows family businesses to develop a sense of
pride in their distinctiveness as a family business (Reay, 2009, p.
1267). This sense of pride will likely contribute to feelings of
organizational identication, as all employees are able to develop a
sense of belonging to the family and the business simultaneously,
rather than just to the businesssomething that non-family rms
cannot do.
Table 1
Denitions of study constructs.
Construct
Denition
Key references
Perceptions of how individuals are treated with

respect and dignity by decision-makers
Perceptions of how honestly and thoroughly decision-makers
explain the rationale for their decisions
Perceptions of similarity in attitude, background,
values, and/or appearance
Perceptions of shared values, belonging, and
loyalty to an organization
Perceptions of how connected an individual is
with an organization
Colquitt (2001)
Homophily
Colquitt (2001)
Lazarfeld & Merton (1954), McCroskey et al. (1975),
Rogers & Bhowmik (1970)
Burke (1937), Cheney (1982, 1983), Mael and
Ashforth (1992)
Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997), Mowday et al. (1979),
Porter et al. (1974)
212
Non-family member employees have a great deal to offer family

businesses; however, their contributions are often not accepted
without a struggle. Non-family member CEOs and employees are
forced to not only understand how to effectively perform their jobs,
but also how to best interact with the founding family (Mitchell,
Morse, & Sharma, 2003). In order to gain a more complete
understanding of family businesses, it is necessary to consider the
experiences of all family business employees. Family businesses
provide a relevant context for addressing social identity as
employees of family businesses likely make comparisons between
family member and non-family member employees as they
develop their organizational identities. More specically, SIT
allows us to consider how individuals develop their social
identities based upon comparisons between in-groups and their
related out-groups.
2.2. Social identity theory
Social identity theory is based in intergroup theory, initially
developed by social psychologists to describe the effect of group
membership on intergroup behavior. Intergroup theory further
suggested by categorizing individuals into groups, they would
favor the groups of which they were part and look differently at the
groups of which they were not (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1982).
However, categorization was ultimately found not to be the only
cause of group favoritism (Turner, 1975, 1978, 1981). Rather a
combination of social identity and group categorization lead to a
more complete understanding of intergroup behavior, suggesting
that an individual must not only be categorized into a social group,
he or she must identify with the group before feelings of group
favoritism will develop. It was through these ideas that SIT was
developed.
Social identity theory posits that an individual has a single
personal identity, but multiple social identities (Hogg & Vaughn,
2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). Ones
social identity is formed as an individual places himself or herself
into distinct social categories (Scott, 2007) based on similarities
with these groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), such as students,
Christians, or females. It is also through this process that
individuals develop their organizational identities, a specic type
of social identity (Pratt, 1998), through comparing themselves
with others in their organizations and reecting on these
comparisons over time (Albert & Whetten, 1985). For instance,
non-family member employees in family businesses will develop
their organizational identities based upon comparisons with other
non-family member employees as well as family member
employees. Similarly, family member employees will engage in
the same process to develop their organizational identities.
When a group identity is important to an individual, he or she
attempts to distinguish between that socially desirable in-group
and those belonging to the undesirable out-group (Abrams, Hogg,
Hinkle, & Otten, 2005). Both in-groups and out-groups are
determined by prototypes, or fuzzy sets of interrelated attributes
that simultaneously capture similarities and structural relationships
within groups and differences between groups, and prescribe group
membership related behavior (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle,
2004, p. 253). For instance, as a non-family member employee feels
more attached to their non-family member colleagues, the more
important being a non-family member employee will become to his
or her overall organizational identity. As an individual feels more
connected to a group, that in-group becomes a more salient portion
of his or her social identity (Brewer, 2001).
An individual begins to make inter-group comparisons after he
or she has developed his or her own social identity. Social identity
theory suggests that individuals evaluate their social identities by
comparing their in-groups to their relevant out-groups (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). For instance, non-family member employees likely

compare themselves to family member employees and how they
are treated when they are developing their organizational
identities. Generally, favorable comparisons of social groups,
when an individual perceives his or her social group to be distinct
from other social groups in a positive way, are the foundation of a
positive social identity.
Social identities are often developed through social interactions (Li, Xin, & Pittutla, 2002). Therefore, an employees
organizational identity is created through workplace interaction.
Organizational identication occurs when an individual melds the
beliefs of the organization with his or her social identity (Pratt,
1998). If one non-family member employee interacts with
members of the founding family on a daily basis while another
non-family member employee works only with other non-family
member employees, the two are likely to develop different
organizational identities. Social identity theory has been used to
study the organizational context (e.g., Postmes, Tanis, & de Wit,
2001; Scott, 2007) but has not been used to address family
businesses a great deal (Reay, 2009). Family businesses can be
comprised of both family member and non-family member
employees, potentially forming specic in-groups and out-groups
within the organization.
Employees who identify with their organizations and consider
themselves members of the in-group tend to have positive social
identities, viewing their organizational identity as a benecial and
constructive part of their personal identity (Richter et al., 2004). If
employees perceive themselves as members of a cohesive
organization, they are less likely to be negatively affected by
inter-group comparisons (Richter et al., 2004). However, if an
employee does not identify with an organization, it can lead him or
her to distrust organizational information or to interpret the
information in a way that reinforces feelings of disidentication
(Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998).
2.3. Organizational identication
Organizational identication is a specic type of social
identication that elicits perceptions of shared values, belonging,
and loyalty to an organization (Cheney, 1982). Burke (1937) argued
that individuals naturally respond to division by identifying with
other individuals or groups. Identication essentially becomes the
function of sociality. . .ones participation in a collective, social role
cannot be obtained in any other way (Burke, 1937, p. 144).
Identication, therefore, is important for employees who must
navigate inevitable divides in order to nd their t within a family
business.
Family businesses have the unique opportunity to use their
familiness, the resources resulting from the interaction of the
family and business systems (Habbersohn, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003), in order to create a strong sense of identication among
all of their employees. By developing an overall organizational
identity based on [1_TD$IF ]familiness, family businesses are able to
develop a strong sense of cohesion among family member
employees and perhaps encourage other employees to buy [2_TD$ IF]into
their vision and values (Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns,
2010).
Once family business employees have bought into the ideals
of the family business, the goals and ideas of all employees are
likely to be aligned. This not only encourages participation in
organizational decision making, but also encourages the development of a strong sense of identication with the family business
(Zellweger et al., 2010). If family businesses succeed in creating a
sense of belonging and identication for non-family member
employees, the perception that employees have been let into the
family may be enough to create a sense of commitment.
This sense of commitment is partially based on an obligation to

