 |
ArticlesThe Core Question: Why Should This College or University Have a Family Business Center? Analysis. Frishkoff's use of the adjective core here is entirely appropriate. Note how this echoes the questions from Drucker in the opening of this article. Analysis of this question must begin by looking at the university's mission statement and its core values. Within that analysis, the director must assess how the university values its three main functions of teaching, research, and service. This analysis must be the basis for crafting a mission statement, discerning its core values, and clarifying the objectives for the center. The center’s mission, values, and objectives need to be aligned and conveyed properly to create the possibility for a win-win relationship between the center and the university. The Holistic Model is a method to align the center’s planning more with the university and, thus, increase its chances of success. This approach challenges the director and other stakeholders involved with planning to look at how the parts of the Holistic Model (teaching, research, and service) relate to the whole (how these three functions interact) and how the whole relates to the parts. It is a more systemic approach that analyzes all of the key relationships and how they interrelate (see Appendix A). As one reviewer writes, "Both [omitted] University and the [omitted] Holistic Model are, I believe, excellent role models for colleges and universities who wish to engage a segment of their community or society in mutually rewarding ways. I would imagine that this model could be applied by any institution in the U.S. to any social concern of their community" (Upton, 2000, p.24). A broad example of applying the Holistic Model asks the director to look at how the teaching, research, and outreach functions (i.e., the three main parts) synergistically combine to align best with its strategic planning (i.e., the whole). This is a more systems- oriented approach. A second example of applying the model is to analyze the impact that undergraduate students might have on their family and business systems. A third example of applying the Holistic Model is to consider whether the stakeholders prominent in the three main functions (students related to teaching, faculty related to research, and families related to outreach) could be brought together in beneficial and meaningful ways. It asks ever-deeper questions about the interrelationship of the parts. (For a visual display of how the three functions could overlap and integrate, see Appendix C— the Holistic Model.) Here, as throughout this article, the reader is asked to apply the same type of thinking to centers that centers ask family businesses to apply to themselves: look at interrelated systems, then plan, implement, and assess accordingly. Given the newness of this approach, there is little research to verify its success. Thus, although suggestions for further research appear below, readers are should assess for themselves whether this approach creates value for their centers. It is estimated that only 30% of family businesses engage in strategic planning (Carlock & Ward, 2001). That percentage might be a fair guesstimate of the percentage of centers that engage in strategic planning. Consider, for example, that at a four-day workshop this past May as one of eight centers (some, leaders in the field), only two universities besides ours had a functioning strategic plan. Thus, on one level, the call for strategic planning may seem obvious, but just as with family businesses, the reasons to motivate people to plan are worth repeating. Note here an irony that risks approaching hypocrisy if these same centers that constantly espouse the benefits of strategic planning contradict that advice with their own behavior. The Forum Model can be implemented to align strategically with the university, but it is not inherent in its structure. In contrast, however, the Holistic Model requires that such consideration be in place, not only at the outset, but also on an ongoing basis. Thus, the premise of this paper is that strategic alignment with the university will, in most cases, result in the determination that using the academic component (teaching or research) as a foundation will be a better fit. If this is true, then the holistic approach may be best suited to analyze, create, and implement strategically this best fit. The most obvious general category that might raise doubt would be a land grant university where the mission is to serve the entire state. Even then, the Holistic Model would help the analysis, although outreach might provide the foundation. (In fact, outreach should be the foundation if it most strongly aligns with the university. It would still be necessary to address how that foundation should be integrated with teaching and research as well as the risk inherent in putting service first—to the extent that this applies.) In other words, the Holistic Model’s process is still valuable, but the outcome may look quite different. The three functions/circles shown in Appendix C would still be present, but the external/outreach circle would become the foundation with the internal/curriculum and scholarship/research functions overlapping as appropriate. There might be other circumstances (e.g., if there is an existing forum program in place or a major donor wants to fund mainly outreach) where outreach could be a center’s foundation, although the same analysis would still be appropriate. Experience. At our university, one alumnus and the dean of the School of Business Administration initiated the idea of looking into creating a family business center. Teaching is actually valued more than research: "We aspire to develop distinctive, innovative, and interdisciplinary undergraduate and graduate programs that are centered on vigorous intellectual inquiry, informed by these values, increasingly global in perspective, and worthy of local and national recognition" (Stetson University Bulletin, p. 6). Furthermore, the business school's mission statement emphasizes the "primacy of teaching." Realizing that teaching was the