Many next-generation family members may decide to join their family businesses, exhibiting the desire to be part of the family business. However it is a common occurrence that their subsequent behaviours in relation to the family business will vary, with huge implications for their effectiveness and the actual family business performance (cf. Morrison, 1994). So, literature and research has shown that it is premature to conclude that the next generation’s commitment to pursuing a career in the family business is desirable without first exploring the nature of that commitment and its implications. It is for this reason that it is very useful to explore the different mindsets that usually prompt next-generation family members to pursue careers with their family firms. These mindsets, enables present family business owners and leaders to distinguish between the different types of family business successor commitment.

• Affective Commitment: This is based on an individual’s “emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation” (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Thus, affective commitment is characterised by a desire to follow a course of action of relevance to the target. An individual with a high level of affective commitment to an organisation portrays a strong belief in, acceptance of and an excitement about the organisation’s goals. Such individuals exhibit a strong desire to contribute to these goals, as there is a perception of alignment between organisational and individual goals. Such alignment, in turn, leads to a belief that the career aspirations of an individual can be satisfied in the context of the organisation. The typical usage of the term “commitment” in family business is consistent with the definition of affective commitment.

• Normative Commitment: This is based on an individual’s feeling of obligation to pursue a course of action of relevance to one or more targets (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Morrison, 1994). In the case of organisational commitment, an individual with high levels of normative commitment would feel obligated to remain with the organization (cf. Meyer & Allen, 1991), though they may not perceive this negatively. Rather, they may accept the influencing force and wish to establish and maintain satisfying relationships. As with affective commitment, the focal behaviour exhibited in the case of normative commitment is a decision to pursue a career in the business. However, unlike affective commitment, the push factor is an experienced obligation to do so rather than an intrinsic desire to engage in the behaviour. Whereas affective commitment is motivated by a desire to contribute or a sense of “wanting to” pursue a focal behaviour, the foremost motivator in normative commitment is a feeling of obligation or a sense of “ought to” behave in a certain manner.

• Calculative Commitment: This is based on an individual’s awareness of the costs associated with leaving an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This type of commitment is based on the “cost-avoidance” mind-set. Such calculative commitment is based on perceptions of the cost involved with or the threatened loss of investments or value associated with not engaging in a particular behaviour (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). In family firms, these are often investments that are built up over time and are not transferable to other settings. Habbershon and Williams (1999) refer to such unique competencies as the “familiness” of a firm. Thus, individuals perceive that remaining in the family business is the best course of action to ensure their claim to the accumulated investments is retained. Thus, calculative commitment is based on successors’ perceptions of substantial opportunity costs and threatened loss of investments or value if they do not pursue a career in the family business. Successors with high levels of calculative commitment feel that they “have to” pursue such a career, not to “lose out”.

• Imperative Commitment: Is when successors have doubt about their ability outside the family environment (Handler, 1989). This is very visible when (Vinton 1998) young heirs leapfrog nonfamily employees to get coveted positions in family firms, whereby they tend to experience self-doubt. These individuals feel guilty for their positions being the result of their bloodlines and wonder whether they could succeed outside the protected family business environment. Imperative commitment therefore based on a feeling of self-doubt and uncertainty of the ability to successfully pursue a career outside the family business. Individuals with high levels of imperative commitment perceive that they lack alternatives to a career in the family business. The underlying mind-set in this case is a “need to” pursue such a career within the family business.

The distinction among the various bases of commitment is not only important with respect to the commitment & focal behaviour relationship, but there is reason to believe that the relations between commitment and discretionary behaviours will also vary as a function of the basis of commitment. What are these discretionary behaviours? These discretionary behaviours are critical for effective organization functioning and firm performance (Van Dyne et al., 1994) and in the case of next-generation family members who are essentially future leaders of their family firm, discretionary behaviours involve
“going the extra mile” which have a significant influence on the firm. These individuals become
role models for other employees in the organisation, thereby setting the standards for acceptable norms of behaviour within the firm.

Research findings indicate that affective commitment would be more strongly related to the successors’ focused behaviour of pursuing a long-term career in the family business, than will normative, calculative, and imperative forms of commitment. Research also clearly indicates that affective commitment will have the strongest positive relations with the above mentioned discretionary behaviours on the part of successors that lead to the effective functioning of the family business. As compared to affective commitment, normative commitment will have weaker relations with discretionary behaviours on the part of successors. Moreover when compared to affective commitment, calculative commitment will also have weaker relations with discretionary behaviours. Finally, when compared to affective commitment, imperative commitment will have very weak or even negative relations with discretionary behaviours. It is thus obvious that the type of commitment that present leaders should be after from the next generation is affective commitment.

The above research means that the widely held belief that successor commitment is always good for family businesses is essentially wrong. In reality whether successors’ commitment to family business is good or not really depends on what mindset underlies the commitment and why this family
member decided to pursue a career in family firm.

It is for this reason that when formulating the accredited course at MQF Level 5 – Award in Leading a Family Business, we have formulated it with the need to have in person sessions and to have the course spread over 6 months. If next generation family business owners are not ready to commit to 9 input sessions, 3 tutorials and 3 assignments over 6 months, then I think that speaks volumes over their mindset and true underlying reasons that is motivating them to be part of the family business – which should be an eye opener for the present family business owners and leaders. Click HERE to read about this Award in Leading a Family Business Course and to REGISTER.