continue employment with an organization and the perception
that staying with an organization is the right thing to do (Fields,
2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991). For example, family member
employees may feel identied with and committed to their family
businesses, because they provide their families livelihoods and a
great deal of their family wealth is tied up in the business (Degadt,
2003). However, non-family member employees do not have the
same obligations to the organization as a family member employee
does. Therefore, it is likely that a non-family member employees
sense of commitment to and identication with their family
businesses will differ from a family member employees sense of
commitment and identication.
As organizational identication increases, it positively inuences a variety of work attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.
Organizational identication is linked theoretically and empirically to motivation, decision making, employee interaction, and
length of service (Cheney, 1983); turnover and turnover intentions
(Mael & Ashforth, 1992; van Dick et al., 2004); and job satisfaction
and performance (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007; Cheney,
1983). Organizational identication plays an important role in
employees well-being, satisfaction, and productivity (Gautam, van
Dick, & Wagner, 2004) and therefore has promising potential for
increasing organizational commitment (Scott et al., 1999; van Dick
et al., 2004).
One of the primary motives for commitment to an organization
is identifying with the organization (Becker, 1992). Individuals
who embrace their organizations goals and missions through
identication processes are more likely to remain committed to
their organizations than individuals who do not (van Dick et al.,
2004). Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje (1997) found that individuals
who had stronger in-group identication were more likely to feel
commitment to their work groups. Therefore, if an employee
begins to identify with an organization, particularly if they
perceive they are a member of the in-group in this case the
family then it is likely he or she will also begin to feel more
committed to the organization. In order to appreciate family
business employees experiences better, SIT suggests understanding their perceptions of similarity and treatment (i.e., organizational justice) within the organization (Turner, 1975, 1978, 1981).
These perceptions could determine the extent to which employees
meld their organizations views with their social identities to affect
organizational identication. Therefore, perceptions of justice may
have important implications for organizational identication.
2.4. Organizational justice
Organizational justice is the role of fairness as a consideration
in the workplace (Greenberg, 1990, p. 400). While justice is
historically and deeply rooted in society and law, the concept is
vital to organizations. Research links perceptions of justice to an
array of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction,
withdrawal, and organizational citizenship behavior (Colquitt
et al., 2001).The results of Colquitts (2001) meta-analysis establish
that organizational justice has four distinct dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. The current study focuses on perceptions of
interpersonal and informational justice because they are most
related to human interaction within the organization as opposed to
organizational structure (Cheung & Law, 2008). Interpersonal and
informational justice, sometimes grouped within a single dimension as interactional justice, refer to the interpersonal treatment
people receive as procedures are enacted (Colquitt, 2001; Scott
et al., 2007). Interpersonal justice is related to whether or not
decision-makers treat individuals with dignity, respect, and
sensitivity (Colquitt, 2001). Informational justice is related to
213
how decision-makers openly, honestly, and thoroughly explain the

rationale for their decisions (Colquitt, 2001).
Interpersonal and informational justice are important factors to
family business employees because everyone expects and desires
fair human interaction. Perceptions of organizational justice have
been linked to a variety of work outcomes, including: job
performance, organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, trust, and responses to organizational change (CohenCharash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Lipponen, Olkkonen,
& Moilanen, 2004; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2002; Tyler, Degoey, &
Smith, 1996). By carefully implementing and cultivating interpersonal and informational justice, family businesses could likely
enhance the identication of employeesas employees are more
likely to feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to their organizations
if they are involved in the decision making processes of their family
businesses.
Interactional justice, a combination of interpersonal and
informational justice, has specically been linked to employees
willingness to engage in more extra-role behaviors as well as
higher levels of job satisfaction than employees who do not
perceiver interactional justice (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, &
Taylor, 2000). Strong, positive correlations are also found between
interactional justice and co-worker identication, satisfaction with
co-workers, and co-worker support (Byrne, 2003). While this
research was conducted in non-family rms, the results may carry
over to family businesses. The more fairly non-family member
employees feel they are treated, the more likely they are to go
above and beyond their given role in the organization, be more
satised with their jobs, and, feel more identied with both their
co-workers and their family businesses in general. However, it is
also possible that the familial relationships within a family
business might disrupt perceptions of just treatment. Non-family
member employees may attribute their treatment in the business
to their non-familial status rather than their own performance.
De Cremer (2002) found that the more similarly individuals feel
they are treated, the more likely they are to have increased feelings
of self-esteems and acceptance concepts closely related to
feelings of satisfaction and identication. Organizational justice
has also been linked to increased feelings of affective commitment,
very closely related to feelings of organizational identication
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). Further,
organizational justice is positively related to job satisfaction, rated
job performance, and job attendancethree factors likely to
contribute to individuals feelings of belongingness within an
organization (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002).
Those family business employees who perceive organizational
justice and homophily at work may be more likely to have
increased perceptions of organizational identication. It is likely
the more similar they feel to and the more similar they feel they are
treated to other employees, the more connected they will feel to
their overall organizations. Because the identity of many family
businesses is partially based on the identity of the family itself,
non-family member employees may especially rely on their
feelings about their treatment to know whether they belong in
the organization because they do not have that shared family
identity.
Identication, in turn, can help these employees understand
their experiences, organize their thoughts, and even make
decisions based on what is best for the company (Cheney,
1983), because of their sense of shared values and missions with
their organizations. Because feelings of organizational identication are dependent upon feelings of shared values, belonging, and
loyalty to an organization (Cheney, 1982), as an employee
perceives shared values and goals, his or her perceptions of
organizational identication are likely to be strengthened. This
process may be particularly salient for non-family member
214
employees. When a family member employee views the family

business as working toward sustainability and protability, he or
she is able to view that as working toward his or her own familys
sustainability and protability; the connection between the
employees values and goals and the organizations values and
goals is very evident. However, for a non-family member
employee, the way in which the goals of the organization are
similar to personal goals must be made more explicit for
identication to occur.
Olkkonen and Lipponen (2006) found that relationship between
procedural and distributive justice and turnover intentions was
mediated by perceptions of organizational identication. Additionally, work-unit identication mediated the relationship
between interactional justice and work-unit identication. Though
the effects of interpersonal and informational organizational
justice have not been linked directly to perceptions of organizational identication and commitment, these forms of justice are
likely critical to the success of the family because, by carefully
implementing and cultivating interpersonal and informational
justice, family businesses may enhance the identication of
employees. Further, an employees perceptions of how similar
they are to their fellow employees may also contribute to their
perceptions of identication.
2.5. Homophily
Homophily is ones perception of similarity to another in
attitude, background, values, and appearance (McCroskey et al.,
1975; Rogers & Bhowmik, 1970). Homophily theory posits that
contact between similar people occurs more frequently than
contact between dissimilar people (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, &
Cook, 2001). Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) observed that
individuals with similar characteristics were more likely to be
friends, thus improving their communication and creating a more
trusting environment and stronger personal relationships. Some
research indicates that when individuals perceive homophily in a
relationship, they are likely to develop positive feelings because of
apparent conrmation of their beliefs, values, or interests (Prisbell
& Andersen, 1980)an idea that relates closely to identication.
Further, homophily also helps determine which co-workers
individuals will compare themselves with, listen to, and model
their behavior on within an organization (Lawrence, 2000).
According to SIT, individuals evaluate their social identities by
comparing their in-groups to the relevant out-groups (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). Homophily may be one of the primary factors in
distinguishing between the in-group of an organization and the
related out-groups as individuals may perceive those who are
similar to them in values and beliefs to be their organizational ingroups.
Perceived similarity leads to more positive evaluations of other
group members (Rokeach & Mezei, 1966). The more similar to an
individual a group is perceived as being, the more positively the
group will perceive the group and the groups members
(Henderson-King, Henderson-King, Zhermer, Posokhova, & Chiker,
1997). According to SIT, individuals tend to identify with those
groups that they evaluate positively. If individuals perceive similar
groups and similar individuals as more positive, it is likely that that
perceived homophily may lead to identication with that group.
Individuals who are members of groups that have minoritystatus within the organization, are likely to seek out other
members of the group to form close bonds. Leonard, Mehra, and
Katerberg (2008) found that individuals who were members of an
ethnic minority group within an organization tended to form
friendships with other members of that ethnic minority group.
There were notable differences between who members of minority
groups befriended even after controlling for relative access to
members of the minority group as compared to access to members

