 |
ArticlesWhere Do We Go from Here?: Strategic Answers for University-Based
Family Business Programs This article argues that universities need to align themselves with their missions through strategic planning. It further argues that in most cases this means building the program on an academic base of either teaching or research. Part of establishing that base includes analyzing the balance among teaching, research, and service (i.e., using the "Holistic Model"). Without this approach, the risk of failure greatly increases. The experience discussed throughout this article is that of a small, private, liberal arts university that, using the approach recommended, built its center on the foundation of teaching. Many of these issues warrant further research. Introduction Management guru Peter Drucker approached the topic of business strategy in 1954 and suggested that it consisted of two fundamental questions: What is our business? And what should it be? (Hofer & Schendel, 1978). Those questions provide an important starting point. But there is more. In the context of university-based family business centers, strategic planning can be defined as aligning the university's mission with the mission, objectives, and policies of the center. (The term center is used to include all university family business programs.) Starting with this aligned vision, the center must create the goals and objectives to reach that vision. Then the means to implement the goals and objectives must be developed. Finally, measurement of the implementation (i.e., feedback) is needed. Critical at all of these points, especially given the uniqueness of the university, are building consensus and utilizing the resources of key stakeholders. Such strategic planning is vitally important for two reasons. First, the process of reducing something to writing for the key stakeholders to review and comment on often creates a much greater sense of collaboration. This process increases the potential for people taking ownership of implementation. Although this is important in business, it is even more imperative for centers because there is so little direct authority and so much collaboration among various stakeholders. Second, by reducing the vision to writing and getting feedback from key stakeholders (e.g., a board of advisers), the content of a plan is usually vastly improved. In effect, this rigorous review holds the vision up to the light of day, which usually lets the light shine through the holes. So how can the benefits of strategic planning be best applied to university-based family business centers? In her 1998 article, Frishkoff raises six key strategic questions that every university-based center should answer:
Using these six questions, and building on the premise that university-based centers need to be built on an academic base of teaching or research, this paper analyzes answers using the Holistic Model as applied to one small, private, liberal arts university. This paper provides an example of how the model can be applied; however, it should not be construed as prescriptive of how it ought to be applied at any specific university. It must be tailored to the uniqueness of each university. For the sake of clarity, questions 3 and 5 above are combined into one section below. Prior to beginning this analysis, let's look at the historical context in which the evolution of university-based centers has taken place and at other professionals helping family businesses. It is important to realize that the field of advising family businesses is relatively new and emerging. (This should be contrasted with family business itself, which seems as old as society.) Family business as a professional field is also relatively new [consider that the professional organization, the Family Firm Institute (FFI) was founded in 1986 and, according to its Web site www.ffi.org, has approximately 750 members]. The academic field of family business is probably even newer. FFI's first Educators Conference—Managing Succession in Family Firms—was held in 1988 in Boston, primarily for academics. The family business section of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), formerly International Family Business Program Association (IFPBA), was founded in 1994 and has approximately 125 members, representing roughly 60 to 100 universities. The Forum Model. Most scholars agree that university-based programs or centers have their genesis in 1979 at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (Upton, 2000). Shortly after their beginning, what has come to be known as the Forum Model emerged. The efforts of Kennesaw State University have, in large part, made this model famous. Although there are many variations, the Forum Model has some basic characteristics. First, the foundation is primarily, if not exclusively, based on providing outreach to families who own businesses and to their related professionals. The director may or may not be a faculty member. Courses, curriculum, and faculty are not the essential component of this model. Sponsors, typically professional service providers, contribute money in exchange for access to families and, often, some public relations or goodwill benefit. But direct solicitation by sponsors of members is almost always forbidden. Typically, about four major programs that are a day or two in length are conducted, and often a speaker selected from a list that numerous other university-based programs use leads the programs (Astrachan, 1992). For a summary of this analysis, see Comparison of Forum and Holistic Models in appendices A and B. The Forum Model is an innovative program. It links universities with the family businesses in a community as well as with practitioners. It creates a model for outreach when there was really nothing there. The Forum Model continues to evolve. In an interview about the Forum Model that is over a decade old, Kennesaw State's director and pioneer in developing the model, Craig Aronoff, states that he believes the model will continue to evolve and recommends other universities "[a]dapt it to your area." In that interview, he comments that the model probably works best in medium-to-large urban areas. Aronoff also states that research was an area that, at that point in time, he felt held great potential but had not yet become part of the program (Astrachan, 1992). Three main risks of the Forum Model are discussed throughout this article: First, it positions itself primarily within the service or outreach function of a university. Research and teaching are not necessarily a part of the Forum Model (Upton, 2000). Second, the Forum Model positions the university as competing with other seminar providers, a difficult and saturated market (McCann & DeMoss, 2000). Third, if the Forum Model (or any model for that matter) is not strategically aligned with the university through its mission statement, it will almost certainly be evaluated on differing criteria than it wishes (Cowen, 1998). If this is true, then the default position will most likely be that the university administrators will assess the Forum Model based on its short-term profitability, a narrow criterion that may undermine its long-term value for the center and the university. It is also important to note that many universities are experimenting with the Forum Model itself. For example, rising to the opportunity that Aronoff saw, Kennesaw State has been a leader in the field of family business research by publishing the journal Family Business Review. Universities such as Alfred University in New York, Stetson University in Florida, and the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota all have minors in family business. Loyola of Chicago’s center created a program for the members of the next generation. All of these examples point to the need for continued innovation in the field, to align better with the university, and to serve the various stakeholders better. The Holistic Model. The Holistic Model differs from the Forum Model in three main ways. First, it requires that the center be aligned with the university. Many Forum Model programs probably did this, yet it is not inherent in the model. Second, it requires that the director and other leaders assess how the center aligns with the functions of teaching, research, and service. Such an alignment must take place on an ongoing basis with each of the three functions, both individually and collectively. This can be an insurmountable problem if the director has little linkage, experience, or access to the academic part of the university. Third, it considers how best to create strategic partnerships with key stakeholders within and beyond campus (e.g., the Office of Development or area high schools). The Holistic Model acknowledges from a systems point of view that what "we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseparable web of relationships" (i.e., everything is interdependent) (Capra, 1996). Thus, in the efforts of university-based centers, the Holistic Model is a strategic approach to consider—an approach that offers a structured method of designing a center that responds to Frishkoff’s questions below. Stetson published a book discussing the applicability of the Holistic Model to other universities. The book was comprised of chapters written by some noted leaders in the field (McCann & Upton, 2000). A recent review of this book states, "The Holistic Model [referring to the book] is a must- read for anyone who has a family business center or is thinking of establishing one. It presents a new model for designing and planning family business centers and provides plenty of food for thought" (Vinton, 2002, p. 152). The review concludes by saying:
Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Parts V & VI | Part VII
|