best candidate for our foundation, we next surveyed our students and their families. In this way, we established in our planning both the scope and demand for our undergraduate courses. In terms of scope, we came to realize that over one-third of our students campus-wide and over 42% of those who were business majors self-identified as coming from families that own businesses (DeMoss, 1999). In the three years since we started surveying, this statistic has been the most often quoted fact among our stakeholders (there is a misconception that family business represents a small or even insignificant group of students). The results of the survey were presented at two national conferences, and over a dozen schools have requested the survey. So far, Meredith College is the only one to use it and communicate its findings to us. It found about 30% of its students come from families that own or operate businesses (Bledsoe, 2000). In terms of demand, we found that even before we offered a course, almost 25% of those students who come from families that own businesses were interested in taking family business courses. This demand made us potentially large enough to rival any minor or major program or department in our university. Couple that with our experience that approximately 20% of the students enrolling in the courses do not come from a family that owns a business and the demand for curriculum is even higher. Thus, from the outset, we have had a mandate to develop courses. Also, we had a critical mass that gave us, at least to a significant extent, instant legitimacy. An analysis of the Forum Model revealed that it did not align with the primacy of teaching we felt critical (see Appendix B for a visual model of this process). Beyond that, our dean objected to having sponsors, at least as sometimes arranged in the Forum Model. We realized that the Forum Model risked marginalizing us from the university because its primary focus was service or outreach. In the words of one prominent scholar, "Family business programs/centers have become isolated units within many universities. They seem like orphans. They have little involvement with students and faculty, are not represented within universities on committees, nor are they invited to the table when important issues are to be discussed. Since they are not integrated into the campus, when their funding dries up or their champion leaves, they disappear" (Upton, 2000, p. 22). Next, we began a process of open communication. We did this for four primary reasons. The first was to create an open and trusting relationship with the university. Second, we wanted to build, on an ongoing basis, consensus and a sense of ownership with our key stakeholders. Third, we wanted input from the key stakeholders to ensure that we continuously improved our content. Finally, innovators must be aware of and, to some extent, manage how they are perceived. Universities tend to be bureaucratic environments; as such, they tend to resist change and innovation. If the director does not consistently, clearly, and concisely convey to the key stakeholders what the center is doing, then those stakeholders will almost always fill in that silence with something negative. One powerful example at our school was that after two-and-a-half semesters of teaching family business courses, review by prominent professors from other universities, and two years of board review, some of my colleagues felt that we were moving too fast in getting the minor approved. Other minors that were of a more traditional nature were approved with far less scrutiny. The next step was to establish the long-term goals for our center. The first goal was to further establish family business as a legitimate academic discipline. Because teaching will be the foundation, which aligns so strongly with the university, making it a legitimate academic discipline made strategic sense. In addition, this move aligns with the mission statement of the university as well as with a major initiative that the university’s largest donor helped create: to fund seed money to create innovative “out-of-the-box” programs. Our planning enabled us to align with this initiative to get two annual grants from this internal source. The funding was helpful and served to validate us by establishing our credibility with administration, donors, and the university community in general. Our second goal was to contribute to efforts to put the topic of family business on the national/international business agenda. Holistically thinking about this generated the idea (from our dean) to hold a conference that results in the publication of a book. The conference would include our key stakeholders: groups of students, parents (and other family business owners), faculty, university personnel, and professionals who work with family businesses. Linking the first, second, and third (see below) goals, we invited top experts in the field to write the book and discuss it with our stakeholders. The first year, this event also included meals hosted by the president, the business school dean, and the vice-president of university relations. The second year was a repeat, with one of our key trustees (and former president of the 29th largest family business in the United States, as ranked by Family Business Magazine) acting as keynote speaker; the trustee was also interviewed for a chapter in the book (America’s 100 largest family businesses, 2000). Our third goal was to create the best undergraduate family business program in the United States. Thus, in less than three years, we have established a minor in family business. Outside people from academe, the professional environment, and two boards of advisers have reviewed this minor, and feedback from students and some of their parents was powerfully positive. By helping the students address themselves, their families, and their futures (in or outside their families’ businesses), the minor should cultivate a profound experience. And feedback tells us that it does. Summary. Thus, the key points to consider are:
Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Parts V & VI | Part VII
|