of other minority groups and the majority group. This suggests that
individuals do tend to form ties and connections with those whom
they perceive as more similar to them. In fact, individuals
perceived similarity to a group is the most important factor leading
to identication with the group (Fisher, 1998). Even when
individuals nd group membership appealing, they will only
identify with that group if and when they feel that they are similar
to other group members.
Perceptions of homophily are likely linked to how identied
and committed individuals perceive themselves to be to their
organizations. When individuals feel they are part of the in-group
because of perceived homophily, they may be more likely to
identify with the organization. As individuals perceive themselves
to be more like their colleagues, they are more likely to feel as if
they belong to their organization, align themselves with their
organizations goals and values, and to remain committed to their
organizations.
In a study of the United States Army, Mael and Ashforth (1995)
found that certain shared activities, values, and beliefs predicted
how likely a new recruit was to identify with the Army and stay
enlisted in the Army. Those soldiers who engaged in outdoor
activities like hunting or intellectual pursuits like reading for
pleasure before enlisting were more likely to have a strong sense of
organizational identication with the Army. Those recruits who
had high levels of organizational identication were also more
likely to stay enlisted in the Army.
This suggests those similar values and shared pursuits between
soldiers, those elements that comprise perceptions of homophily,
likely lead to organizational identication, which in turn may lead
to organizational commitment. Family businesses share similar
characteristics with military organizations, such as a strong focus
on identity, shared values, and commitment. Therefore, these
results would likely be similar for family businesses. Developing a
sense of identication and commitment is likely to be important to
family businesses because there are likely to be sharper and more
clearly delineated boundaries between in-groups and out-groups
of employeesgroup status may be decided based on membership
in the founding family.
Homophily is a prevalent characteristic of organizational
networks (McPherson et al., 2001). Because individuals learn
which in-groups they belong to through feelings of similarity with
these groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), organizational members
perceptions of homophily likely affect other organizational outcomes. Further, as individuals feel more connected to particular
groups, their social identity associated with that group becomes
more salient (Brewer, 2001). Therefore, homophily may be
particularly relevant for family business employees because the
salience of their identities as family or non-family members may
affect their perceptions of organizational identication, and,
ultimately, commitment, depending on their perceptions of the
organizations in-group.
2.6. Hypotheses
An individuals identity is comprised of more than his or her
own in-group associations. Individuals have multiple social
identities which they must constantly negotiate (Hogg & Vaughn,
2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry et al., 1999).Within a family
business, family member employees must manage two separate
identities: family identity and worker identity (Shepherd & Haynie,
2009a). These identities must be co-managed in order for family
member employees to function in the work environment. This comanagement results in a family business identity, comprised of
who we are as a family and who we are as a business. However,
because the family business identity is partially based on the
family identity, it is likely that non-family member employees will

have a different identication with the organization than an
employee who can claim the family identity.
When the family identity has a strong inuence on an
organizational identity, the family identity may become the basis
for organizational decision making (Reay, 2009). While this may
result in positives outcomes for the family business (Reay, 2009),
non-family member employees will likely react differently than
family member employees to the idea of family identity-based
decision making. It may be more difcult to justify business
decisions on the basis of what is in line with the familys values to
someone who is not a member of that family and may not share
those values.
However, the familys role in the business is not the only factor
that may cause family member employees to relate differently to
the business than non-family member employees. A family-owned
business is usually the main (or at least one of the main) sources of
employment and income for the managing family (Degadt, 2003).
Additionally, for many family business owners, the majority of
their wealth is tied up in the business itself. Therefore, the nancial
status of the business is often directly tied to the nancial status of
the family (Degadt, 2003). If the business experiences a downturn,
multiple family members may have their wages garnished, default
on their business loans, or need to invest their personal nances to
keep the business going. This likely results in a very different
identication with and commitment to the business.
Because family businesses involve both family member and
non-family member employees, distinct in-groups and out-groups
may be created among employees. SIT argues that individuals
compare themselves to members of their social groups as well as to
other social groups when forming their social identities (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). This is likely the case for family business employees.
The identity of a family business is directly tied to the familys
identity as well as the business identity (Reay, 2009). Therefore,
family member employees may have a very different identication
process than non-family member employees because they are
already part of the family identity. Additionally, family member
employees frequently have stronger emotional and nancial ties to
an organization out of necessity than do non-family member
employees, likely resulting in a different level of identication and
commitment (Degadt, 2003). Therefore, the following hypotheses
are posited:
H1: Employee status (i.e., family member vs. non-family
member) will affect perceptions of (a) informational justice,
(b) interpersonal justice, (c) homophily, (d) organizational
identication, and (e) commitment.
H2: Perceptions of organizational identication mediate the
relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice,
informational justice, and homophily and perceptions of
commitment among non-family member employees in family
businesses.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Family businesses were targeted for participation through
the local Yellow Pages and a local website advertising small
businesses. Businesses were rst targeted through the mail and
then via a phone call from one of the researchers. In order to
determine if the businesses were qualied to participate, they
were rst asked if they considered themselves a family business,
meaning that they were family-owned. If they were not, they were
thanked for their time and disqualied from the study. If they were
family-owned, they were then asked if at least two people from the
215
founding family worked for the company, if at least one family

member was in a management role, and if they employed at least
one non-family member employee. Of 64 contacted businesses,
employees from 18 family businesses ranging in size from two to
77 employees were invited to participate in the study. The
organizations had been in business for between ve and 104 years,
with an average age of 36.6 years, and were from a variety of
industries (e.g., construction, sales, and professional organizations). In total, 118 employees from those family business
participated in this study, which was a 39% overall response rate.
There was a great degree of variation between businesses in terms
of participation, ranging from 11% to 75% (11 participants did not
report their organizational afliation). Of participants, 34 were
family member employees, 76 were non-family member employees, and eight declined to identify whether they were family or
non-family. Of all respondents, 56 were male, 52 were female, and
10 declined to identify. Their average age was 47 (SD = 13.40),
ranging from 19 to 75. They had worked for their organizations for
an average of 137.55 months (SD = 122.75 months; or M = 11.46
years, SD = 10.23 years), ranging from 3 months to 40 years.
3.2. Measures
Participants completed the survey online (n = 65), by returning
a paper copy of the survey distributed via the U.S. or ofce mail
(n = 34), or by completing hard copies of the survey during
researcher visits (n = 19). One-way ANOVA analysis revealed no
signicant differences among the three data collection methods.
The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete and
included measures of interpersonal justice, informational justice,
attitude homophily, organizational identication, and organizational commitment. All scales were subjected to validity and
reliability analyses. All items included in the nal scales used for
model testing are listed in Table 2 along with their standardized
and unstandardized estimates and standard errors. The standardized factor loadings were used to calculate the reliabilities
for each item, which were used to calculate the average variance
extracted (AVE) for each scale to establish convergent validity
and the construct reliability for each scale. More detailed
procedures and results for validity and reliability testing are
detailed below.
3.2.1. Organizational justice
Perceptions of justice were measured using the interpersonal
justice and informational justice scales from Colquitts (2001)
Justice Measure. Responses to all items were measured using a
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (to a small extent) to 5 (to a large
extent). The informational justice measure (construct reliability = .93, AVE = 71%) consisted of ve items. Acceptable percentages
of AVE are above 50% (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The
interpersonal justice measure (construct reliability = .90,
AVE = 70%) consisted of four items. Face and content validity of
the items were assessed by evaluating their consistency, clarity,
and completeness to the intended constructs of interpersonal and
informational justice (see DeVellis, 2003). Because each subscale
appeared to have both face and content validity, no items were
removed before conducting further validity testing.
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine
construct validity for the two organizational justice factors
with a covariance matrix using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom,
2006). This model showed acceptable t to the data (x2 [df = 26,
N = 118] = 51.49, p < .001; GFI = .91; AGFI = .85; IFI = .98; CFI = .98;
RMSEA = .09) (see Colquitt, 2001, for more detailed validity
analysis). In order to determine discriminant validity, we
calculated the squares of the interconstruct correlations and
compared them to the AVEs. As a rule of thumb, the AVE should be
216
Table 2
Survey items and estimates from LISREL 8.80.
Scale
Item
SFLa
UFLb
SEc
IPJ
IPJ
IPJ
IPJ
INFOJ
INFOJ
INFOJ
INFOJ
INFOJ
AH
AH
AH
AH
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIC
OIEP
OIEP
OIEP
OIEP
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) treated you with dignity?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) treated you with respect?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with you?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?
Thinking of your immediate supervisor, to what extent has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals specic needs?
Other people in your organization: Are like me. . .Are not like me
Other people in your organization: Are different from. . .Are similar to me
Other people in your organization: Think like me. . .Do not think like me
Other people in your organization: Do not behave like me. . .Behave like me
I am proud to be an employee of this organization.
This organizations image in the community represents me well.
I am glad I chose to work for this organization rather than another company.
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great company to work for.
I have warm feelings toward this organization as a place to work.
I feel that this organization cares about me.
The record of this organization is an example of what dedicated people can achieve.
I nd that my values and the values of this organization are very similar.
I would describe this organization as a large family in which most members feel a sense of belonging.
I nd it easy to identify myself with this organization
I really care about the fate of this organization.
What this organization stands for is important to me.
I share the goals and values of this organization.
My membership in this organization is important to me.
I feel strong ties with this organization.
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R)
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.
I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. (R)
This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. (R)
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.
Theres not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indenitely. (R)
Often, I nd it difcult to agree with this organizations policies on important matters relating to its employees. (R)
For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
Deciding to work for this organization was a denite mistake on my part. (R)
.93
.84
.91
.63
.80
.82
.88
.87
.85
.76
.09
.86
.32
.80
.77
.81
.72
.80
.78
.77
.83
.69
.85
.84
.85
.90
.85
.86
.68
.29
.40
.62
.66
.61
.47
.53
.58
.79
.64
0.68
0.61
0.72
0.67
0.86
0.84
0.84
0.97
0.97
1.20
0.15
1.30
0.47
0.75
0.86
0.84
0.94
0.93
0.95
0.94
1.12
0.84
1.01
0.83
0.83
0.91
0.93
0.98
0.57
0.45
0.74
0.92
0.83
0.81
0.54
0.95
0.91
1.13
0.40
.02
.02
.02
.09
.06
.05
.04
.05
.06
.42
.30
.58
.26
.05
.07
.05
.11
.07
.08
.08
.08
.11
.06
.04
.04
.03
.05
.05
.05
.29
.39
.19
.12
.13
.13
.31
.22
.12
.03
IPJ = from the Colquitt (2001) interpersonal justice measure.

INFOJ = from the Colquitt (2001) informational justice measure.
AH = from the McCroskey et al. (1975) attitude homophily scale.
OIC = from the Miller et al. 12-item version of Cheneys (1982) Organizational Identication Questionnaire.
OIEP = from the Edwards and Peccei (2007) organizational identication measure.
OC = from the Mowday et al. (1979) organizational commitment measure.
R = item was reverse-coded.
a
Standardized Factor Loadings.
b
Unstandardized Factor Loadings.
c
Standard Error.
larger than the squared interconstruct correlation (Hair et al.,

2010). In the current study, all the AVEs were greater than the
interconstruct correlationsdemonstrating discriminant validity.
As evidence of the discriminant validity of the two forms of
justice, the two dimensional solution was a signicantly better
t (Dx2 [1] = 210.9, p < .001) than a unidimensional solution
(x2 [df = 27, N = 118] = 262.39, p < .001; GFI = .67; AGFI = .45;
IFI = .89; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .27).
3.2.2. Attitude homophily
Perceived attitude homophily was measured using a modied
version of McCroskey et al.s (1975) Attitude Homophily Measure
(AHM). The AHM consists of four items on a seven-point semantic
differential scale. In response to the prompt: Other people in your
organization, participants responded to four adjective pairs
measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale. The scale
showed acceptable reliability (construct reliability = .61, M = 4.21,
SD = 1.41) and only moderate convergent validity (AVE = 36%),
which is consistent with previous research using this scale due to
the limited number of items (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond,
2005). Face and content validity of the items were assessed by
evaluating their consistency, clarity, and completeness to the

intended construct of attitude homophily (see DeVellis, 2003).
Because the scale appeared to have both face and content validity,
no items were removed before conducting further validity testing.
CFA was conducted to determine construct validity for all
measures with covariance matrices using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 2006). This scale showed only moderate t to the data
(x2 [df = 2, N = 118] = 44.76, p < .001; GFI = .84; IFI = .48; CFI = .46;
RMSEA = .43). While the RMSEA value exceeds the acceptable
range between .05 and .08 (Hair et al., 2010), the other t indices
are within satisfactory ranges to warrant acceptable goodness of
t. Further, comprehensive validation across studies and samples
has previously been reported (McCroskey et al., 2005). However,
readers should interpret the ndings with care and future research
shall validate this model using alternative data samples and
organizational contexts.
3.2.3. Organizational identication and commitment
Because the distinction between organizational identication
and organizational commitment measures is debated in the
literature, two organizational identication scales and two
commitment scales were simultaneously submitted to various

validity tests, including content validity and CFA to establish
validity. Perceptions of organizational identication were measured using the 12-item version of the Organizational Identication Questionnaire (OIQ; Cheney, 1982) recommended by Miller,
Allen, Casey, and Johnson (2000). Because the validity of the OIQ
has been questioned (e.g., Miller et al., 2000), the OIQ was
supplemented with another measure of organizational identication: Edwards and Pecceis (2007) measure, which has six items.
Both identication measures offer response options ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Organizational commitment was measured using two scales:
Mowday, Steers, and Porters (1979) instrument and the normative
commitment portion of Meyer and Allens (1997) Organizational
Commitment Scale (OCS). As specied in the literature review, this
study focused on organizational commitment; normative commitment was measured to establish validity due to previous issues with
the organizational commitment and organizational identication
scales. In addition, we consulted the affective commitment portion
of Meyer and Allens OCS and eliminated items that overlapped
across scales prior to distribution of the survey consistent with
the denitions used for each concept (see Table 1) in order to
maintain content validity.
Conrmatory factor analysis with all 35 original items specifying
a four-factor solution (x2 [df = 554, N = 118] = 1257.22, p < .001;
GFI = .62; AGFI = .57; IFI = .95; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .10) resulted in
moderate t. The modication indices provided by LISREL suggested
that several items were crossloading to more than one latent
construct. One item from each organizational identication scale
and one item from the normative commitment scale were thus
removed to improve model t for further analysis. Thus, the next
model to be tested was a four-factor, 32-item measurement model.
The t indexes showed minimal improvement (x2 [df = 458,
N = 118] = 998.81, p < .001; GFI = .65; AGFI = .60; IFI = .95;
CFI = .95; RMSEA = .10).
Because several items between the two organizational identication scales were crossloading and they were not conceptually
distinct, the two organizational identication scales were combined to test a three-factor, 32 item measurement model (x2
[df = 461, N = 118] = 1080.34, p < .001; GFI = .63; AGFI = .58;
IFI = .95; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .11). Modication indices suggested
that one item from the Edwards and Pecceis (2007) measure was
crossloading with both commitment constructs. Thus, the item
was removed for a fourth analysis (x2 [df = 431, N = 118] = 988.24,
p < .001; GFI = .65; AGFI = .59; IFI = .95; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .11).
Although some of the t indices failed to meet the rule of thumb
thresholds, no further modications were suggested by LISREL to
improve model t.
In order to determine discriminant validity, we calculated the
squares of the interconstruct correlations and compared them to
the AVEs. As a rule of thumb, the AVE should be larger than the
squared interconstruct correlation (Hair et al., 2010). As evidence
of the discriminant validity of the constructs, this three dimensional solution was a signicantly better t (Dx2 [3] = 239.32,
p < .001) than a unidimensional solution (x2 [df = 434, N = 118] =
1227.56, p < .001; GFI = .60; AGFI = .54; IFI = .94; CFI = .94;
RMSEA = .13). While the RMSEA value exceeds the general rule
of thumb of between .05 and .08 (Hair et al., 2010), the other t
indices are within satisfactory ranges to warrant acceptable
goodness of t. However, readers should interpret the ndings
with care and future research shall validate this model using
alternative data samples and organizational contexts.
Face and content validity of the items were assessed by
evaluating their consistency, clarity, and completeness to the
intended constructs of organizational commitment and organizational identication (see DeVellis, 2003) as previously discussed.
217
The analysis provided two valid measures to test the hypotheses:

one of organizational commitment and one of organizational
identication. Because that factor analysis suggested that organizational and normative commitment were distinct and the focus of
this study was organizational commitment, Mowday et al.s (1979)
instrument was used. Unlike other measures of commitment (e.g.,
the affective commitment items on Meyer & Allen, 1997, OCS), this
instrument did not contain items that overlapped with the
organizational identication items used in this study. This
instrument was comprised of 11 items with responses ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The commitment
scale showed acceptable reliability (construct reliability = .84) and
only moderate convergent validity (AVE = 34%). As noted previously, all organizational identication items were combined to
form one 15-item organizational identication measure (construct
reliability = .97, AVE = 66%).
4. Results
4.1. Hypotheses
One-way ANOVA was conducted to test H1. Results are shown
in Table 3. Employee status did not result in signicantly different
ratings of informational justice, interpersonal justice, attitude
homophily, organizational identication, or commitment. Thus,
results for all organizations and both employee types were
combined in tests of the hypothesized model (Fig. 1) because
individual-level analysis best captured the variation in responses.
4.2. Model testing
The model presented in Fig. 1 was operationalized to include
the variables measured in the study (H2). Fig. 2 depicts the
statistical model that was tested.
First, a correlation analysis was performed. Results are shown in
Table 4.
Next, LISREL 8.80 was used to evaluate the t of the predicted
statistical model (see path diagram presented in Fig. 2). The
covariance matrix used in the analysis is presented in Table 5.
Standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates are
shown in Fig. 2. None of the paths from the three exogenous
variables (interpersonal justice, informational justice, and
attitude homophily) to organizational identication were significant. However, the path from organizational identication to
commitment was signicant. Overall, the model does not appear
to t the data well (x2 [df = 3, N = 118] = 60.78, p < .001;
GFI = .83; AGFI = .14; IFI = .76; CFI = .75; RMSEA = .41). These t
indices failed to meet the standard rule of thumb of .90 (Hoyle
and Panter, 1995). Thus, the predicted model is not consistent
with the data.
Further, in analyzing the predicted model, LISREL 8.80 proposed
a modication that would better explain the data. Compared to the
Table 3
Analyses for H1.
Attitude homophily
Descriptive
statistics
One-way ANOVA
SD
By employee type
F
df
3.87
4.21
4.21
6.22
5.61
1.33
1.28
1.41
1.02
1.43
2.95
2.29
0.29
1.84
2.42
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
p
107
107
108
108
108
.09
.13
.59
.18
.12
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
218
Fig. 1. Proposed model.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
Fig. 2. Predicted path model with standardized parameter estimates.
original model, commitment is predicted to mediate the relationship between interpersonal justice, informational justice, and
attitude homophily and organizational identication. LISREL 8.80
was again used to evaluate the t of this alternative model.
Standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates are shown
in Fig. 3. Overall, this model appears to be a better t for the data

than the hypothesized model (x2 [df = 3, N = 118] = 4.38, p = .22;
GFI = .99; AGFI = .93; IFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.06).
Table 4[9_TD$IF]
Correlations among constructs.
This study examined how family business employees perceptions of organizational justice and homophily are related to
perceptions of organizational identication and commitment
through the lens of SIT. Family member employees and nonfamily member employees did not differ signicantly in their
perceptions of informational justice, interpersonal justice, attitude
homophily, organizational identication, or commitment. Within
the proposed model, the paths from interpersonal justice,
informational justice, and attitude homophily to organizational
identication were not signicant. However, the path from
organizational identication to commitment was signicant.
Overall, the predicted model was not consistent with the data.
In relation to the rst hypothesis, there were no signicant
differences found between non-family member and family
member employees of family businesses for most of the variables
in the study (i.e., interpersonal justice, homophily, organizational
identication, or commitment), which suggests that employee
status within family businesses may not make a difference in
employee experiences in this sample. Because the family
Attitude homophily
*
**
.86**
.47**
.56**
5
.29*
.25*
.17
.68**
.70**
.54**
.50**
p < .01.
p < .001.
Table 5[10_TD$IF]
Covariance matrix.
Attitude homophily
1.63
1.47
1.78
1.01
0.88
2.01
0.32
0.39
0.24
1.03
1.27
1.28
1.10
0.72
2.03
5. Discussion
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
219
Fig. 3. Post hoc path model with standardized parameter estimates.
businesses studied were small to mid-sized businesses from

relatively homogenous communities, it is possible that all
employees were treated similarly and, therefore, came to identify
with their family businesses in similar ways.
These results may suggest that two distinct social groups,
family member employees and non-family member employees,
may not always be formed within the context of family businesses.
It is possible that the family businesses included in the current
study took advantage of their familiness (Habbersohn et al., 2003)
in order to make their non-family member employees feel as
though they were one of the family and not a an entirely separate
group. Through the development of positive relationships with
members of the founding family, non-family member employees
are likely to develop positive, salient organizational identities.
According to SIT, perceptions of membership in in-groups and outgroups are not always based on formal divisions such as family
member versus non-family member. However, when these
divisions become salient for employees, thus forming in-groups
and out-groups. Future research should be conducted to determine
how family businesses develop working environments in which
non-family members are considered parts of the family (i.e., the ingroup).
It is possible the individuals most identied with their family
businesses may have been the individuals who participated in this
study. This falls in line with the ndings of SIT suggesting those
individuals who identify most with the organization are most
likely to make larger contributions to the organization. While both
family member and non-family member employees were surveyed, those non-family member employees who chose to
participate may have been those who considered themselves to
not only be most identied with their family businesses, but also
parts of their organizational in-groups. It is possible the results
only capture the experiences of those considered to be a part of the
organizational in-groups, regardless of employee status, and do not
capture the experiences of those who consider themselves to be on
the fringes of their family businesses. Future research should be
conducted to provide a more complete picture of the work
experiences of all family business employees.
These results may indicate that family businesses are a special
type of organization and may all have similar characteristics. They
may differ in this way from non-family rms, where family does
not necessarily play as central of a role. Regardless of size, industry,
or gross revenue, all family businesses must negotiate the divide
between family and rm in ways that non-family rms do not
(Dunn, 1999). Therefore, all family business employees may
engage in similar identity negotiation processes, which elicit

similar perceptions of interactional justice, homophily, organizational identication, and commitment. Future research should
address whether the differences among this studys variables lie
primarily between the types of organization (i.e., family businesses
or non-family rms), rather than between specic organizations,
regardless of type.
In relation to the second hypothesis, this study proposed a
model of organizational commitment, suggesting that perceptions
of informational and interpersonal justice and homophily predict
organizational identication and, ultimately, commitment. However, this model did not serve as a good t for the data. The only
signicant path in the predicted model was between organizational commitment and organizational identication. These
ndings support previous research suggesting that organizational
identication predicts commitment (Scott et al., 1999; van Dick
et al., 2004).
As a potential explanation for the results, a one-way ANOVA
using organizational afliation was conducted for all variables.
Though one-way ANOVA revealed some signicant differences
between groups based on organization for interpersonal justice (F
[17,88] = 2.53, p = .003), informational justice F [17,88] = 2.02,
p = .02, and organizational identication (F [17,89] = 3.07,
p < .001; intra-class correlation coefcients (ICC) did not support
the idea that between organization variance exceeded individual
variance. On the contrary, ICCs for all variables ranged from .07 to
.010, suggesting independence (i.e., random variability within and
between organizations) or heterogeneity (i.e., variability predominantly within organizations). Thus, these differences were signicant, but they were not meaningful as further analysis suggested
that there was more variance among individuals than there was
among organizations. Unequal cell sizes across organizations likely
account for the signicant result (Howell, 2006).
Although SIT suggests that family business employees perceptions of similarity and treatment (i.e., organizational justice) affect
individuals experiences within their family businesses, these
perceptions likely have an effect on different outcomes than this
study originally predicted. We initially predicted that perceptions
of interpersonal and informational justice may have been
positively related to perceptions of organizational identication.
Social identity theory suggests that perceptions of consistency and
neutrality drive perceptions of justice within organizations;
therefore, decisions within organizations should be based upon
facts and rules, and not on personal opinions or preferences
(Tyler & Blader, 2000, p. 92). Employees may simply believe that
220
their employers treat them fairly, because it is the right thing to

do. More specically, just because family business employees
perceive themselves as being treated fairly does not necessarily
mean that they will identify with the goals and missions of their
organizations and, ultimately, consider themselves an important
part of the organization.
Similarly, perceptions of homophily were originally thought to
be related to perceptions of organizational identication. However,
homophily is generally considered to affect interpersonal outcomes (e.g., mutual trust, intimacy, and conrmation of personal
beliefs) (Crary, 1987; Prisbell & Andersen, 1980). Therefore, the
effects of homophily may not extend to perceptions of organizational identication, which are based upon feelings of belonging
and loyalty to an organization (Cheney, 1982). Just because
employees perceive themselves to be similar to their co-workers
does not necessarily relate to the organization itself and whether
or not they believe strongly and feel related to the missions of their
organizations.
Further, there was a near-signicant effect between employee
status and informational justice. More specically, non-family
member employees perceived higher levels of informational
justice than family member employees. This may suggest that
whether an employee is related to the founding family or not may
contribute perceptions to how openly decision-makers communicate about their decision-making processes (Colquitt, 2001).
According to SIT, members of the out-group, in the case of family
businesses, non-family member employees, will compare their
treatment within the organization to that of the in-group, in this
case family members. It is likely that non-family member
employees compare the amount of information they are privy to
the amount of information family members have. However, in
order to understand this relationship between informational
justice and employee status, future research should be conducted
with a larger sample of family business employees.
There is also a possible alternative explanation for these results.
The reference points of family and non-family employees are likely
to be different from each other. Family member employees may
expect to have a great deal of information shared with them
because they may believe that they are at least psychological
owners of the rm, if not actual owners (Pierce, Rubenfeld, &
Morgan, 1991) On the other hand, non-family employees may not
expect to get a great deal of information from the founding family
and, therefore, may be grateful for any information that is shared
with them. Therefore, for any given level of information shared,
other than complete transparency, family members are more likely
than non-family member employees to perceive themselves as
being unjustly treated.
In analyzing the predicted path model, LISREL proposed a
modication that would better explain the data, one in which
organizational commitment mediates the relationship between
interpersonal justice, informational justice, and organizational
homophily and organizational identication. The rst part of this
model proposes that interpersonal justice, informational justice,
and organizational homophily lead to organizational commitment.
Previous research has shown that perceptions of justice are related
to commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon,
& Wesson et al., 2001; Tang & Sarseld-Baldwin, 1996). One of the
three factors of commitment is a desire to maintain membership in
the organization (Porter et al., 1974). Perhaps an individuals desire
to maintain membership in an organization is based, not on his or
her perceptions of the organization and what it is perceived to
offer, but rather on interpersonal perceptions of co-workers.
Therefore, homophily would lead to a desire to maintain
membership in the organization.
The post hoc model suggests that interpersonal justice,
informational justice, and attitude homophily lead to organiza-
tional commitment, which leads to organizational identication.

This supports Herrbachs (2006) research suggesting a positive
correlation between affective organizational commitment, dened
as an employees attachment to his or her organization (Meyer &
Allen, 1991), and the experience of positive affective states at work
(i.e., identication). However, other previous research has shown a
relationship between organizational commitment and identication, although the relationship has previously been argued in the
opposite direction with identication leading to commitment (van
Dick et al., 2004). This new model would extend the existing
research by highlighting the potentially multi-directional nature of
relationship between the two constructs.
Because LISREL proposes models based only on their t with the
current data, assuming that the post hoc model is an accurate
representation of the identication and commitment processes
would be premature because this post hoc model might simply be
an artifact of the current data set. In particular, we do not know the
extent to which a relationship between interpersonal justice,
informational justice, attitude homophily, and organizational
identication is partially or fully mediated or whether it exists
at all. Therefore, research should test both models using data sets
across business types.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Practical implications
This study provides several implications for family businesses.
This study suggests that family member and non-family member
employees do not differ in their perceptions of organizational
justice, homophily, organizational identication, and commitment. Previous research has suggested that employees who
perceive themselves to be a part of a cohesive organization are
likely to develop positive organizational identities as well as to
develop feelings of organization identication (Bartel & Dutton,
2001; Richter et al., 2004). Therefore, in order to develop a positive
sense of organizational identication, family businesses should
treat their employees similarly and strive to develop a positive
working environment. This can be done by paying particular
attention to organizational justice and fostering a sense homophily
of among employees.
In order to develop a sense of cohesion among employees,
family businesses should ensure they are treating their employees
equally and fairly. Perceptions of organizational justice can be
fostered through not only treating all employees with respect, but
also by thoroughly explaining the organizational decision-making
processes (Colquitt, 2001). Family businesses should be cognizant of
ensuring their non-family members are informed of key decisions
and that they are involved in the organizational processes, even if
they are not privy to family interactions about the business.
Family businesses should strive to encourage a sense of
homophily through encouraging all employees to spend time
together in both work and social settings in order to get to know
each other better. By encouraging employees to develop positive
relationships, they are likely to see ways in which they are similar
in attitudes, values, and beliefs that will affect their workplace
experiences. By being aware of issues related to organizational
justice and encouraging a sense of homophily among all employees, family businesses will likely encourage a greater sense of
identication and commitment among their employees.
6.2. Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, some measurement
issues may have affected these results. There is conceptual overlap
between many organizational commitment measures and organi-
zational identication measures. Specically, the items measuring

affective commitment are nearly identical to the items for
organizational identication (see Cheney, 1982; Mowday et al.,
1979). Therefore, the research that formed the basis for our study
may not have clearly distinguished between the commitment and
identication in the operationalization and conceptualization of
the two constructs. Overlapping items were removed from the
scales for the current study, which may explain why the current
studys results differ from some previous research. Though other
indicators for the organizational commitment scale were strong,
the AVE did not meet standard rules of thumb in this study. To
better understand the relationships between organizational
commitment and the other variables in the study, this measurement issue should be addressed in future research. In addition, the
attitude homophily scale showed scale properties similar to those
in other studies that questions its validity and reliabilityan issue
that must be addressed in future research on this construct.
Next, this study used a relatively small sample with several
organizations submitting only one or two responses, which
affected inter-organizational comparisons. A potential explanation
for the limited sample is the fact that data was collected shortly
after a regional ooding event and many businesses and their
employees may have been relocated or involved in the rebuilding
the area following the ood. Future research should address the
new model of organizational identication using a larger sample of
family businesses.
Third, a representative number of family member employees as
compared to non-family member employees were not obtained
from each family business. This sampling bias is likely to have
affected the results of the current study, as discussed above.
Therefore, while difcult, future family business researchers
should strive to achieve more representative samples of family
member and non-family employees from the organizations they
survey.
Fourth, only employees of those family businesses who were
willing to participate in the study were surveyed. The businesses
were told the general nature of our study before agreeing to
participate. Business leaders who perceived high levels of conict
within the workplace or that have high turnover rates of
employees might not have chosen to participate in the study. As
such, this study may only reect family businesses where there are
high levels of identication and commitment among most
employees. However, this self-selection bias, while problematic,
is common within family business research (see Kirkwood &
Tootell, 2008; Okoroafono, 1999; Scholes, Westhead, & Burrows,
2008).
Finally, because no compensation for participation in the study
was offered, only those employees with strong opinions about the
organization may have lled out the survey. Therefore, the results
may only reect the perceptions of those individuals who feel very
negatively or very positively about the organization. This is
especially problematic for this study as it is likely that these strong
feelings are tied to feelings of identication and commitment.
221
that different. If this is the case, the post hoc model of

organizational identication should be tested using a large sample
of employees from a variety of organizations. Future testing of
this model will allow researchers to determine whether this
model is simply an artifact of the current data set or if it provides a
new means for understanding organizational identication for
family business employees. Additionally, future research should
utilize directional hypotheses based on the ndings of the current
study.
Future research should be also be conducted controlling for the
length of tenure of employees, actual shareholding of family
employees, and the perceptions of non-family member employees
regarding monetary compensation and fringe benets. It seems
that individuals who have been employed by their family
businesses for a long time will have had time to cognitively
process their workplace experiences and may respond differently
than employees who have only been employed for a short time.
Whether family members are active owners of their family
businesses, rather than simply helping the business in their off
time from other employment, will likely affect their levels of
organizational identication and commitment. Further, it is
possible non-family member employee may have higher levels
of commitment to their family businesses because they are
satised with their monetary compensation and their fringe
benets, even though they may be treated differently than the
family member employees.
Future research should also continue examining the differences
between non-family member and family employees in family
businesses. While the current study did not reveal signicant
differences, future research with a larger sample might. It seems
possible that non-family member employees will identify differently with their family businesses than family member employees
as their work and family livelihoods may not necessarily be tied to
the family business for which they work. Further, non-family
member employees may not be as likely to buy into the mission
and goals of the family business as family member employees,
whose families likely developed and have worked to maintain the
mission.
This study focused on the relationship between family business
employees perceptions of organizational justice and homophily
and their perceptions of organizational identication and commitment. The predicted model was not consistent with the data. Based
on previous research on organizational commitment, this studys
results are surprising. Compared with employees of other business
types, family business employees may have different reasons for
identifying with business, such as loyalty to the founding family or
membership in the founding family. As such, the relationship
between commitment and identication, as well as the relationship between both commitment and identication and homophily
and justice may differ. Researchers should continue to examine
how family businesses are similar to and different from other
organizational types. Further insight into how family businesses
work, survive, and thrive is essential for a thorough understanding
of organizational functioning.
6.3. Future research suggestions

In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, there are
several additional opportunities for future research. First,
researchers should continue to test the post hoc model of
organizational identication for family business employees, where
perceptions of organizational commitment serve as the mediator
between interpersonal justice, informational justice, and homophily and organizational identication. The post hoc model could
also be used to address organizational identication differences
between family businesses and non-family owned businesses. This
research may reveal that these two types of organizations are not
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the
editor for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
References
Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., Hinkle, S., & Otten, S. (2005). The social identity perspective on
small groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 99137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
222
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & M. M.

Shaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 263295). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 2039.
Astrachan, J. H., & Keyt, A. D. (2003). Commentary on: The transacting cognitions of
non-family employees in the family business setting. Journal of Business Venturing,
18, 553558.
Barnett, T., & Kellermans, F. W. (2006). Are we family and are we treated as family?:
Non-family employees perceptions of justice in the family rm. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 30, 837854.
Bartel, C. A., & Dutton, J. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing
organizational identities in interactions with others. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry
(Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 115130). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth
making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232244.
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup
behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 2752.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political
psychology. Political Psychology, 22, 115125.
Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history (Vol. 2, pp. ). ). New York: The New Republic.
Byrne, Z. S. (2003, April). Perceptions of organizational justice, identication, and support
within work teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational
performance in organizational identication, adjustment and job performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972992.
Cheney, G. (1982). Organizational identication as process and product: A eld study.
Unpublished masters thesis. Indiana: Purdue University.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A eld study of organizational identication. Communication Monographs, 50,
342362.
Cheung, M. F. Y., & Law, M. C. C. (2008). Relationships of organizational justice and
organizational identication: The mediating effects of perceived organizational
support in Hong Kong. Asia Pacic Business Review, 14, 213231.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Dening the family business by behavior.
Entrepeneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 1939.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and nonsuccession concerns
of family rms and agency relationships with non-family managers. Family Business Review, 16, 89107.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct
validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. , & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425445.
Crary, M. (1987). Managing attraction and intimacy at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 619644.
De Cremer, D. (2002). The self-relevant implications of distribution rules: When self
esteem and acceptance are inuenced by violations of the equity rule. Social Justice
Research, 15, 327339.
Degadt, J. (2003). Business family and family business: Complementary and conicting
values. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11, 379397.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. (1998). The dark side of organizational
identication. In D. A. Whetton & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations:
Building theory through conversations (pp. 245256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunn, B. (1999). The family factor: The impact of family relationship dynamics
on business-owning families during transitions. Family Business Review, 12,
4160.
Dyer, G., & Whetten, D. (2006). Family rms and social responsibility: Preliminary
evidence from the S & P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 785802.
Edwards, M. E., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identication: Development and
testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 2557.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group
identication as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617626.
Fields, D. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational
research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, R. J. (1998). Group-devived consumption: The role of similarity and attractiveness in identication with a favorite sports team. In Alba, J. W., & Wesley, J. (Eds.),
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 283288). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research
Fleming, Q. J. (2000). Keeping the baggage out of family business: Avoiding the seven
deadly sins that destroy family businesses. New York: Fireside.
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identication and
organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 7, 301315.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, 399432.
Habbersohn, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, J. C. (2003). A unied systems perspective on family rm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451465.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henderson-King, E., Henderson-King, D., Zhermer, N., Posokhova, S., & Chiker, V.
(1997). In-group favorism and perceived similarity: A look at Russians perceptions
in the post-Soviet era. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 10131021.
Herrbach, O. (2006). A matter of feeling?: The affective tone of organizational commitment and identication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 629643.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective:
Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35,
246276.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughn, G. M. (2002). Social psychology (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Howell, D. C. (2006, January 2). Unequal cell sizes do matter. Retrieved February 2,
2010 from http://www.uvm.edu/dhowell-StatPages/More_Stuff/Unequal-ns/
unequal-ns.html.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In: R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158
176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientic
Software International.
Kirkwood, J., & Tootell, B. (2008). Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving workfamily balance? Journal of Management & Organization, 14, 285302.
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational
justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 118.
Lawrence, B. S. (2000). Organizational reference groups: How people constitute the human
component of their work environment. Unpublished manuscript, Anderson Graduate
School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as social process: A substantive and
methodological analysis. In T. Abel & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in
modern society (pp. 866). Toronto: Nostrand.
Leonard, S. A., Mehra, A., & Katerberg, R. (2008). The social identity and social networks
of ethnic minority groups in organizations: A crucial test of distinctiveness theory.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 573589.
Li, J., Xin, K., & Pillutla, M. (2002). Multi-cultural leadership teams and organizational
identication in international joint ventures. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 320337.
Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M. E., & Moilanen, M. (2004). Perceived procedural justice and
employee responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 13, 391413.
Lubatkin, M. H., Schulze, W. S., Ling, Y., & Dino, R. N. (2005). The effects of parental
altruism on the governance of family-managed rms. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 313330.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identication. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 103123.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Logyal from the day one: Biodata, organizational
identication, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309
333.
Mass Mutual Financial Group. (2007). 2007 Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company
(MassMutual) - Kennesaw State University Family Firm Institute American
Family Business Survey. Retrieved January 27, 2010 from: http://www.massmutual.com/mmfg/pdf/afbs.pdf.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738748.
McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2005). Analysis and improvement
of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication
Quarterly, 54, 131.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, W. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of
perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1, 323332.
McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily
and social networks. In K. Cook & J. Hagan (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp.
415444). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6189.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the
organizational identication questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 626658.
Mitchell, R. K., Morse, E. A., & Sharma, P. (2003). The transacting cognitions of nonfamily employees in the family business setting. Journal of Business Venturing, 18,
533551.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.
Muse, L. A., Rutherford, M. W., Oswald, S. L., & Raymond, J. E. (2005). Commitment to
employees: Does it help or hinder small business performance? Small Business
Economics, 24(2), 97111.
Okoroafono, S. C. (1999). Internaitonalization of family businesses: Evidence from
northwest Ohio USA. Family Business Review, 12, 147158.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice,
identication with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202215.
Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual
model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 26, 121144.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 59, 603609.
Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & de Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in
organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,
4, 227246.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identication. In D. A. Whetton & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations (pp. 171207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prisbell, M., & Andersen, J. F. (1980). The importance of perceived homophily, level of
uncertainty, feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 38, 2233.
Reay, T. (2009). Family-business meta-identity, institutional pressures, and ability to
respond to entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33,
12651270.
Richter, A., Van Dick, R., & West, M. A. (2004). The relationship between group and
organizational identication and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Proceedings, E1E6.
Rogers, E., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1970). Homophily-heteorphily: Relational concepts for
communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 523538.
Rokeach, M., & Mezei, L. (1966). Race and shared belief as factors in social choice.
Science, 151, 167172.
Scholes, L., Westhead, P., & Burrows, A. (2008). Family rm succession: The management buy-out and buy-in routes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 830.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences
of ownership dispersion among inside directors at family rms. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 179194.
Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential
connections in organizational identication research. Communication Studies, 58,
123138.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable:
Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 15971609.
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009a). Family business, identity conict, and an
expedited entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conict. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 12451264.
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009b). Birds of a feather dont always ock together:
Identity management in entrepeneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 316
337.
223
Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries: The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32,
415436.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,
33, 139.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 724).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Tang, T. L., & Sarseld-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice as
related to satisfaction and commitment SAM. Advanced Management Journal, 61,
2532.
Terry, D., Hogg, M., & White, K. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity,
social identity, and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225244.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 534.
Turner, J. C. (1978). Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favoritism. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 235250). London: Academic Press.
Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behavior. In J. C.
Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 66101). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity
and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be
better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89, 813838.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913930.
van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., et al. (2004).
Should I stay or should I go?: Explaining turnover intentions with organizational
identication and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351360.
Whiteld, K.,& Poole, M. (1997). Organizing employment for high performance: Theories,
evidence and policy (Vol. 18, p. 745). Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter
GmbH & Co. KG.), Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG..
Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of
familiness: Introducing family rm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1,
5463.

Fusing Family and Firm

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fusing Family and Firm

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Family Business Strategy

Fusing family and rm: Employee perceptions of perceived homophily,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 348 7213.

identication, satisfaction, and support as well as affective

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Non-family employees within family businesses likely provide

been linked to both work satisfaction and lower turnover rates,

Perceptions of how individuals are treated with

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Non-family member employees have a great deal to offer family

Turner, 1986). For instance, non-family member employees likely

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

This sense of commitment is partially based on an obligation to

how decision-makers openly, honestly, and thoroughly explain the

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

employees. When a family member employee views the family

members of the minority group as compared to access to members

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

family identity, it is likely that non-family member employees will

founding family worked for the company, if at least one family

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

IPJ = from the Colquitt (2001) interpersonal justice measure.

larger than the squared interconstruct correlation (Hair et al.,

evaluating their consistency, clarity, and completeness to the

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

commitment scales were simultaneously submitted to various

The analysis provided two valid measures to test the hypotheses:

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Fig. 1. Proposed model.

Fig. 2. Predicted path model with standardized parameter estimates.

in Fig. 3. Overall, this model appears to be a better t for the data

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Fig. 3. Post hoc path model with standardized parameter estimates.

businesses studied were small to mid-sized businesses from

engage in similar identity negotiation processes, which elicit

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

their employers treat them fairly, because it is the right thing to

tional commitment, which leads to organizational identication.

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

zational identication measures. Specically, the items measuring

that different. If this is the case, the post hoc model of

6.3. Future research suggestions

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & M. M.

A.F. Carmon et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 1 (2010) 210223

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen